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

[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?.

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

then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.

but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GA senate's action clearly distinguishes between a conservative 'let corporations conduct business as they wish' with the neo-fascist alt right position of 'punish the bastards we don't like.'

 

[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

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

then so did Delta. there isn't a way out for you. I used your own fking analogy. now you're arguing your own point against yourself.

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

How is it discrimination to be treated like everyone else?

 

[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

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

delta was not neutral. the heat got turned up, they bailed.

this is what happens in stupid "wars" is all.

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

so you're ok with holding ONE side accountable for their actions and minimizing the other.

is that really *fair* from an objective viewpoint?

i can understand your views about this NOT being the role of the government as a distinction. but when you're talking to angry mobs, they don't care about such minute details. they want blood and really don't care who's

so when delta made their move, conservatives will hit back in a manner of which they can, not necessarily proper.

btw - appreciate the level tone of the debate. thank you.

 

[The Derp]

Lost in all this:

We just gave all corporations, including Delta, a massive tax break by lowering their rate to 22%

Why do any corporations need tax breaks?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

delta was not neutral. the heat got turned up, they bailed.

this is what happens in stupid "wars" is all.

Delta does not have to be neutral, they are there to make money. The government on the other hand is supposed to be neutral, and not force one company to give discounts to another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iceberg]

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

delta was not neutral. the heat got turned up, they bailed.

this is what happens in stupid "wars" is all.

Delta does not have to be neutral, they are there to make money. The government on the other hand is supposed to be neutral, and not force one company to give discounts to another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

great - except delta SAID they were neutral when clearly they are not. neutral would be staying the course. anything else, to me, picks a side. and the ramifications for doing so in this instance could cost them $50mil.

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

how are they not being neutral? they don't give that tax incentive to any other airline or the gas incentives either.

 

[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

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the states i'm pretty sure need to make their money also. bias happens all the time to those with the most effect they can have on their economy.

 

[The Derp]

great - except delta SAID they were neutral when clearly they are not. neutral would be staying the course. anything else, to me, picks a side. and the ramifications for doing so in this instance could cost them $50mil.

Neutral would be treating everyone the same; which Delta now does for NRA members.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

how are they not being neutral? they don't give that tax incentive to any other airline or the gas incentives either.

yep. if anything removing the discount makes them neutral as now NO ONE gets it.

i'm not arguing whether or not the state is making an appropriate move. my base argument is that all of this protesting crap against a non profit org who's never fielded a participant in the mass shootings is now held to blame and an angry mob has found something to be angry about and making demands to get their way. great, their right they can do that.

but for all decisions there are ramifications of those decisions OF WHICH this is - proper or not it's happening. but when the base argument is stupid, not much good can come out of it.

 

[jillian]

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

they love small gubmint until gubmint acts on their behalf.

morons.

 

[The Derp]

and the state of GA now does for all their airlines. no more favorable treatment.

Great. And Georgia can now watch Delta relocate its headquarters elsewhere, taking the jobs and revenue with them. And Georgia can also forget about landing the second Amazon headquarters too, if the State Legislature proves that they enact punitive measures against corporations for how they conduct their business.

So Conservatives are anti-business and create anti-business environments.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Why Delta did what they did is unimportant.

What it comes down to is how each individual views the role of the government.

For most of you the role of the government is to try and force one private entity to give financials discounts to another private entity.

I happen to disagree that is the role of the government


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

then it doesn't matter what the state did either. they have that right just like Delta. You keep arguing your own points against yourself.

No, they do not. The state is supposed to be a neutral operator, not biased towards one company over another.

I am with 100% honesty shocked at your view of what the government is supposed to be.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

how are they not being neutral? they don't give that tax incentive to any other airline or the gas incentives either.

The state is trying to force one private entity to give financial discounts to another private entity. There is nothing neutral about that. That is picking a side and telling the 30,000 citizens that work for the other company “we do not give a shit about you”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why would they move when they can just tell you statist to fuck off and then charge you more to fly on their planes. There is no losing side to this for Delta.

Well, you know, other than the precipitious drop in their favorability in public opinion. But I suppose they can just say, "Fuck off" to everyone, right?

Airlines have been telling us to fuck off for years...smaller seats, more extra fees, less perks, longer waits, higher cost...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and when a group of activists threaten them they make changes? so they knowingly took a stance, except it may be the wrong side. if those opposed to the NRA felt like boycotting Delta, Delta could have just allowed that to happen and it would have dissolved over time. Now they have a much bigger fight. they, Delta, are on the wrong side of this. there are many more NRA supporters. One doesn't have to be a member to believe in what they stand for. So Delta did more to many many more americans.

And the Ga Senate fucked even more Americans. Almost 300,000 people fly in and out of Atlanta daily and the Ga Senate said that paying a tribute to the NRA was more important than the 100 million plus people a year that fly out of Atlanta.

Delta may have made a bad business decision, that is yet to be determined.

What we know for sure is that the statist action of the Ga Senate was wrong and you would think so also if they had tried to force Delta to pay a tribute to the BLM vice the NRA

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

you simply can't make decisions like what delta did and think there will be zero repercussions. doesn't matter if there should be or not, there will be. the left keeps pushing and pushing and we're to the point the right has had enough and is pushing back.

delta got into a political mess by cutting ties when they did. in a culture where people are LOOKING for reasons to fight, this was gift wrapped and delivered.

to say that delta can do whatever they want in the social world and everyone has to put up with it or innocents may get hurt? never gonna agree to that. you get into the war, people are gonna get hurt.

The Lt. Governor is a fool, and what he stated may even be illegal. Certainly it was stupid, and typical of someone who cannot think of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits of decisions, when made by executives and/or legislators its clear they lack the skills to lead.