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

[Cecilie1200]

no one accused them of doing anything illegal. the state merely made a neutrality decision.

The state was not neutral, the state took the side of one private entity over another...something that should bother everyone.

I am betting the next time it happens m, but this time the state picks the BLM to support, you will not be so agreeable about it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How? Amazon isn't making any adjustments to punish the NRA. So why would they care?

Because the message Conservatives are sending is that they will punish a business if that business does not conform to their ideological beliefs. Who wants that headache or threat? Not Amazon.

So basically, the same message the left has been sending for years with all their screaming boycotts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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.

Again, state governments have ALWAYS used tax breaks to advance the interests of their people. And they've always had criteria the companies have had to meet to get them. "Don't offend the people of our state" is not usually something that has to be spelled out explicitly, because . . . duh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I frequently disagree with the tax deals my state and local governments make. I HATE the ones they make about sports stadiums, for example. And the city I previously lived in, Tucson, couldn't seem to attract decent employers to town to save their (putative) souls.

But that's not the same as saying they don't legitimately have the power to make those deals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

 

[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.

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

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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.

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

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and i could just as easily say the liberals pushed delta to punish the NRA's user base.

this is what happens when extreme mindsets will have no way but their own.

 

[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?

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.

You are correct, and I used a poor choice of words. I should have said that they put the tax break legislation on hold, or something along those lines.

If Georgians spoke to their representatives and told them they were opposed to airline tax breaks, I absolutely support the Georgia government deciding not to go forward with it.

 

[Montrovant]

The state was not neutral, the state took the side of one private entity over another...something that should bother everyone.

I am betting the next time it happens m, but this time the state picks the BLM to support, you will not be so agreeable about it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I frequently disagree with the tax deals my state and local governments make. I HATE the ones they make about sports stadiums, for example. And the city I previously lived in, Tucson, couldn't seem to attract decent employers to town to save their (putative) souls.

But that's not the same as saying they don't legitimately have the power to make those deals.

I have read some opinions/studies regarding stadium deals which indicate those types of deals rarely help the people that state governments claim it will; rather than many citizens of a state benefiting, the stadium deals supposedly help a very few people and organizations.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and i could just as easily say the liberals pushed delta to punish the NRA's user base.

this is what happens when extreme mindsets will have no way but their own.

The comment was that Delta misjudged the climate of the country. I do not agree with that. In the end Delta really has not lost anything and the number of people that might boycott them I say is pretty small.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Montrovant]

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.

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and i could just as easily say the liberals pushed delta to punish the NRA's user base.

this is what happens when extreme mindsets will have no way but their own.

The comment was that Delta misjudged the climate of the country. I do not agree with that. In the end Delta really has not lost anything and the number of people that might boycott them I say is pretty small.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The number of people that outright boycott may be small, but I wonder if this could have a less direct effect on Delta; might people choosing between two similarly priced flights go with another airline, rather than Delta, because of this? It could boost an airline like Southwest, or some other lower-cost airline.

Then again, it might have very little effect. I can't even guess how widely known this story it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You are correct, and I used a poor choice of words. I should have said that they put the tax break legislation on hold, or something along those lines.

If Georgians spoke to their representatives and told them they were opposed to airline tax breaks, I absolutely support the Georgia government deciding not to go forward with it.

Given how quickly after Delta's announcement that the Lt. Gov. spoke, I'm guessing that he was . . . shall we say, anticipating what he thought his base would want, which is not really surprising for a gubernatorial candidate during an election. And since it WAS just a position statement, if he turned out to be wrong, then he could always change direction when it came down to actual action in the Senate. What people are forgetting is that the Georgia Senate hasn't actually done anything at all yet. Unless I missed some breaking news in the past day or two (which is possible), all that's really happened so far is a bunch of different people staking out positions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

You're probably correct about Delta. I think, from past history, they thought they could cave in to the pressure tactics and leave the line of fire with, at most, a couple of days of fuss and feathers in the media. As I said, I think they badly judged just how toxic, polarized, and charged the atmosphere is in this country.

I actually feel kinda sorry for them. They were really in a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

You are correct, and I used a poor choice of words. I should have said that they put the tax break legislation on hold, or something along those lines.

If Georgians spoke to their representatives and told them they were opposed to airline tax breaks, I absolutely support the Georgia government deciding not to go forward with it.

Given how quickly after Delta's announcement that the Lt. Gov. spoke, I'm guessing that he was . . . shall we say, anticipating what he thought his base would want, which is not really surprising for a gubernatorial candidate during an election. And since it WAS just a position statement, if he turned out to be wrong, then he could always change direction when it came down to actual action in the Senate. What people are forgetting is that the Georgia Senate hasn't actually done anything at all yet. Unless I missed some breaking news in the past day or two (which is possible), all that's really happened so far is a bunch of different people staking out positions.

The NRA said jump and the LtGov said "how high"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I frequently disagree with the tax deals my state and local governments make. I HATE the ones they make about sports stadiums, for example. And the city I previously lived in, Tucson, couldn't seem to attract decent employers to town to save their (putative) souls.

But that's not the same as saying they don't legitimately have the power to make those deals.

I have read some opinions/studies regarding stadium deals which indicate those types of deals rarely help the people that state governments claim it will; rather than many citizens of a state benefiting, the stadium deals supposedly help a very few people and organizations.

Exactly.

Now that I live in Phoenix, I can truly appreciate just what an incredibly lousy job Tucson did of attracting new business and employers. Mind you, I don't think Phoenix HAS to offer juicy sweetheart deals to attract big companies, since it's basically a given that if you're going to be in Arizona at all, you're going to have a presence in Phoenix.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and i could just as easily say the liberals pushed delta to punish the NRA's user base.

this is what happens when extreme mindsets will have no way but their own.

The comment was that Delta misjudged the climate of the country. I do not agree with that. In the end Delta really has not lost anything and the number of people that might boycott them I say is pretty small.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

On the contrary. It's far too soon to judge any long-term fallout from this, but Delta is certainly taking a beating right now in public opinion. And no company is casual about that sort of thing. Maybe they calculated that they could weather it, and people would forget and move on quickly. Only time will tell if they're correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It failed miserably. They REALLY misjudged the climate in this country right now.

I would say that the fact the so called conservatives of the country had to get the government to punish Delta that they made the right choice.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and i could just as easily say the liberals pushed delta to punish the NRA's user base.

this is what happens when extreme mindsets will have no way but their own.

The comment was that Delta misjudged the climate of the country. I do not agree with that. In the end Delta really has not lost anything and the number of people that might boycott them I say is pretty small.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The number of people that outright boycott may be small, but I wonder if this could have a less direct effect on Delta; might people choosing between two similarly priced flights go with another airline, rather than Delta, because of this? It could boost an airline like Southwest, or some other lower-cost airline.

Then again, it might have very little effect. I can't even guess how widely known this story it.

Well, that's the sort of thing corporations worry about when it comes to their reputation and public opinion. Maybe it's a short-term flap, or maybe it becomes a permanent part of public perception of them.

 

[iceberg]

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

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

By giving the NRA a discount, couldn't they be said to have already picked a side; by taking the discount away, they are moving from the NRA's side to a neutral ground. I understand the perception that this is a move in opposition to the NRA, and it's possible that's true, but it still ends up being a move from giving the NRA special consideration to not giving them special consideration.

I don't think they viewed it as "taking a side". I think it was just a good business deal at the time. And then it became controversial, and they figured they could just cave to the screamers and remove themselves from the line of fire. But they apparently REALLY misjudged the mood of the country these days, and how willing people on the right are to make a fight of it.

I agree that Delta probably did not consider themselves to be taking a side when the discount began. However, I also think it's likely that Delta wasn't really taking a side by getting rid of the discount, either. In both cases, it seems most likely to have been a purely (or at least mostly) business decision.

Whoever at Delta was in charge of the decision may well have completely underestimated the amount of backlash the decision would bring. It's also possible they expected a worse backlash from anti-gun or anti-NRA people had they kept the discount in place. I don't know which is more likely, although the former would be my guess.

I think Delta underestimated the power that the NRA holds over elected officials.

see - now we're getting back to conspiracy and the NRA being evil.

what does the NRA do that is wrong? let's approach it that way. if you list some major points please link back so i can understand where you're coming from.

i do not agree with all of the NRA stances but the NRA takes *extreme* stances because these people are out there telling lie after lie to attack guns and gun owners. so since i ask you to illustrate, i'll do the same.

we have people in "power" who demand to ban things of which they simply do not understand. this needs to stop and they need to shut up.
Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

we have people who want to end the core of who we are to come get guns *of which* they say they're not coming after.
Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

we have a media who misconstrues guns to the public intentionally to build up fear. if not intentional, then the media is far more stupid than we ever imagined.


this one could well be seen as biased because it is a biased source, but it's good info to help understand the gun advocates.
How The Media, Gun Control Advocates Misrepresent Facts On School Shootings - Bearing Arms - Marshal County High School, school shootings, Stephen Gutkowski

Washington Post Thrashes Media for Pushing ‘Flat Wrong’ Shooting Stat

The Media Keeps Misfiring When It Writes About Guns

New York Times & Gun Control: Fact-Checker Gets Guns Wrong | National Review

and we have a president who openly lies about facts surrounding guns. he said green tipped .223 ammo is armor piercing so it must be banned. he couldn't get the AR15 so lets get the bullets. fyi - green tipped ammo is usually training ammo, nothing more. he knew this, so please tell me why this lie is ok.
Obama's Proposed Ban on 'Green Tip' Bullets Misfires

and now the real clincher - we have a gov and gun control people saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!! and then they do this:
House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

of all the guns i have, my mosin nagant, savage .308, judge and 30-30 i'd get to keep. my ruger 10/22, a simple 22 rifle is now illegal. my handguns are now illegal. they have in fact come for the guns. why?

because they can't define assault rifle to be more than "it looks military!".

assault rifle itself started in germany in WWII - Sturmgewehr, or an MP43.
MP43

fully automatic was the distinction here. but since the AR15 is NOT an original "assault rifle" how do you ban it? what characteristics do you use to ban the AR15 that won't also apply to guns they ORIGINALLY said they'd never take? it looks mean? hardly descriptive enough is it? it was also referred to as "automatic" for so long people lost sight of the original differences between the 2 and in frustration of having to learn, it was easier to simply change the definition of "assault rifle" to be an AR15 but yet, you still can't say what makes it an "assault rifle" by traits no other guns "legal" have. so in typical fashion, the left changes the definition of a word to justify their stance vs. change their stance to agree to a common ground.

if you don't believe they're willing to wordsmith to get their way - this was cute and clever:
CNN Report Invents New Term: 'Full Semi-Automatic' AR-15s. Gun Experts Respond.

"FULL SEMIAUTOMATIC MODE".

just what the hell is fully semi automatic mode? its a way to keep the uneducated scared of a gun they still can't define in order to ban.

so these are examples of WHY the NRA fights so hard against a gov willing to do whatever they can to take away rights defined in the constitution. these are examples of WHY gun advocated simply stopped listening to the media and "common sense" reform. this is WHY they won't give an inch because that's not a compromise, it's a victory for the left and they'll go back for more as shown time and time again. so since they know they CAN'T compromise with the left, what else can they do?

so please give me some examples like this of what the NRA has done to warrant mistrust and be considered something evil, other than stop all the stupidity listed above.

i'm listening with an open mind and look forward to your reply.