Georgia Senate blocks mega tax cuts for Delta in response to Delta punishing law abiding NRA

[eddiew37]

lets just say your son is beating up kids with a stick he has What do you do ? Give all the kids sticks or take away your sons stick?

 

[Cecilie1200]

dude I give two shits. so I see you learned a new word this week. funny shit how obvious you are you have no idea how you're using it. When did I become a government?

You are not a government, you are a supporter of the government interfering with the private transactions between two private entities and you support that government trying to force one entity to pay a tribute to the other.

That is what makes you a statist.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

 

[Cellblock2429]

lets just say your son is beating up kids with a stick he has What do you do ? Give all the kids sticks or take away your sons stick?

/——-/ Stupid hypothetical a question. What are the circumstances in your stupid hypothetical? Here’s some facts: When I was a kid some teens took my lunch money. The next day they came back for more. I had a baseball bat lying behind a wall, I reached for it, swung and smacked the teen in the knee. I taught my kids to defend themselves.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just heard about this. Will find a link. Kudos to the Senators for hitting back at the NRA. Why should gun owners in Georgia who pay taxes have to support Delta financially?

If Delta doesn't want or need the business of 5 million NRA members why do they even need a tax break?

Delta’s tax break may not take flight after Georgia Senate blocks it

/----/ Thank you Georgia.
View attachment 179701

Oh look, another liberal statist


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

a state can do whatever they want for the good of its citizens. not sure your point. Still.

Ok, so the state can take control of all private companies, for the good of its citizens, and you would support that.

The state could outlaw guns for the good of its citizens and you are good with that.

A state can force a baker to make a cake for the good of its citizens and you are good with that.

I misjudged you, communist is a better word.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and unless you cherry pick what he said to fit your judgement, this isn't what he is saying.

It is exactly what he said. He put no limits on what a state can do for the good of its citizens


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry, "he" who?

Jc456


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are not a government, you are a supporter of the government interfering with the private transactions between two private entities and you support that government trying to force one entity to pay a tribute to the other.

That is what makes you a statist.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Yes, the folks on the left love it and people that claim to be on the right used to hate it, till now and they have joined the left in loving it.

And people wonder why are as a country are in such a fast dash to the left...it is not because of the left, it is because the right has become “left” way too many times


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Montrovant]

You are not a government, you are a supporter of the government interfering with the private transactions between two private entities and you support that government trying to force one entity to pay a tribute to the other.

That is what makes you a statist.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Do you not see a difference between a non-specific demographic quota and the government requiring one particular company to provide discounts to one specific group?

 

[Cecilie1200]

a state can do whatever they want for the good of its citizens. not sure your point. Still.

Ok, so the state can take control of all private companies, for the good of its citizens, and you would support that.

The state could outlaw guns for the good of its citizens and you are good with that.

A state can force a baker to make a cake for the good of its citizens and you are good with that.

I misjudged you, communist is a better word.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and unless you cherry pick what he said to fit your judgement, this isn't what he is saying.

It is exactly what he said. He put no limits on what a state can do for the good of its citizens


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry, "he" who?

Jc456


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay. Sometimes pronouns and their antecedents can get confused on a message board.

 

[Cecilie1200]

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Yes, the folks on the left love it and people that claim to be on the right used to hate it, till now and they have joined the left in loving it.

And people wonder why are as a country are in such a fast dash to the left...it is not because of the left, it is because the right has become “left” way too many times


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not a matter of "loving" it. Just nice to see it being applied even-handedly. And it's amusing as all get-out to see it coming back to bite the left in the ass.

My position remains what it has always been: it is within the correct purview of the individual states to decide for themselves the criteria on which they decide individual business negotiations with the state. So long as it does not violate any prevailing laws, it is for the people of the state and their elected representatives to decide the appropriateness of the set criteria.

I have never hated the concept of a state refusing to hire contractors who engage in discriminatory hiring practices, contrary to what you desperately wish to believe. I obviously would not want the state of Arizona, where I live, hiring a business which blatantly refuses to hire any non-whites (if that's even possible in a state with such a high Hispanic population). What I object to are the sometimes utterly absurd hoops set up to establish "non-discriminatory hiring" which can have an exclusionary effect on small businesses and end up costing far more to get the job done than necessary.

Likewise, I wouldn't want my state giving sweetheart tax deals to a company that takes gratuitous, offensive swipes at large segments of the population of my state for their perfectly legal and legitimate political and social views, simply to pander to a small group of loudmouth blowhards.

 

[Cecilie1200]

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Do you not see a difference between a non-specific demographic quota and the government requiring one particular company to provide discounts to one specific group?

I don't see it as the government "requiring discounts" so much as saying, "If you're going to discriminate against these people, we're not willing to negotiate deals with you." It's exactly the same as saying, "If you're not going to hire from this group of people, we're not going to give you state contracts." You could just easily phrase that last as "If you want state contracts, you have to give jobs to XYZ." If that's okay, then so is this.

 

[Cellblock2429]

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Yes, the folks on the left love it and people that claim to be on the right used to hate it, till now and they have joined the left in loving it.

And people wonder why are as a country are in such a fast dash to the left...it is not because of the left, it is because the right has become “left” way too many times


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/----/

 

[The Derp]

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory.

Discriminatory, how? Delta isn't banning the NRA, they're ending their discount. NRA members can buy tickets at the same price as everyone else. In fact, the NRA discount is what was discriminatory in all this. The NRA discriminated against non-NRA members by offering NRA members discounts. Now that discrimination is over.

 

[The Derp]

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

Do you not see a difference between a non-specific demographic quota and the government requiring one particular company to provide discounts to one specific group?

I don't see it as the government "requiring discounts" so much as saying, "If you're going to discriminate against these people, we're not willing to negotiate deals with you." It's exactly the same as saying, "If you're not going to hire from this group of people, we're not going to give you state contracts." You could just easily phrase that last as "If you want state contracts, you have to give jobs to XYZ." If that's okay, then so is this.

Removing a discount is not an act of discrimination.

The discount is an act of discrimination, though.

 

[jc456]

dude I give two shits. so I see you learned a new word this week. funny shit how obvious you are you have no idea how you're using it. When did I become a government?

You are not a government, you are a supporter of the government interfering with the private transactions between two private entities and you support that government trying to force one entity to pay a tribute to the other.

That is what makes you a statist.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

a state can do whatever they want for the good of its citizens. not sure your point. Still.

It can? Can it ban handguns?

they did, well, not so much the state as the city of Chicago did. Guess what, the only people impacted were private citizens. It went to court and the court ruled for the private citizen. So they can try, but the courts will say otherwise I think. And that would be the private citizen winning.

the city of chicago also tried a soda tax on its citizens and the citizens won that battle as well.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory.

Discriminatory, how? Delta isn't banning the NRA, they're ending their discount. NRA members can buy tickets at the same price as everyone else. In fact, the NRA discount is what was discriminatory in all this. The NRA discriminated against non-NRA members by offering NRA members discounts. Now that discrimination is over.

/----/ "Discriminatory, how?" Surely you can't believe that. It discriminates against NRA members who had nothing to do with the shooting.
"Delta Airlines announced Saturday it would be ending a discount program for National Rifle Association (NRA) members, becoming the latest in a string of companies to cut ties with the gun group.

“Delta is reaching out to the NRA to let them know we will be ending their contract for discounted rates through our group travel program,” the company tweeted. “We will be requesting that the NRA remove our information from their website.”
Delta Airlines ends discount program for NRA members

 

[The Derp]

It discriminates against NRA members who had nothing to do with the shooting.

It's not discrimination to lose something no one else can get. The NRA members lost their discount, which means they have to pay the same price as everyone else. How is that discrimination? How is being treated like everyone else discrimination?

 

[The Derp]

How is being treated like everyone else "discrimination"?

 

[jc456]

lets just say your son is beating up kids with a stick he has What do you do ? Give all the kids sticks or take away your sons stick?

it depends, I'd first take away the stick. however, if the dude comes back the next day with a stick, I then give my kid a stick and tell to go beat the shit out of the kid that started it.

I can also put security to make sure the kid with the stick is taken out by security.

 

[jc456]

You are not a government, you are a supporter of the government interfering with the private transactions between two private entities and you support that government trying to force one entity to pay a tribute to the other.

That is what makes you a statist.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

he's got you 100% pegged on the whole "new word" thing. you seem to lock onto a stereotype and can't wait to use it 100 times a day.

the biggest reason i hate stereotype thinking is because you get a group you hate and if you run into "trouble" getting to know someone, just put them in that group and you don't have to try and think about what they are saying.

but you flog the shit out of words like this and act as if it makes you superior for some reason.

I call things how I see them. Can you think of a more appropriate word for someone that fully supports the government interfering with transactions between two private entities and who supports the government trying to force one private entity to pay tributes to another private entity in the form of discounts?

I mean I guess Communist works, but statist seems to fit better


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks for explaining what 'Obamacare' was.

ObamaCare is a perfect example. So many of the folks on here that support the government trying to force one private entity to pay a tribute to a different entity were the ones whining about ObamaCare.

Why can we not have consistency in our views, regardless of which “side” is doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There's a difference between "consistency" and "blind, simplistic, one-size-fits-all attitudes".

Obamacare involved the federal government; the Delta thing involves a state government. The two are quite different in their allowed powers, scope of operation, and proper functions.

Obamacare was a law requiring, under pain of legal punishment for non-compliance, individual citizens to actually hand money to a company to purchase something, whether they wanted it or not; the Delta thing is the state of Georgia declining to negotiate a business deal with a company it feels is discriminatory. This, I will remind you yet again, is a policy which people on the left LOVE wholeheartedly when it is micromanaging the hiring demographics of companies wishing to become official vendors and contractors for states (ie. you can't work for a state government unless you employ XYZ percentage non-white people). So don't talk to me about "consistency".

how about a union forcing non union employees to pay union dues? how fking fair is that?

 

[jc456]

Just heard about this. Will find a link. Kudos to the Senators for hitting back at the NRA. Why should gun owners in Georgia who pay taxes have to support Delta financially?

If Delta doesn't want or need the business of 5 million NRA members why do they even need a tax break?

Delta’s tax break may not take flight after Georgia Senate blocks it

/----/ Thank you Georgia.
View attachment 179701

Oh look, another liberal statist


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

still using the word wrong.