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

[Cecilie1200]

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

Again, I realize this is going to create cognitive dissonance to your name-dropper politics, but the Georgia State Senate took the side of its constituents.

You are betting what? That because YOU are a hypocrite who utterly refuses to even contemplate seeing, let alone comprehending, any point of view but his own, that must be true of everyone? Has it occurred to you that you AREN'T a representative of the norm, but are actually a crappier human being than other people are?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I'm well aware that companies get tax breaks for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure I disagree with some of those, as well. The state is under no obligation to provide tax breaks for airlines, and I have not once in this thread argued that they are. My argument is, and has been, that the way the Georgia government has gone about this, the explicit way the tax break was made contingent upon Delta giving special treatment to NRA members, is wrong. If Georgia were to make a tax break for Amazon require Amazon give discounts to UNICEF, I would oppose that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Again, I realize this is going to create cognitive dissonance to your name-dropper politics, but the Georgia State Senate took the side of its constituents.

Please offer some proof that this is what the voters of Georgia wanted to have happen. How do you know that this is what their constituents desired?

Do you think that the 30,000 constituents that work for Delta feel that the Senate took their side?

You are betting what? That because YOU are a hypocrite who utterly refuses to even contemplate seeing, let alone comprehending, any point of view but his own, that must be true of everyone? Has it occurred to you that you AREN'T a representative of the norm, but are actually a crappier human being than other people are?

My my, getting all pissed off and personal now, and going to a response that was not even to you. I guess that is what makes you a better human being than me.

 

[iceberg]

i'm not arguing whether or not the state is making an appropriate move.

And I think this is where you and I differ the most and why I struggled to understand you. To me the state's actions are all I care about. To me Delta made a business decisions they felt was best for their company. I do not have to agree with it but I will fit all day long for the to be able to make it without government interference.

The thing about the government ,be it state or Federal, once they do something they will never quit doing it, it just builds to the next thing which is even worse than the thing before it from a liberty standpoint.

I want the government involved in as little as possible when it comes to private entities.

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.

For this sort of thing, I say let the market work it out. If Delta made a decision which pissed off you and the NRA, then you and the NRA should not use Delta in the future. That to me is the proper response.

If you are made at Dick's for not selling AR-15s, then do not give them your money. Would it be appropriate for the government to threaten them and try and force them to start selling AR-15s again? I do not think so, but if you are ok with what Ga did, I am not sure how you could be against it.

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Why Delta did what they did is VERY important. More to the point, why it is PERCEIVED to have done what it did is all-important. If they had done it to someone other than the NRA, you'd likely be the first person telling us that.

So far as people's "feewings" about the role of government go, I would bet hard money that you are normally first in line for thinking that the role of government is to make people do what YOU believe to be "the right thing". You are only "outraged" by it now because you don't like the NRA, and because you somehow - erroneously - think you're scoring some sort of points by claiming to be about small government.

The actual bottom line is that you can disagree until you're blue in the face about the role of government. This has always been a part of the role of state government; it's a big part of why there are state governments in the first place. And you have yet to show me anything, anywhere that contradicts my repeated assertions that deciding who to negotiate and not negotiate deals with is within the state of Georgia's purview; all you have is your personal opinion about what conservative beliefs are or should be, which means nothing at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

 

[iceberg]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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?

1 - i've never said it wasn't stupid
2 - i have said and will continue to say - it's not unexpected.

we're in "emotional times" not rational ones so if you make a move based on your emotional stance i don't understand how people can be so surprised when an emotional response comes back to you.

it's like sticking your hand in fire and getting pissed at the fire for burning you.

if everyone already saw it the way the liberals wanted there'd be no need to protest. since we're protesting, they don't. since they don't, they will react in kind to what you do to them. good, bad, smart or stupid.

called being human.

I completely agree that this move by Delta was going to lead to consequences. I certainly hope I am not giving the impression that I think Delta can do whatever they wish without consequences. It is the specific words and actions the Georgia government took I oppose.

If people or other companies or organizations want to boycott Delta, have at it. Hell, if the government could have at least provided some veneer of impartiality, at least pretended that they weren't punishing a private company for not giving special treatment to one organization, at worst it would have seemed like business as usual. This move is just too openly intrusive for me.

Amazon has been brought up quite a bit. I wouldn't want to see a tax break for Amazon be made contingent on Amazon giving discounts to members of the NRA, or the ACLU, or any other organization. The government already seems to get too involved in private business practices, and this strikes me as just a bit further than the norm.

My position on the Georgia government's actions are in no way a representation of my opinions of the gun control debate in general, nor of the NRA.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

"One company over another." You just utterly refuse to get your teeth out of "The NRA! The NRA!" This inability to think outside of the collective is one of the most annoying traits of leftists.

Wrap your brain around this. Georgia isn't doing this on behalf of "the NRA". They're doing this on behalf of the large number of individual people in Georgia who are supporters of the 2nd Amendment and/or are sick unto death of all these ginned-up boycotts from the left.

The state of Georgia is not supposed to be "neutral" where their own citizens are concerned.

If you're shocked, it's only because you've spent too much time listening to the voices in your head labeled "What conservatives are like", and not enough time listening to actual conservatives.

 

[Montrovant]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

It may have been better described as a "try to give the appearance of neutrality" move.

 

[Care4all]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

so what is your stance regarding the NFL boycott by the right wing.... initiated and promoted by the president's negative tweets about the NFL and kneeling players? The weekly joy in threads here stating how the nfl is hurting badly with attendance etc etc etc?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Do the entire world a favor and PLEASE hold your breath waiting for Delta to follow your "brilliant" business advice of a multi-million-dollar move of its hub, just so that you can feel warm and fuzzy and justified.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why Delta did what they did is VERY important. More to the point, why it is PERCEIVED to have done what it did is all-important. If they had done it to someone other than the NRA, you'd likely be the first person telling us that.

And you would be wrong. Why do you think I hate the NRA. I am a gun owner, though I find the NRA useless.

So far as people's "feewings" about the role of government go, I would bet hard money that you are normally first in line for thinking that the role of government is to make people do what YOU believe to be "the right thing". You are only "outraged" by it now because you don't like the NRA, and because you somehow - erroneously - think you're scoring some sort of points by claiming to be about small government.

And I would be happy to take your money.

I could link for you a thread where I argued that any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government are unconstitutional. The government should not be telling people who they have to serve and what they have to make.

I think that marijuana, prostitution and polygamy should all be legal among consenting adults. The government has no place making any of those things illegal.

I think that medical personnel should not be be required to law to treat someone without the means to pay for it.

The government should not give tax breaks for being married, having kids, going to college, owning a house or any of the above. We should not use taxes for social engineering.

And actually, the government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place. That is something for the churches.

So, please, tell me just exactally what do you think I would agree with the government making people do?

 

[Care4all]

Encouraging boycotting these companies is one thing....

The government coming out and telling everyone they are going to make a law or retract a law that makes one of their big employers less profitable because they nixed a discount for another business's/lobby firm's members....

is as crooked as it comes....

If they had come out and said, we are going to take away the tax break for jet fuel for Delta because....we no longer have the funds in the budget to be able to do that, or for whatever reason that made sense for the entire State's tax payers etc, then that would be fine and dandy.....


but to come out and intentionally hurt a business that they drew to Georgia because of this tax cut, solely for removing a discount from a few NRA lobby members, that incidentally FUNDS their campaigns.... is downright DIRTY, a quid pro quo in a sense, in support of their golden cash cow of political donations.....

It is everything that is wrong with our government, and right now the Republicans in Georgia win the badge of shame, imo...just disgusting to see....

 

[iceberg]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

so what is your stance regarding the NFL boycott by the right wing.... initiated and promoted by the president's negative tweets about the NFL and kneeling players? The weekly joy in threads here stating how the nfl is hurting badly with attendance etc etc etc?

it started off stupid and went downhill from there.

start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

A business decision is an neutral decision. A business decision does not care about the NRA or any other group, the only thing that matters in a business decision is how will it impact the bottom line. Nothing is more neutral than that. It is not based on emotion or "liking" something or "hating" something, just MONEY.

I think that the days businesses caving to the mob mentality are coming to a close, I see them getting worse and worse as both sides dig in and refuse to budge an inch.

 

[iceberg]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

A business decision is an neutral decision. A business decision does not care about the NRA or any other group, the only thing that matters in a business decision is how will it impact the bottom line. Nothing is more neutral than that. It is not based on emotion or "liking" something or "hating" something, just MONEY.

I think that the days businesses caving to the mob mentality are coming to a close, I see them getting worse and worse as both sides dig in and refuse to budge an inch.

Neutral or not its obviously NOT being accepted as such.

Which is the danger of picking a side regardless of your motivation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

A business decision is an neutral decision. A business decision does not care about the NRA or any other group, the only thing that matters in a business decision is how will it impact the bottom line. Nothing is more neutral than that. It is not based on emotion or "liking" something or "hating" something, just MONEY.

I think that the days businesses caving to the mob mentality are coming to a close, I see them getting worse and worse as both sides dig in and refuse to budge an inch.

Neutral or not its obviously NOT being accepted as such.

Which is the danger of picking a side regardless of your motivation.

But they didn't pick a side, in fact that "un-picked" a side.

Before their announcement they were giving their endorsement to the NRA.

After the announcement they were neutral on the NRA.

They did not condemn the NRA, they did not say bad things about the NRA.

 

[iceberg]

then i guess think of me not taking a side but trying to understand the motivations behind all the activity and examining our own human behavior. i guess when i do that (a lot it would seem) it can be confusing because i'm not really going at this in a "normal" fashion so fair enough i confuse people at times. i'll work on it.

I think the motivation behind the Delta move are painfully obvious, they thought that it was a good business decision and that continuing to endorse the NRA would be bad for them in the long run. I do not think Delta hates the NRA or gun owners, I think the people making these decisions care about one thing only, money. I would also suspect that they did not expect that removing a discount for one weekend a year to one specific city would cause so much heartache.

and THAT is what i've been saying.

they didn't do this to be neutral. they did it cause of assumed $$$. we can totally agree there then.

people are simply tired of protesters getting their way and businesses caving to the mob mentality. the days you could force a business into this are coming to a close and if you want massive support now, you tell the whiners to bugger off and find something else to do and let them protest away.

so if we agree then it wasn't a "let's stay neutral move" it was business. the state of GA is now doing this for their conservative base but i also agree in an earlier point in that they didn't have time to really ask - they're just doing it in their name.

but when you are doing things emotionally, this is what happens. react, don't think.

blink.

A business decision is an neutral decision. A business decision does not care about the NRA or any other group, the only thing that matters in a business decision is how will it impact the bottom line. Nothing is more neutral than that. It is not based on emotion or "liking" something or "hating" something, just MONEY.

I think that the days businesses caving to the mob mentality are coming to a close, I see them getting worse and worse as both sides dig in and refuse to budge an inch.

Neutral or not its obviously NOT being accepted as such.

Which is the danger of picking a side regardless of your motivation.

But they didn't pick a side, in fact that "un-picked" a side.

Before their announcement they were giving their endorsement to the NRA.

After the announcement they were neutral on the NRA.

They did not condemn the NRA, they did not say bad things about the NRA.

I see where you are coming from.

I do.

But people will view it as taking a side for the simple reason we already covered, they react.

We simply disagree but appreciated the discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

As far as other airlines, I couldn't say for sure. I don't believe it's ever been a question of ending them; the tax break they had been giving Delta had actually already expired. They were going to negotiate to restart it, and the Lt. Governor basically said they weren't going to do so after all if Delta was going to cancel their discount agreement with the NRA. I know a lot of conservatives in Georgia came forward and said, "We shouldn't give out tax break deals like that no matter what happens with the NRA." So it may just be going along with that position.