Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anti Union people speak mostly out of ignorance and should simply be ignored.
so why aren't you questioning Delta's rationale then? they only took one group's discount not all groups. so they are taking away a perk to punish the members of the NRA only charging their members a higher air fare. And you're cool with that correct?then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
How? Amazon isn't making any adjustments to punish the NRA. So why would they care?
LOL, damn what a tough guy you pretend to be. The minute a turd like you throws the word "fascist" into a discussion you've lost the argument. I know that it makes you "feel" superior but in reality it just shows everyone that you are just another little man trying to be relevant.
Like the IRS did to conservatives you mean under obummer?i take it as the state is acting in defense of their NRA members who are losing benefits because of their association with the NRA, ie - being targeted.how are they not being neutral? they don't give that tax incentive to any other airline or the gas incentives either.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 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
no one said the state was being neutral as far as i know. they are mad cause Delta is going after the NRA along with other companies and conservatives are tired of it. this is really just the beginning of seeing conservatives hit back and the left isn't used to it. they're used to whining something about racism and haters and getting their way.
days of that are over which is going to make a lot more of this yelling and screaming as we all adjust to not saying "ok" to everything the left wants and when we do, not caving into their one of a billion protests of the moment.
Using the tax code to punish a corporation or an individual is or ought to be illegal. I don't know the laws which are on the books in Georgia, but I suspect such an act by the Lt. Gov. is Malfeasance, at best.
then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
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.
so why aren't you questioning Delta's rationale then? they only took one group's discount not all groups. so they are taking away a perk to punish the members of the NRA only charging their members a higher air fare. And you're cool with that correct?then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
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.
You people are like circus contortionists, with all your pretzel-tying to try to make it okay to do things YOU like, and "outrageous" to do things you don't.
Look, Sparkles, how about you expand your tunnel vision a bit and see the big picture?
Delta, like many companies, offers discounts to member advocacy groups, employee circles (ie. people employed by specific companies), etc. So far as I'm aware, any such group was potentially eligible to get such discounts for their members, with the primary criterion being whether or not their membership would make it worth Delta's while to do so. (There's your "like everyone else".)
So yeah, singling out ONE group and saying they are no longer eligible for those discounts because their COMPLETELY LAW-ABIDING beliefs are not politically correct, and making a public show of saying so, would be discrimination.
Further, I am disinterested in the extreme in hearing that right and wrong follow the law, rather than the other way around. I am even more disinterested in letting YOU decide the parameters of right, wrong, and discrimination when you have no dog in the fight, not being a member of the group discriminated against, OR (presumably) a resident of Georgia. The Georgia Senate remains within their legal purview, and there is no amount of "Yes, but I don't like it!" which will change that.
dude it happens in every state for specific customers. Look at the deal Amazon is going to get. don't be so naive that you don't open your own eyes. the state can give tax breaks to any company, just like any company can give discounts. it is no different. and yet you want it to be. wow. blind monkeys.so why aren't you questioning Delta's rationale then? they only took one group's discount not all groups. so they are taking away a perk to punish the members of the NRA only charging their members a higher air fare. And you're cool with that correct?then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
I'm "cool with that" in the sense that Delta should be free to make such a decision, whereas I do not think the government should be free to use tax legislation as a way to pressure a single person or company to give discounts to any other single person or organization. The government does (or should) operate under different standards and restrictions than private citizens, companies, or organizations.
I honestly don't know why Delta gave a discount to the NRA in the first place, nor what other discounts Delta gives. Whether the move to get rid of the NRA discount was a good or bad business decision, time will tell.
You seem to think the government should be able to operate the same way a private company does. I disagree.
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
then fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
Simple; because Conservatives are anti-business fascists who want to force companies to conform to their ideology or else.
Amazon isn't going to want any part of that; Kegel killed Atlanta's chances at landing the Second Amazon HQ. Too bad too...it would have really been good for the city and state.
1 - i've never said it wasn't stupidthen fine. i'll buy the "legal" stance.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
but it's also legal to end deltas gas subsidies.
It's not ending the tax break that's an issue (at least for me), it's the rationale given and the way the government went about it, explicitly saying it was because of Delta stopping discounts for NRA members and even indicating the tax break would continue if Delta reversed their decision and reinstated the discounts. The Georgia government basically said, "If Delta does not go back to giving a special perk to NRA members, no airlines will get a fuel tax break." In my opinion that is a horrible reason for denying the tax break. The government pressuring one specific company to give a discount to a specific organization is a misuse of power.
More, if the information I've read about this is correct, the tax break was not just for Delta, but all airlines. Why is the Georgia government ending tax breaks for all airlines? Why not make an exception to the legislation so that Delta would not qualify unless they reinstituted NRA discounts?
if they gave them one when it was a hot topic, sure. but near as i can tell it was done long ago just because they wanted to do it.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.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
By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.
Amazon isn't going to want any part of that; Kegel killed Atlanta's chances at landing the Second Amazon HQ. Too bad too...it would have really been good for the city and state.
Last I read I believe they're leaning heavily towards Arlington, Va.
and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?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.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
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
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
and the NRA is just NOW causing a controversy?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
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.
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.
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.
You people are like circus contortionists, with all your pretzel-tying to try to make it okay to do things YOU like, and "outrageous" to do things you don't.
Look, Sparkles, how about you expand your tunnel vision a bit and see the big picture?
Delta, like many companies, offers discounts to member advocacy groups, employee circles (ie. people employed by specific companies), etc. So far as I'm aware, any such group was potentially eligible to get such discounts for their members, with the primary criterion being whether or not their membership would make it worth Delta's while to do so. (There's your "like everyone else".)
So yeah, singling out ONE group and saying they are no longer eligible for those discounts because their COMPLETELY LAW-ABIDING beliefs are not politically correct, and making a public show of saying so, would be discrimination.
Further, I am disinterested in the extreme in hearing that right and wrong follow the law, rather than the other way around. I am even more disinterested in letting YOU decide the parameters of right, wrong, and discrimination when you have no dog in the fight, not being a member of the group discriminated against, OR (presumably) a resident of Georgia. The Georgia Senate remains within their legal purview, and there is no amount of "Yes, but I don't like it!" which will change that.
You get that 1) no one said they did anything illegal, nor is that in any way an issue here, and 2) your view of whether it was discrimination is FAR from the universal opinion, and thus can't be said to represent fact, particularly since YOU are not a member of the group targeted. Right?
They are a private entity and no one has questioned or challenged their right to pander and grovel to whomever they want. HOWEVER, there is a huge difference between "I have a right to do this" and "I have a right to do this WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES". The first one exists; the second does not.
The Georgia Senate retains the right to negotiate, or not negotiate, individual deals with businesses in their state under pretty much whatever criteria they think they can explain to their constituents. There is not, and never will be, any artificial goalposts you can attempt to impose on the process that will change that fact.
Likewise, there is no amount of "It's wrong for the government to get involved . . . NOW, because I don't like it!" that will make it true OR believable OR make me in any way responsible for your perception of conservative principles. I don't universally oppose all government activity; I never have, and I defy you to EVER find a place I have done so. The fact that you THINK that's what I espouse is your problem, not mine.
