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

[dblack]

Let's try a different approach, kaz.

Let's say the situation were reversed. What if a blue state was threatening to take tax incentives away from a company for expressing red views? Would you defend the blue state's authority to do that? Or is this just another question you can't let yourself answer?

If you mean a "special" tax break, then I would want it removed. I don't care what combination of red and blue states we are talking about.

I want everyone to get a tax break. However, I want no company to get a special advantage over their competitors. That is fascism. And I'm saying just as clearly in other posts that I am 100% against Trump's tariffs. I don't flip positions based on party like you do.

What about that is unclear to you? And have you run around the house three times yet? I forbade you to post until you do. Why won't you do that, I wonder?

How does a so called libertarian not understand libertarianism? You've spent too long as a Democrat apologist

You seem to be indicating that, because you oppose all special tax breaks, you cannot have any differing opinion on how government attempts to use those tax breaks.

That would be a logical conclusion, yes. Because I oppose all special tax breaks, I do in fact oppose every use of special tax breaks. That's actually a tautology

Then why are you investing so much energy defending them?

 

[kaz]

Let's try a different approach, kaz.

Let's say the situation were reversed. What if a blue state was threatening to take tax incentives away from a company for expressing red views? Would you defend the blue state's authority to do that? Or is this just another question you can't let yourself answer?

If you mean a "special" tax break, then I would want it removed. I don't care what combination of red and blue states we are talking about.

I want everyone to get a tax break. However, I want no company to get a special advantage over their competitors. That is fascism. And I'm saying just as clearly in other posts that I am 100% against Trump's tariffs. I don't flip positions based on party like you do.

What about that is unclear to you? And have you run around the house three times yet? I forbade you to post until you do. Why won't you do that, I wonder?

How does a so called libertarian not understand libertarianism? You've spent too long as a Democrat apologist

You seem to be indicating that, because you oppose all special tax breaks, you cannot have any differing opinion on how government attempts to use those tax breaks.

He seems to be indicating that partisan loyalty is more important than principles.

Opposing special tax breaks all the time is partisan? And I called you a Democrat hack. Nailed it!

 

[dblack]

You're just a partisan tool, kaz. Like many Republicans, you make a lot of noise about limited government and individual rights, but it's mostly horseshit. When push comes to shove you're happy to see your side bullying people you don't agree with. You're a phony.

 

[kaz]

Let's try a different approach, kaz.

Let's say the situation were reversed. What if a blue state was threatening to take tax incentives away from a company for expressing red views? Would you defend the blue state's authority to do that? Or is this just another question you can't let yourself answer?

If you mean a "special" tax break, then I would want it removed. I don't care what combination of red and blue states we are talking about.

I want everyone to get a tax break. However, I want no company to get a special advantage over their competitors. That is fascism. And I'm saying just as clearly in other posts that I am 100% against Trump's tariffs. I don't flip positions based on party like you do.

What about that is unclear to you? And have you run around the house three times yet? I forbade you to post until you do. Why won't you do that, I wonder?

How does a so called libertarian not understand libertarianism? You've spent too long as a Democrat apologist

You seem to be indicating that, because you oppose all special tax breaks, you cannot have any differing opinion on how government attempts to use those tax breaks.

That would be a logical conclusion, yes. Because I oppose all special tax breaks, I do in fact oppose every use of special tax breaks. That's actually a tautology

Then why are you investing so much energy defending them?

But kaz, we're writing posts to you and you're responding to them. What's up with that?

 

[kaz]

You're just a partisan tool, kaz. Like many Republicans, you make a lot of noise about limited government and individual rights, but it's mostly horseshit. When push comes to shove you're happy to see your side bullying people you don't agree with. You're a phony.

Yes, only a "partisan tool" would oppose all special tax breaks all the time. I guess we can rule out both that you can't read and that you're being partisan. The only option left is that you are in fact an idiot

 

[Pogo]

Of course you have. You just don't understand what you say.

I know exactly what I say, and what I say is that rights don't come in "positive" and "negative" versions. That's you trip. I never used any such terms. Go ahead and quote me to prove that wrong.

Delta is not entitled to a special tax break, that is a positive right.

Correct, they are not so entitled, but that's not any kind of "right".

You're talking about it like that they are removing a tax break that isn't targeted to them.

Obviously the tax break isn't targeted to anybody if it doesn't specifically say so. But that's not the issue, is it. The issue is legislator dipshits who think they can hold a proverbial gun to a specific company's head if that company doesn't bestow some special favor to some special interest. And you know as well as I do that it wasn't the legislation that specifically named Delta but rather the legislators.

Delta - $40 million
All other airlines combined - $10 million

Which means Delta dominates aviation in Georgia. Who knew. Oh wait --- everybody.

Again, see previous line.

 

[Pogo]

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Link to anyone anywhere "demanding" any such thing is where?

A company takes a blue position in a read State. No, that's not going to go badly ...

Taking a neutral position is "blue" now?

Or are you saying not-taking a "red" position is the same thing as taking a "blue" position?

If you ask me if it's raining and I say "no" --- does that mean it's snowing?

How dichotomous of you.

Again we're all waiting for you to essplain to the class how a specific company is OBLIGATED to run special prices for some group just because you want them to. Are you working on that?

 

[Pogo]

Who attacked you for wanting the tax break to end? The argument that I have made, and seen others make, is that the tax break should not be used as a lever against Delta to try to get them to give NRA members a discount.

They didn't do that, simpleton. They ended Delta's special tax break. They didn't make them do anything. Delta wasn't given a choice

Ummm--- yes they did. I already quoted you a tweet saying exactly that.

And again, feel free to link, quote, screenshot, photograph or cite any type of reference at all to any part of any Georgia legislation that gives Delta a "special tax break".

That's called a rhetorical question. We all know that no such thing exists. And you do too.

 

[kaz]

Of course you have. You just don't understand what you say.

I know exactly what I say, and what I say is that rights don't come in "positive" and "negative" versions

That's hilarious.

kaz: You don't know the difference between positive and negative rights

Pogo: There is no difference

Admitting I'm right, an interesting way to refute me, LOL.

You're a waste of time until you educate yourself on this. Positive and negative rights are entirely different things

 

[kaz]

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Link to anyone anywhere "demanding" any such thing is where?

I'm saying that I want Delta to lose the special tax break regardless of what they do with the NRA. Where am I wrong? You're the one who keeps arguing it

 

[kaz]

Who attacked you for wanting the tax break to end? The argument that I have made, and seen others make, is that the tax break should not be used as a lever against Delta to try to get them to give NRA members a discount.

They didn't do that, simpleton. They ended Delta's special tax break. They didn't make them do anything. Delta wasn't given a choice

Ummm--- yes they did. I already quoted you a tweet saying exactly that.

And again, feel free to link, quote, screenshot, photograph or cite any type of reference at all to any part of any Georgia legislation that gives Delta a "special tax break".

That's called a rhetorical question. We all know that no such thing exists. And you do too.

That isn't what the tweet says, you're just a terrible reader. You went to government schools? Worse, you went to hillbilly government schools

 

[Pogo]

Of course you have. You just don't understand what you say.

I know exactly what I say, and what I say is that rights don't come in "positive" and "negative" versions

That's hilarious.

kaz: You don't know the difference between positive and negative rights

Pogo: There is no difference

Admitting I'm right, an interesting way to refute me, LOL.

You're a waste of time until you educate yourself on this. Positive and negative rights are entirely different things

Yet another strawman. Once AGAIN as already posted, I don't believe in your cockamamie "positive rights" and "negative rights". Once AGAIN as I already posted, that's your trip, not mine. Once AGAIN as already posted I consider the concept, and I quote myself here, "absurd".

 

[kaz]

Of course you have. You just don't understand what you say.

I know exactly what I say, and what I say is that rights don't come in "positive" and "negative" versions

That's hilarious.

kaz: You don't know the difference between positive and negative rights

Pogo: There is no difference

Admitting I'm right, an interesting way to refute me, LOL.

You're a waste of time until you educate yourself on this. Positive and negative rights are entirely different things

Yet another strawman. Once AGAIN as already posted, I don't believe in your cockamamie "positive rights" and "negative rights". Once AGAIN as I already posted, that's your trip, not mine. Once AGAIN as already posted I consider the concept, and I quote myself here, "absurd".

They aren't my positive and negative rights. Educate yourself. They are philosophical terms with actual meanings.

Do they have dictionaries in hillbilly country? You know, with English words like "git" and "y'all"?

 

[Pogo]

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Link to anyone anywhere "demanding" any such thing is where?

I'm saying that I want Delta to lose the special tax break regardless of what they do with the NRA. Where am I wrong? You're the one who keeps arguing it

Let's re-run what you just said above, even though it's nested right there above.

Roll tape.

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Now let's re-run, yet again, what I just said above, even though it too is nested just above:

WHERE --- that means in what place --- has anyone "demanded Delta get a special tax break"?

We all know there's no such thing. You lose.

 

[dblack]

You're just a partisan tool, kaz. Like many Republicans, you make a lot of noise about limited government and individual rights, but it's mostly horseshit. When push comes to shove you're happy to see your side bullying people you don't agree with. You're a phony.

Yes, only a "partisan tool" would oppose all special tax breaks all the time. I guess we can rule out both that you can't read and that you're being partisan. The only option left is that you are in fact an idiot

No, a partisan tool would scream to high-heaven if the other side is doing it, and make a lot of lame excuses when his side is up to no good.

 

[Pogo]

Who attacked you for wanting the tax break to end? The argument that I have made, and seen others make, is that the tax break should not be used as a lever against Delta to try to get them to give NRA members a discount.

They didn't do that, simpleton. They ended Delta's special tax break. They didn't make them do anything. Delta wasn't given a choice

Ummm--- yes they did. I already quoted you a tweet saying exactly that.

And again, feel free to link, quote, screenshot, photograph or cite any type of reference at all to any part of any Georgia legislation that gives Delta a "special tax break".

That's called a rhetorical question. We all know that no such thing exists. And you do too.

That isn't what the tweet says, you're just a terrible reader. You went to government schools? Worse, you went to hillbilly government schools

OK you're just wasting everybody's time with rhetorical dadaism. Find a hobby. Because this one just ain't working out.

 

[dblack]

Who attacked you for wanting the tax break to end? The argument that I have made, and seen others make, is that the tax break should not be used as a lever against Delta to try to get them to give NRA members a discount.

They didn't do that, simpleton. They ended Delta's special tax break. They didn't make them do anything. Delta wasn't given a choice

Ummm--- yes they did. I already quoted you a tweet saying exactly that.

And again, feel free to link, quote, screenshot, photograph or cite any type of reference at all to any part of any Georgia legislation that gives Delta a "special tax break".

That's called a rhetorical question. We all know that no such thing exists. And you do too.

That isn't what the tweet says, you're just a terrible reader. You went to government schools? Worse, you went to hillbilly government schools

OK you're just wasting everybody's time with rhetorical dadaism. Find a hobby. Because this one just ain't working out.

I'm not sure it's deliberate. I think kaz is just really bad at rhetoric.

 

[Montrovant]

Let's try a different approach, kaz.

Let's say the situation were reversed. What if a blue state was threatening to take tax incentives away from a company for expressing red views? Would you defend the blue state's authority to do that? Or is this just another question you can't let yourself answer?

If you mean a "special" tax break, then I would want it removed. I don't care what combination of red and blue states we are talking about.

I want everyone to get a tax break. However, I want no company to get a special advantage over their competitors. That is fascism. And I'm saying just as clearly in other posts that I am 100% against Trump's tariffs. I don't flip positions based on party like you do.

What about that is unclear to you? And have you run around the house three times yet? I forbade you to post until you do. Why won't you do that, I wonder?

How does a so called libertarian not understand libertarianism? You've spent too long as a Democrat apologist

You seem to be indicating that, because you oppose all special tax breaks, you cannot have any differing opinion on how government attempts to use those tax breaks.

That would be a logical conclusion, yes. Because I oppose all special tax breaks, I do in fact oppose every use of special tax breaks. That's actually a tautology

Let me try an analogy. I oppose hate crime laws. If hate crime laws are used to target a particular group, be it a racial, gender, orientation, or religious group, more than others, I would be opposed to such a use of the law. That opposition would be separate from my general opposition to hate crime laws. If hate crime laws are going to exist, I at least want them applied without bias.

In a similar fashion, you oppose all special tax breaks. However, it is entirely possible for you to prefer special tax breaks to be applied generally, rather than used to attempt to coerce an individual company. In either case, you still oppose special tax breaks, but you can still consider one use more offensive/inappropriate/wrong than another.

 

[kaz]

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Link to anyone anywhere "demanding" any such thing is where?

I'm saying that I want Delta to lose the special tax break regardless of what they do with the NRA. Where am I wrong? You're the one who keeps arguing it

Let's re-run what you just said above, even though it's nested right there above.

Roll tape.

And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break

Now let's re-run, yet again, what I just said above, even though it too is nested just above:

WHERE --- that means in what place --- has anyone "demanded Delta get a special tax break"?

We all know there's no such thing. You lose.

Swish. This time answer my question.

I said I oppose Delta getting a special tax break regardless of what they do with the NRA. You keep saying I'm wrong. So, how am I wrong? Which part of that do you disagree with?

 

[kaz]

You're just a partisan tool, kaz. Like many Republicans, you make a lot of noise about limited government and individual rights, but it's mostly horseshit. When push comes to shove you're happy to see your side bullying people you don't agree with. You're a phony.

Yes, only a "partisan tool" would oppose all special tax breaks all the time. I guess we can rule out both that you can't read and that you're being partisan. The only option left is that you are in fact an idiot

No, a partisan tool would scream to high-heaven if the other side is doing it, and make a lot of lame excuses when his side is up to no good.

The other side of who is doing what?

I am against a special tax break for Delta regardless of what they do with the NRA. You and the drunken hillbilly pogo who keeps falling off his porch disagree with me. Can one of you explain what part of no tax break regardless of what Delta does with the NRA you disagree with exactly?