Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bull shit. I oppose all special tax breaks because they are tilting the field. There is no prefer this or coerce that.
Stop being a stupid bitch, that is totally clear. I want to cut taxes dramatically, but evenly. I do not want government picking market winners no matter how much you want to spin it
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?
And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break
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?
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.
Bull shit. I oppose all special tax breaks because they are tilting the field. There is no prefer this or coerce that.
Stop being a stupid bitch, that is totally clear. I want to cut taxes dramatically, but evenly. I do not want government picking market winners no matter how much you want to spin it
Bull shit what? What in my analogy do you disagree with?
Where did I say or even imply that you want government to pick market winners?
I'm trying to explain that just because you oppose all special tax breaks does not mean you can't be opposed to the way a special tax break is applied separate from your opposition to special tax breaks in general.
Let's say I oppose gun registration laws. If gun registration laws exist, and they are applied unevenly, does my opposition to gun registration laws mean I cannot be upset by how they are applied? If shotguns do not have to be registered, unless the owner is Muslim, can I not be opposed to the discriminatory way the law is applied, in addition to or separate from my opposition to the registration laws in general?
Your argument seems to boil down to "I oppose special tax breaks, therefore I cannot care about any other issue involving special tax breaks."
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?
Okay, for the third time in a row we're going to repost your own words. Ready?
And you idiots are demanding the government continue to give Delta a special tax break
The subject of that sentence is "you idiots". The verb is "demanding".
Now let's revisit my response to that. Ready?
What I'm asking for, and what you can't produce, and what you therefore keep trying to shift the subject away from, is any example anywhere of any idiots demanding such a tax break.
It's not rocket surgery. It's something that doesn't exist, putting the lie to your claim that it does.
Simple as that.
So, kaz with all your gyrating I'm not even sure what your position is. This is what I've gleaned from the posts I've read: You say you oppose all tax incentives So, removing any tax incentive, regardless of the intended outcome, is a good thing. Is that correct? Is it close?
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.
Bull shit. I oppose all special tax breaks because they are tilting the field. There is no prefer this or coerce that.
Stop being a stupid bitch, that is totally clear. I want to cut taxes dramatically, but evenly. I do not want government picking market winners no matter how much you want to spin it
Bull shit what? What in my analogy do you disagree with?
Where did I say or even imply that you want government to pick market winners?
I'm trying to explain that just because you oppose all special tax breaks does not mean you can't be opposed to the way a special tax break is applied separate from your opposition to special tax breaks in general.
Let's say I oppose gun registration laws. If gun registration laws exist, and they are applied unevenly, does my opposition to gun registration laws mean I cannot be upset by how they are applied? If shotguns do not have to be registered, unless the owner is Muslim, can I not be opposed to the discriminatory way the law is applied, in addition to or separate from my opposition to the registration laws in general?
Your argument seems to boil down to "I oppose special tax breaks, therefore I cannot care about any other issue involving special tax breaks."
That's just babble. Special tax breaks are by definition applied unevenly, that's why I oppose them. I want to cut taxes, but evenly. All special tax breaks are government picking winners. To say I still have to slice and dice and opine on which ones I want more or less than the others and rate them from one to a hundred when I don't want any of them is just retarded
I didn't say you have to do anything. However, you seem to think that anything regarding special tax breaks has only one viable response: you oppose special tax breaks. The details appear unimportant to you, regardless of what those details may be
I didn't say you have to do anything. However, you seem to think that anything regarding special tax breaks has only one viable response: you oppose special tax breaks. The details appear unimportant to you, regardless of what those details may be
Correct. I oppose them all. There is no reason I need to rate and categorize them, that is pointless. They are all tilting the playing field. There is no real difference between any of them. Government tilting the playing field is always bad. Government needs to stay out of picking market winners and losers.
If you want to categorize and rank them, that's fine. I don't need to play that pointless game
I didn't say you have to do anything. However, you seem to think that anything regarding special tax breaks has only one viable response: you oppose special tax breaks. The details appear unimportant to you, regardless of what those details may be
Correct. I oppose them all. There is no reason I need to rate and categorize them, that is pointless. They are all tilting the playing field. There is no real difference between any of them. Government tilting the playing field is always bad. Government needs to stay out of picking market winners and losers.
If you want to categorize and rank them, that's fine. I don't need to play that pointless game
Then why come argue in a thread about just such a detail, where people "categorize and rank them"?
I didn't say you have to do anything. However, you seem to think that anything regarding special tax breaks has only one viable response: you oppose special tax breaks. The details appear unimportant to you, regardless of what those details may be
Correct. I oppose them all. There is no reason I need to rate and categorize them, that is pointless. They are all tilting the playing field. There is no real difference between any of them. Government tilting the playing field is always bad. Government needs to stay out of picking market winners and losers.
If you want to categorize and rank them, that's fine. I don't need to play that pointless game
Then why come argue in a thread about just such a detail, where people "categorize and rank them"?
Why wouldn't I say argue that special tax breaks are an infringement on capitalism and should be ended and ranking them is pointless since they are equivalencies?
I've never seen you apply this standard in any other thread ever.
I also said Delta was stupid for doing that in a red State when they were getting a sweet heart deal. But I'm glad they did so the State ended it
If it's pointless, I understand saying it's pointless, but haven't you been arguing that there's nothing wrong with it?
If it's pointless, I understand saying it's pointless, but haven't you been arguing that there's nothing wrong with it?
No. Saying Delta was stupid is not saying I support what the GA legislature did. You're just not that bright.
There was a guy who robbed a store, was running from the cops and refused to drop a bag of quarters he was carrying. I was like wow, what a dumb ass.
Your argument is oh your God, kaz supports robbing stores.
It's just butt stupid. There is zero contradictory with saying Delta was stupid for what they did in a red State and I want their special tax break ended regardless. You're obviously not a college graduate
And this:Another issue I have is that if specific companies are going to get tax breaks, they should not be hacking politics for either side.
And this:When Delta is getting a perk not given to other companies from the people of Georgia, they should stay out of politics.
And you like to ignore that Delta made the choice to enter politics when they were getting a tax break from the people of Georgia.
Choices have consequences no matter how much you want to pretend they don't.
Everything you said would be reasonable if we were talking about a negative right. But talking about positive rights as if they are negative rights is a non starter.
If the legislature passed a law targeted at Delta to remove a tax break everyone gets, your argument would be valid. Arguing removing a tax break no one else gets is BS.
If it's pointless, I understand saying it's pointless, but haven't you been arguing that there's nothing wrong with it?
No. Saying Delta was stupid is not saying I support what the GA legislature did. You're just not that bright.
There was a guy who robbed a store, was running from the cops and refused to drop a bag of quarters he was carrying. I was like wow, what a dumb ass.
Your argument is oh your God, kaz supports robbing stores.
It's just butt stupid. There is zero contradictory with saying Delta was stupid for what they did in a red State and I want their special tax break ended regardless. You're obviously not a college graduate
Well, you said this:
And this:Another issue I have is that if specific companies are going to get tax breaks, they should not be hacking politics for either side.
And this:When Delta is getting a perk not given to other companies from the people of Georgia, they should stay out of politics.
And you like to ignore that Delta made the choice to enter politics when they were getting a tax break from the people of Georgia.
Choices have consequences no matter how much you want to pretend they don't.
I misinterpreted those kinds of statements, and the fact you have been arguing with people who are saying the GA government was wrong for the way they used the tax break as a pressure, to be indicating that there was nothing wrong with the GA government using the tax break as a pressure.
You also said this:
Everything you said would be reasonable if we were talking about a negative right. But talking about positive rights as if they are negative rights is a non starter.
If the legislature passed a law targeted at Delta to remove a tax break everyone gets, your argument would be valid. Arguing removing a tax break no one else gets is BS.
That was in response to a post of mine in which I said the issue is not about Delta getting a tax break, but about Cagle and the GA government using a tax break to pressure Delta into giving a particular discount. Again, it seemed to indicate that you don't have a problem with the GA government doing what they did. Again, I may have misinterpreted your meaning.
There are other such statements, as well. Individually, and taken as a whole, those statements and the context they have within this thread give an impression that you do not oppose the way the GA government used the potential tax break to attempt to pressure Delta into reinstating the NRA convention discount. I apologize if that impression was incorrect.
Of course, I find it hard to muster too much contrition, considering the way you so quickly tossed around false assumptions about my political affiliations and how I would react to this situation with the involvement of different organizations; even going so far as to bring up examples I had already used and assuming my stance would be different if those organizations were the ones involved. You also indicated that I have been opposing the NRA when I have done no such thing. Despite having made these sorts of assumptions, I have not been rude to you, nor insulted you, yet you have no problem doing those things. Perhaps you might consider the phrase about stones and glass houses...
If it's pointless, I understand saying it's pointless, but haven't you been arguing that there's nothing wrong with it?
No. Saying Delta was stupid is not saying I support what the GA legislature did. You're just not that bright.
There was a guy who robbed a store, was running from the cops and refused to drop a bag of quarters he was carrying. I was like wow, what a dumb ass.
Your argument is oh your God, kaz supports robbing stores.
It's just butt stupid. There is zero contradictory with saying Delta was stupid for what they did in a red State and I want their special tax break ended regardless. You're obviously not a college graduate
Well, you said this:
And this:Another issue I have is that if specific companies are going to get tax breaks, they should not be hacking politics for either side.
And this:When Delta is getting a perk not given to other companies from the people of Georgia, they should stay out of politics.
And you like to ignore that Delta made the choice to enter politics when they were getting a tax break from the people of Georgia.
Choices have consequences no matter how much you want to pretend they don't.
I misinterpreted those kinds of statements, and the fact you have been arguing with people who are saying the GA government was wrong for the way they used the tax break as a pressure, to be indicating that there was nothing wrong with the GA government using the tax break as a pressure.
You also said this:
Everything you said would be reasonable if we were talking about a negative right. But talking about positive rights as if they are negative rights is a non starter.
If the legislature passed a law targeted at Delta to remove a tax break everyone gets, your argument would be valid. Arguing removing a tax break no one else gets is BS.
That was in response to a post of mine in which I said the issue is not about Delta getting a tax break, but about Cagle and the GA government using a tax break to pressure Delta into giving a particular discount. Again, it seemed to indicate that you don't have a problem with the GA government doing what they did. Again, I may have misinterpreted your meaning.
There are other such statements, as well. Individually, and taken as a whole, those statements and the context they have within this thread give an impression that you do not oppose the way the GA government used the potential tax break to attempt to pressure Delta into reinstating the NRA convention discount. I apologize if that impression was incorrect.
Of course, I find it hard to muster too much contrition, considering the way you so quickly tossed around false assumptions about my political affiliations and how I would react to this situation with the involvement of different organizations; even going so far as to bring up examples I had already used and assuming my stance would be different if those organizations were the ones involved. You also indicated that I have been opposing the NRA when I have done no such thing. Despite having made these sorts of assumptions, I have not been rude to you, nor insulted you, yet you have no problem doing those things. Perhaps you might consider the phrase about stones and glass houses...
If it's pointless, I understand saying it's pointless, but haven't you been arguing that there's nothing wrong with it?
No. Saying Delta was stupid is not saying I support what the GA legislature did. You're just not that bright.
There was a guy who robbed a store, was running from the cops and refused to drop a bag of quarters he was carrying. I was like wow, what a dumb ass.
Your argument is oh your God, kaz supports robbing stores.
It's just butt stupid. There is zero contradictory with saying Delta was stupid for what they did in a red State and I want their special tax break ended regardless. You're obviously not a college graduate
Well, you said this:
And this:Another issue I have is that if specific companies are going to get tax breaks, they should not be hacking politics for either side.
And this:When Delta is getting a perk not given to other companies from the people of Georgia, they should stay out of politics.
And you like to ignore that Delta made the choice to enter politics when they were getting a tax break from the people of Georgia.
Choices have consequences no matter how much you want to pretend they don't.
I misinterpreted those kinds of statements, and the fact you have been arguing with people who are saying the GA government was wrong for the way they used the tax break as a pressure, to be indicating that there was nothing wrong with the GA government using the tax break as a pressure.
You also said this:
Everything you said would be reasonable if we were talking about a negative right. But talking about positive rights as if they are negative rights is a non starter.
If the legislature passed a law targeted at Delta to remove a tax break everyone gets, your argument would be valid. Arguing removing a tax break no one else gets is BS.
That was in response to a post of mine in which I said the issue is not about Delta getting a tax break, but about Cagle and the GA government using a tax break to pressure Delta into giving a particular discount. Again, it seemed to indicate that you don't have a problem with the GA government doing what they did. Again, I may have misinterpreted your meaning.
There are other such statements, as well. Individually, and taken as a whole, those statements and the context they have within this thread give an impression that you do not oppose the way the GA government used the potential tax break to attempt to pressure Delta into reinstating the NRA convention discount. I apologize if that impression was incorrect.
Of course, I find it hard to muster too much contrition, considering the way you so quickly tossed around false assumptions about my political affiliations and how I would react to this situation with the involvement of different organizations; even going so far as to bring up examples I had already used and assuming my stance would be different if those organizations were the ones involved. You also indicated that I have been opposing the NRA when I have done no such thing. Despite having made these sorts of assumptions, I have not been rude to you, nor insulted you, yet you have no problem doing those things. Perhaps you might consider the phrase about stones and glass houses...
I tip my hat to your endurance with the spinning top!
