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

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Not fair in the least and it looks like the SCOTUS will fix that soon


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Is it discrimination to remove a special consideration from a group, and instead treat that group the same way as most others are treated by the company?

And, depending on the circumstances, the racial makeup of a company might be discriminatory or it might not. The requirement to "have to give jobs to XYZ" might be acceptable, or it might be wrong.

Further, if a company discriminates based on race in its hiring practices, that would violate the law. Delta deciding to no longer give any discounts to NRA members flying to a convention is not violating any law. Again, different situation.

 

[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

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

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.

And what if that doesn't work and your kid gets beat up instead? All you've done is give your kid a weapon that resulted in your kid getting beat up, while teaching your kid the poor lesson of violent conflict resolution. Basically, you taught your kid to be a loser who can only solve his problems with violence.

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

Unless of course that security ends up cowering behind something, like the Parkland security.

 

[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

still using the word wrong.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

except when it doesn't.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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

still using the word wrong.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

except when it doesn't.

In this instance it might as well be getting paid by Aflac.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iceberg]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iceberg]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members? they only did it cause they're not getting their way and they need someone to blame.

the NRA has had nothing to do with a single mass shooting EVER. if i'm wrong, point me to the one that can be traced back to the NRA.

they exist *because of* stupid shit like this the left does to try and guilt people out of their rights "for the children" and it's bullshit. no one IN the NRA WANTS these mass shootings. in effect, they are on the side of common sense.

but the line blurs quite a bit when people can't even talk about guns w/o intentionally being full of shit. see "full semi-automatic mode" as the new CNN phrase to instil fear into people. why is CNN doing this?

there's a lot to this and this is simply one piece of it. the left can protest all they want. the right can in turn react however they want. but to call 1 side out for discrimination is simply eating the poo the other side is shitting out.

 

[Montrovant]

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members? they only did it cause they're not getting their way and they need someone to blame.

the NRA has had nothing to do with a single mass shooting EVER. if i'm wrong, point me to the one that can be traced back to the NRA.

they exist *because of* stupid shit like this the left does to try and guilt people out of their rights "for the children" and it's bullshit. no one IN the NRA WANTS these mass shootings. in effect, they are on the side of common sense.

but the line blurs quite a bit when people can't even talk about guns w/o intentionally being full of shit. see "full semi-automatic mode" as the new CNN phrase to instil fear into people. why is CNN doing this?

there's a lot to this and this is simply one piece of it. the left can protest all they want. the right can in turn react however they want. but to call 1 side out for discrimination is simply eating the poo the other side is shitting out.

Is removing a discount for NRA members going to a convention "attacking" the NRA? Is losing a discount now an attack?

If you are discussing blaming the NRA for school shootings in general, that's different, but in the context of this thread, that would seem to be saying that Delta taking away a discount for NRA members going to their convention is an attack.

 

[iceberg]

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members? they only did it cause they're not getting their way and they need someone to blame.

the NRA has had nothing to do with a single mass shooting EVER. if i'm wrong, point me to the one that can be traced back to the NRA.

they exist *because of* stupid shit like this the left does to try and guilt people out of their rights "for the children" and it's bullshit. no one IN the NRA WANTS these mass shootings. in effect, they are on the side of common sense.

but the line blurs quite a bit when people can't even talk about guns w/o intentionally being full of shit. see "full semi-automatic mode" as the new CNN phrase to instil fear into people. why is CNN doing this?

there's a lot to this and this is simply one piece of it. the left can protest all they want. the right can in turn react however they want. but to call 1 side out for discrimination is simply eating the poo the other side is shitting out.

Is removing a discount for NRA members going to a convention "attacking" the NRA? Is losing a discount now an attack?

If you are discussing blaming the NRA for school shootings in general, that's different, but in the context of this thread, that would seem to be saying that Delta taking away a discount for NRA members going to their convention is an attack.

it takes a side during a tense time. you can get pissed at the choice of words i use but you're tapdancing around the subject, not addressing it.

 

[jc456]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

so the question is why did they feel the need? were they being hassled? because if they felt hassled, like fedex is being hassled, then they did it for that reason and not neutrality.

 

[jc456]

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.

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

no one accused them of doing anything illegal. the state merely made a neutrality decision.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members?.

Having a discount for one week a year to one specific location taken away is not an attack, this I think is where you and I will never see eye to eye.

The discount was a perk, nothing something earned or something deserved or something required. As such removing it cannot be an attack.

An attack on the NRA and its Members would be to ban them from their planes or raise your prices for for people flying to the convention city.

And even if it were an “attack” it was a perfectly legal one and the government still had no place interfering. We as a country rely way too much on the government to fight our fights for us. It is like running to your big brother for help after talking shit to someone


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jc456]

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members? they only did it cause they're not getting their way and they need someone to blame.

the NRA has had nothing to do with a single mass shooting EVER. if i'm wrong, point me to the one that can be traced back to the NRA.

they exist *because of* stupid shit like this the left does to try and guilt people out of their rights "for the children" and it's bullshit. no one IN the NRA WANTS these mass shootings. in effect, they are on the side of common sense.

but the line blurs quite a bit when people can't even talk about guns w/o intentionally being full of shit. see "full semi-automatic mode" as the new CNN phrase to instil fear into people. why is CNN doing this?

there's a lot to this and this is simply one piece of it. the left can protest all they want. the right can in turn react however they want. but to call 1 side out for discrimination is simply eating the poo the other side is shitting out.

installing fear is exactly what the left is doing.

 

[jc456]

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we've seem to have taken, as a society, a new meaning to "discrimination" in order to use it as a "HA - BEAT THAT" card.

it's getting harder and harder to sell.

attacking the NRA, OF WHICH not a single shooter HAS EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF isn't discriminating against the NRA and their members? they only did it cause they're not getting their way and they need someone to blame.

the NRA has had nothing to do with a single mass shooting EVER. if i'm wrong, point me to the one that can be traced back to the NRA.

they exist *because of* stupid shit like this the left does to try and guilt people out of their rights "for the children" and it's bullshit. no one IN the NRA WANTS these mass shootings. in effect, they are on the side of common sense.

but the line blurs quite a bit when people can't even talk about guns w/o intentionally being full of shit. see "full semi-automatic mode" as the new CNN phrase to instil fear into people. why is CNN doing this?

there's a lot to this and this is simply one piece of it. the left can protest all they want. the right can in turn react however they want. but to call 1 side out for discrimination is simply eating the poo the other side is shitting out.

Is removing a discount for NRA members going to a convention "attacking" the NRA? Is losing a discount now an attack?

If you are discussing blaming the NRA for school shootings in general, that's different, but in the context of this thread, that would seem to be saying that Delta taking away a discount for NRA members going to their convention is an attack.

it is an attack at law abiding citizens who pay taxes. ones now Delta won't get a break on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why is wanting to remain neutral on a very emotional issue offensive to you?

Is it just the basic concept of being neutral and not taking a side that you find offensive.

Did you find it offensive last year when Delta pulled funding from a play that depicted a violent murder of Trump after a group of loudmouth blowhards whined about the play?

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

again - because since they did it the outset of the mob screaming CUT TIES!!! it will forever be seen as doing it to appease, not be neutral.

why is that concept lost on you?

it comes across as you choosing to believe Delta cause you can take the "left" stance in here.

Can one not appease by being neutral? Does it have to be one or the other?

I choose to believe Delta because they have a track record of withdrawing anything that could be seen as an endorsement from just about anything that is causing controversy at the time.

My stance is the “right” stance, the people supporting the actions of the Ga Senate are taking the “left” stance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?

why can you not also be open to they just caved? if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a chicken cause i'd rather believe chicken...

It does not matter to me if they caved, they did nothing illegal and did not discriminate in any way, shape or form.

They are a private entity and should have the freedom to cave without retribution from the government. If in their statement they had said “The NRA sucks and we are done with them”, it would still be wrong for the Govt to get involved.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

no one accused them of doing anything illegal. the state merely made a neutrality decision.

The state was not neutral, the state took the side of one private entity over another...something that should bother everyone.

I am betting the next time it happens m, but this time the state picks the BLM to support, you will not be so agreeable about it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com