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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bull.... They probably gave Delta those tax breaks to bring or keep them there to begin with... ..States and local governments are always doing that it's, part of the competitive process between state and local governments

Wrong. They cut those tax exemptions in 2015. And the Gov and Lt Gov were bringing them back this year.

And Delta has been in Atlanta since 1941.

As for competition between states, how is punishing one of the biggest employers in your state competition with other states? Is the competition how to meddle in the affairs of private businesses?

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

They are a private company in that they are not a government agency or owned by the government.

And the question still remains, why are you ok with the government of Georgia tried to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity

it's not about a discount, it's about discriminating based on politics...that should be unacceptable to you or anyone else

From what I have read, the NRA only used the discount 13 times last year. Apparently they didn't think much of the discount. But being denied publicly bothered them. So they sent their politicians after Delta for the perceived insult.

It doesn't matter if it was one or a thousand. And BTW, the discounts were offered to members--not the NRA.

The point is that they indeed took a political position. They didn't have to choose a side, but they did.

It's upsetting to leftists that the local governments are looking to take away a tax break, but not a word when the IRS targeted conservative groups or the FBI submitting phony material to a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on a political adversary.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians.

What influence? The NRA is one of the lowest contributors to the Republican party. And BTW, they also contributed to Democrat candidates in the past.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats made the NRA a political issue,

Not sure what channel you've been watching but when I heard "NRA" it was brought up, repeatedly, by the high school students who survived the shooting. Where do you get "Democrats" --- or any political party --- out of that?

It's been promoted by the MSM. The students got their cue from them. The MSM is a mouth piece for the Democrat party; one of the same people really.

Even if there were such a thing as "the Democrat party [sic]" ----------- link?

 

[Jroc]

Bull.... They probably gave Delta those tax breaks to bring or keep them there to begin with... ..States and local governments are always doing that it's, part of the competitive process between state and local governments

Wrong. They cut those tax exemptions in 2015. And the Gov and Lt Gov were bringing them back this year.

And Delta has been in Atlanta since 1941.

As for competition between states, how is punishing one of the biggest employers in your state competition with other states? Is the competition how to meddle in the affairs of private businesses?

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

I am sure most states would LOVE to lure Delta away. They employ 33,000 people in GA and contribute $45 billion to the economy.

But the only way this is a competition is if the competition is to run your major employers away.

Yes, Delta is a publically traded corporation. But that still does not excuse the Georgia state gov't for punishing them for a business decision. As I said before, that is gov't meddling where it does not belong.

Which is also why I am ridiculing the (so called) conservatives for supporting the actions of the GA legislature. After years of calling for smaller, less intrusive gov't, this is what they support?

It wasn't a business decision, the decision ultimately was a political decision by company bureaucrats. The best 'business decision" would have been to stay out of it, and do their business...How many stock holders do you think are NRA members and gun owners ?

It was a business decision to divest themselves of perceived connections to an organization that is being held responsible, whether accurate or not. There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians. Delta had a minor connection with the NRA via a discount program that was all but ignored. They ended it. Considering how few discounts were used, the NRA apparently didn't think much of the program either. Until it was publicly removed.

Responsible for what?...its called political pandering, by idiot executives.

 

[Pogo]

Where do you see "attack" in that quote?

That term was used by Lieutenant Dipshit whose water you're carrying. But good to know you agree he's full of shit, that's a start at least.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. How very typical liberal of you.

Where did I bring up "political parties"? Hm?
You seem desperate to change the subject. I didn't even look up Lieutenant Dipshit's political party. It's irrelevant to anything.

Because this is a political subject? This NRA thing is definitely right vs left.

Once AGAIN the question was -- "where do you see anything about political parties?" It was not "where do you see anything about 'right' and 'left'. It wouldn't be that, because what you actually posted was:

And you don't think Democrats do the same?

--- see anything there about "right and left"? Hm?

Once AGAIN --- you're the only wag trying to make this about "political parties". Apparently you can't handle the topic.

Why would I give a ****? I gave up that filthy shit decades ago.
Here's what they cost me: $0.00.

Ah, I see, so as long as it doesn't affect you, you're okay with government trying to control industry to their liking provided it's your side that has the control.

Once AGAIN for the cognitively blind -- I'm *against* government trying to force an outside company into taking a political position it CHOOSES NOT TO TAKE. There is no way you can dishonestly spin my stance into its own opposite. NONE.

Besides which, once AGAIN state or federal government levying sin taxes is in no way comparable to Lieutenant Dipshit here. Cigarette taxes are not increased or decreased based on whether R.J. Reynolds chooses to offer its product at a discount to anybody's political PIMPS. OK? So stop insulting everybody's intelligence trying to sell this utter bullshit.

Once again, desperate reach to try to morph the topic into "political parties" and "cigarettes". Never heard of a "roll your own cigarette shop" even though I used to do just that. No idea where you're going with this or what the **** it's got to do with a Georgia Lieutenant Dipshit trying to coerce a company to align with him politically for special favors. If you could just y'know, go ahead and trot out examples (even one) of a cigarette buyer who gets taxed more or less depending on his political position, that'd be great.

Tobacco products are political; has been for many years. They are the enemy of the Democrat party. Just like oil, gun manufacturers, fracking and other commonly used energy.

Once AGAIN you're obsessed with shifting the topic here to "political parties". It's not going to work.

Taxing people on a commodity; taxing a business more or less based on whether or not that business slobs your political knob? YUGE difference. But do illustrate for the class these cases of "O'bama" or "political parties" or whatever cockamamie deflection you want to bring up next, threatening to tax people based on whether or not they give a cut-rate fare to some political SIG. I won't bother to wait for an answer.

I guess I have to spell it out for you, but I have to inform you USMB doesn't give us the ability to write in crayons.

GA is trying to pressure a company to do things their way using taxation.

The Democrats try to force people off of tobacco products using taxation.

DumBama tried to force people into government dependency using taxation in Commie Care.

Democrats have given alternative powered vehicles subsides (tax breaks) to buy a product people would otherwise not purchase because of cost.

DumBama closed down coal fired power plants by forcing them to make unreasonable investments.

DumBama closed down cigarette shops via taxation.

It's all the same. It's government controlling what a business or individuals do via taxation or regulation. If you think government should stay out of business adventures, fine with me. I'm all for it. But stay out of all business decisions right or left.

---- QED. Can't deal with the topic and all we get is endless diarrhea of "b-but but O'bama" this and "b-but but Democrats" that. *NONE* of which is in any way related to this topic.

 

[Pogo]

Publicly announcing they were doing it because "NRA" is attacking them.

Is not sentence.

And you don't know what a fascist is, you far closer fit the definition than I do

Hey, you're the one cheering on government coercion to influence how a company operates its own business. Now me, I don't believe government has any such right to meddle in how a business chooses its own policies. What that makes me is a "Liberal".

You're not a liberal, I am. You are a leftist. They are entirely different

They are indeed entirely different, a distinction lost on many.

But you'll note which one of is taking the stand against government trying to coerce a business into assuming its preferred political posture. That, obviously, makes me the Liberal. Much as I hate to say it about this particular company, Lieutenant Dipshit needs to leave Delta the **** alone.

 

[Pogo]

Bingo! This is it exactly. The Georgia legislature removed nothing that Delta was entitled to.

And if we switched parties, you'd switch to that Delta deserved it for being political. I would still oppose special tax breaks for big companies

And you assume I care about the political parties involved because?....

I don't care what party is being overly intrusive here. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter; politicians will use government in ways they shouldn't regardless of political affiliation. I also don't care that it involves the NRA, nor Delta; it's the intrusive nature of the actions that bother me, not which companies or organizations are involved.

Whatever Delta may deserve, it should not be meted out by government in this instance.

Only a leftist would care that a big corporation lost a special tax break other companies don't get because they decided to be political and attack the NRA.

Delta was getting a benefit from the people of Georgia. All of them, not just the leftists. Staying out of politics would have been a smart thing to do.

I'm glad they didn't. I oppose special tax breaks and I'm glad they lost it

It isn't about Delta losing a tax break. I have no problem with Delta losing the tax break. It is the way the government went about it, using a tax break as a lever to try to get one private corporation to continue giving a discount to a private organization. Cagle pretty specifically said that he would kill any legislation that gave Delta a fuel tax break unless they returned to giving the NRA discounts for their convention.

You are insisting the issue is Delta getting a tax break. It is not. It is about representatives using the power of government to try to force a private company to give a discount to a particular organization. I would be happier without so many tax breaks, with a simplified tax system that does not try to social engineer the way ours does.

I agree, but what goes around comes around.

What did DumBama threaten businesses with if they didn't provide employer sponsored healthcare coverage to their employees? Not only healthcare, but with his vote buying riders like birth control?

But that wasn't enough. He also raped taxpayers of their income tax return if THEY didn't have coverage; as if they didn't have enough financial problems as it was.

The liberals sure didn't mind that. In fact, they reelected him afterward. Now they are coming to the aid of Delta because using tax brakes is immoral, unconstitutional and over powering.

The thing with leftists is that Montrovant wrote that all up as if he's reasonable and balanced and this is a serious issue to him. Pogo and dblack thank him for imparting such an eloquent justification for how the GA legislature was wrong.

And yet if we switched parties, the three of them would all switch sides. The argument meant nothing to any of them. It was just a homework assignment in a rhetoric class.

That's why you can't get anywhere debating them. You can destroy their argument, like you did. But tomorrow they're going to argue whatever position benefits the Democrat party too.

And they keep blowing off the point that it's foolish for big corporations to get so directly involved in politics. Again if we switched sides, they would suddenly get it

Speculation fallacy fall down, go splat.

If all you got is contriving imaginary scenaria that you can't prove because you just made them up, then by definition you have nothing.

 

[Pogo]

And you assume I care about the political parties involved because?....

I don't care what party is being overly intrusive here. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter; politicians will use government in ways they shouldn't regardless of political affiliation. I also don't care that it involves the NRA, nor Delta; it's the intrusive nature of the actions that bother me, not which companies or organizations are involved.

Whatever Delta may deserve, it should not be meted out by government in this instance.

Only a leftist would care that a big corporation lost a special tax break other companies don't get because they decided to be political and attack the NRA.

Delta was getting a benefit from the people of Georgia. All of them, not just the leftists. Staying out of politics would have been a smart thing to do.

I'm glad they didn't. I oppose special tax breaks and I'm glad they lost it

It isn't about Delta losing a tax break. I have no problem with Delta losing the tax break. It is the way the government went about it, using a tax break as a lever to try to get one private corporation to continue giving a discount to a private organization. Cagle pretty specifically said that he would kill any legislation that gave Delta a fuel tax break unless they returned to giving the NRA discounts for their convention.

You are insisting the issue is Delta getting a tax break. It is not. It is about representatives using the power of government to try to force a private company to give a discount to a particular organization. I would be happier without so many tax breaks, with a simplified tax system that does not try to social engineer the way ours does.

I agree, but what goes around comes around.

What did DumBama threaten businesses with if they didn't provide employer sponsored healthcare coverage to their employees? Not only healthcare, but with his vote buying riders like birth control?

But that wasn't enough. He also raped taxpayers of their income tax return if THEY didn't have coverage; as if they didn't have enough financial problems as it was.

The liberals sure didn't mind that. In fact, they reelected him afterward. Now they are coming to the aid of Delta because using tax brakes is immoral, unconstitutional and over powering.

I am not a fan of the ACA. However, there is an important difference involved; namely, that the ACA did not target an individual business and use the power of government to get that business to give a discount, or other special consideration, to any individual organization. While I opposed the mandate from the beginning, I think it is a different issue. Both are a misuse of government power IMO, however.

You are so full of shit. They removed a tax cut targeting a certain business. They did not target a certain business. Delta for that is now treated like everyone else. They are not targeted.

And if it was the ACLU, you'd suddenly get that

Delta was directly targeted, by name.

The law was written to benefit Delta and it disproportionately does.

Yuh huh.

Link?

 

[Pogo]

Bingo! This is it exactly. The Georgia legislature removed nothing that Delta was entitled to.

And if we switched parties, you'd switch to that Delta deserved it for being political. I would still oppose special tax breaks for big companies

And you assume I care about the political parties involved because?....

I don't care what party is being overly intrusive here. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter; politicians will use government in ways they shouldn't regardless of political affiliation. I also don't care that it involves the NRA, nor Delta; it's the intrusive nature of the actions that bother me, not which companies or organizations are involved.

Whatever Delta may deserve, it should not be meted out by government in this instance.

Only a leftist would care that a big corporation lost a special tax break other companies don't get because they decided to be political and attack the NRA.

Delta was getting a benefit from the people of Georgia. All of them, not just the leftists. Staying out of politics would have been a smart thing to do.

I'm glad they didn't. I oppose special tax breaks and I'm glad they lost it

It isn't about Delta losing a tax break. I have no problem with Delta losing the tax break. It is the way the government went about it, using a tax break as a lever to try to get one private corporation to continue giving a discount to a private organization. Cagle pretty specifically said that he would kill any legislation that gave Delta a fuel tax break unless they returned to giving the NRA discounts for their convention.

You are insisting the issue is Delta getting a tax break. It is not. It is about representatives using the power of government to try to force a private company to give a discount to a particular organization. I would be happier without so many tax breaks, with a simplified tax system that does not try to social engineer the way ours does.

Swish.

Again, it's the difference between negative rights and positive rights. Positive rights are not legitimate rights.

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 the politics were flipped, you'd flip in a heart beat. If Delta had say targeted Planned Parenthood with it's vitriol and Georgia did this, you'd be singing their praises. This isn't a real issue to you. Not remotely.

As Michael Jordan said when he swatted an attempted layup into the fifth row, get that shit out of here.

Also if we were talking PP, you'd suddenly get that it is ridiculous for companies to get involved in public politics

You clearly are looking at this through a partisan lens, either your own or what you expect from others. What about my posting would indicate to you that my opinion would change based on the targeted organization? Do you know of some history of my praising Planned Parenthood? Before you ever posted on this thread, I actually brought up Planned Parenthood as an example of how this same situation would be wrong regardless of the political leanings of the organization involved. Go read post #73.

Moreover, I haven't been saying anything about rights being violated. As far as I know, the move by the Georgia government was perfectly legal (although my knowledge of relevant GA law is far from complete, so it's possible that some law or constitutional provision was violated). I haven't claimed anyone's rights were violated, positive or negative. I've said, over and over, that I consider what the Georgia government did a misuse of government power. They explicitly made a tax break contingent upon whether a single private company gave a discount to a private organization.

The tax break in question, from what I have read, would have been for all airlines, not just Delta. So, in effect, the Georgia legislature apparently did pass a law targeted at Delta that removed a tax break all airlines get. I'm not sure why Delta would have gotten so much of the money from the tax break (supposedly $40 million of the $50 million total), but it was more than just Delta involved. Perhaps other airlines don't use Atlanta for refueling very often. Delta cutting ties with the NRA could cost the airline $40 million

Companies can make political statements at their own discretion. There may be consequences if they do so. My problem is that, in a case such as this, those consequences should come from the private sector, not the government.

You're obviously free to assume that my opposition is due to my political leanings, or my opposition to the NRA, or whatever other explanation you care to create in your mind. Those assumptions are not based on my posts, however.

Eloquently expressed. We're apparently dealing with dichotomists incapable of seeing the world in anything but binary terms.

The law doesn't, far as we know, name Delta. The tweet from Lieutenant Dipshit did that. If memory serves he said he would block any tax break that benefited Delta ---- which is not the same thing as saying he would block a tax break FOR Delta (Delta would not be the only beneficiary of the same tax break). Delta's part would be significant because using Atlanta as its main hub Delta dominates airline travel in Georgia like Coca-cola does --- yet Pepsi and Dr Pepper are still sold there.

 

[Pogo]

No, staying out of politics would mean not making any changes because of politics. But they did, so they did get involved with politics. They chose a side.

Couldn't they be said to have chosen a side by giving the NRA members a discount in the first place?

I don't think the NRA was as political of an issue as it is now that the Democrats dragged them into it somehow. They have over 5 million members and even more supporters. The NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting.

I don't think it's only Democrats that have issues with the NRA, but I agree, they are in no way responsible for the Florida school shooting. Mass shootings, particularly school shootings, bring out very emotional and sometimes irrational responses. I understand even when I don't agree. Parents become afraid for their children, and want something to change so that these types of shootings are less likely. School employees become afraid for themselves and the students they are responsible for. People look for a target, and the NRA is an easy one.

I appreciate your honesty. But that is the point; Democrats made the NRA a political issue, and Delta responded (caved) to that political issue. In other words, if Delta removed those perks before the shooting, I wouldn't have any problem with it. I wouldn't have any problem with the tax break either.

I don't like targeted tax breaks. Everyone should get the break. When you target tax breaks, that's government picking marketplace winners and losers. And they ALWAYS pick big companies as winners because they are the ones who line their pockets

Once AGAIN you don't seem to get that this wouldn't have been a "Delta tax break" ---- it would have been an "airline tax break", of which Delta is one. Delta is only in the conversation because Lieutenant Dipshit PUT IT THERE.

But again, Montrovant just told you this, Gator told you this, I told you this, and all you do is go

 

[Pogo]

You didn't know it's a special tax break? Seriously? Haven't you read any of the articles on the thread you keep posting in?

No, what I did was read the actual bill itself and find out it was for all airlines purchasing jet fuel in Georgia.

Perhaps next time you might choose to educate yourself and not rely on the left wing media.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The law was written to benefit Delta and it disproportionately does. What you have there is a distinction without a difference. Everyone knows the law was written for Delta.

And how are fuel taxes treated for non-airline industries? Like airlines? Or not ...

the benefits did benefit delta, but they were extended to *all* airlines and i do believe *all* airlines are losing it regardless of delta.

As I said in another post, from what I read Delta would be getting about 4/5 of the benefit from the tax break, or $40 of 50 million. I would imagine it is because other airlines tend to refuel at other locations.

Hartsfield is a Delta hub. Over 75% of all flights out of Hartsfield are Delta and Hartsfield is the busiest airport in the world. Probably higher at the smaller airport as Delta is the local hop carrier. It's not that other airlines act differently in Atlanta, it's that Delta is just so much bigger there than everyone else combined.

Georgia is also a red State. Attacking the NRA there was a particularly stupid idea

It's also a nonexistent one. I asked you several days ago to demonstrate where this "attack" is. And you ran away. Lieutenant Dipshit tried to get away with the same bullshit, and it smelled the same too.

Fascisti have to understand ---- the government can't FORCE a business to take a political position it chooses not to take. Therefore that business declining to take such a position can only, if at all, be described as an "attack" ---- by the government.

But you go ahead, prove us all wrong and show us how the government CAN INDEED force a private company to take a political position it chooses not to take. This oughta be a classic.

 

[Pogo]

Even with all this dancing, you still have not explained why you are ok with government trying to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity

That's because I don't need to explain positions that you made up.

I've said that tax break should be repealed regardless of Delta and the NRA. Or better yet, keep it and extend it to everyone

Unfortunately for your spin cycle the topic is not about whether or not Georgia should be offering an aviation fuel tax break. It's about whether government is within its bounds trying to coerce a private company (any company) to take a political position (any position) it does not wish to take. Those of us on the Liberal side declare that it can't do that.

I see whereas the other fascist Ray tries to dance this topic over to "political parties", you're trying to shift it over to "libertarianism". I suspect you both know you're on the wrong side and are looking for an exit door instead of admitting you came in the wrong way.

 

[Pogo]

Delta should leave Georgia.

Not worth the hassle.

Whoever posted some crapola about how this "will cost Delta 40 million" is full of shit. Since the tax applies to aviation fuel for anybody, and since that means the cost of doing business in Georgia goes up for everybody, that means Lieutenant Dipshit's little hissyfit will cost consumers 40 million --- not Delta.

 

[Pogo]

They choose to tell the Ga Senate to **** off, they will not be forced to give another private entity a discount no matter how hard statist like you want them to.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It's called competition with other States, that's a good thing.....you throw around the word "statist" to liberally and it's not in context

Your logic escapes me. Can you explain how the government of Georgia trying to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity is an example of competition with other states?

A statist is "advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs." I say that the the government of Georgia trying to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity is the a textbook example of state having (or trying to have) substantial control over economic affairs

Bull.... They probably gave Delta those tax breaks to bring or keep them there to begin with... ..States and local governments are always doing that it's, part of the competitive process between state and local governments

Wrong. They cut those tax exemptions in 2015. And the Gov and Lt Gov were bringing them back this year.

And Delta has been in Atlanta since 1941.

As for competition between states, how is punishing one of the biggest employers in your state competition with other states? Is the competition how to meddle in the affairs of private businesses?

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

Once AGAIN ---- "staying out of these political issues" was exactly what Delta was doing. It was Lieutenant Governor Dipstick who wants to FORCE Delta (specifically) to TAKE a position.

Y'all revisionists seem to think by posting the same Doublethink revisionism over and over and over, the Ministry of Truth makes it into a real thing. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong. They cut those tax exemptions in 2015. And the Gov and Lt Gov were bringing them back this year.

And Delta has been in Atlanta since 1941.

As for competition between states, how is punishing one of the biggest employers in your state competition with other states? Is the competition how to meddle in the affairs of private businesses?

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

They are a private company in that they are not a government agency or owned by the government.

And the question still remains, why are you ok with the government of Georgia tried to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity

it's not about a discount, it's about discriminating based on politics...that should be unacceptable to you or anyone else

From what I have read, the NRA only used the discount 13 times last year. Apparently they didn't think much of the discount. But being denied publicly bothered them. So they sent their politicians after Delta for the perceived insult.

It doesn't matter if it was one or a thousand. And BTW, the discounts were offered to members--not the NRA.

The point is that they indeed took a political position. They didn't have to choose a side, but they did.

It's upsetting to leftists that the local governments are looking to take away a tax break, but not a word when the IRS targeted conservative groups or the FBI submitting phony material to a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on a political adversary.

A member of the NRA is the NRA.

Not being a leftist, the argument "They do it too" is a waste of time. I am angry at the manipulation of private businesses by the gov't. Although, when you make remarks about leftists and then are in favor of such blatant gov't interference, it seems hypocritical.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians.

What influence? The NRA is one of the lowest contributors to the Republican party. And BTW, they also contributed to Democrat candidates in the past.

The amount of money is not the point. Are you claiming the NRA does not wield a great deal of influence?

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong. They cut those tax exemptions in 2015. And the Gov and Lt Gov were bringing them back this year.

And Delta has been in Atlanta since 1941.

As for competition between states, how is punishing one of the biggest employers in your state competition with other states? Is the competition how to meddle in the affairs of private businesses?

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

I am sure most states would LOVE to lure Delta away. They employ 33,000 people in GA and contribute $45 billion to the economy.

But the only way this is a competition is if the competition is to run your major employers away.

Yes, Delta is a publically traded corporation. But that still does not excuse the Georgia state gov't for punishing them for a business decision. As I said before, that is gov't meddling where it does not belong.

Which is also why I am ridiculing the (so called) conservatives for supporting the actions of the GA legislature. After years of calling for smaller, less intrusive gov't, this is what they support?

It wasn't a business decision, the decision ultimately was a political decision by company bureaucrats. The best 'business decision" would have been to stay out of it, and do their business...How many stock holders do you think are NRA members and gun owners ?

It was a business decision to divest themselves of perceived connections to an organization that is being held responsible, whether accurate or not. There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians. Delta had a minor connection with the NRA via a discount program that was all but ignored. They ended it. Considering how few discounts were used, the NRA apparently didn't think much of the program either. Until it was publicly removed.

Responsible for what?...its called political pandering, by idiot executives.

It is called reacting to public opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians.

What influence? The NRA is one of the lowest contributors to the Republican party. And BTW, they also contributed to Democrat candidates in the past.

The amount of money is not the point. Are you claiming the NRA does not wield a great deal of influence?

Yes, that's what I'm claiming. Many Republican constituents are strong constitutional supporters particularly the 2nd. So any support our representatives provide when it comes to guns is more because of us than the NRA. Money helps when it comes to getting elected, but votes are more important.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some other state could lure them away then...States can do what they want. If Delta moved to another state then they do...Big business should stay out of these political issues or suffer the consequences..Delta is not a private business

They are a private company in that they are not a government agency or owned by the government.

And the question still remains, why are you ok with the government of Georgia tried to force one private entity to give a financial discount to another private entity

it's not about a discount, it's about discriminating based on politics...that should be unacceptable to you or anyone else

From what I have read, the NRA only used the discount 13 times last year. Apparently they didn't think much of the discount. But being denied publicly bothered them. So they sent their politicians after Delta for the perceived insult.

It doesn't matter if it was one or a thousand. And BTW, the discounts were offered to members--not the NRA.

The point is that they indeed took a political position. They didn't have to choose a side, but they did.

It's upsetting to leftists that the local governments are looking to take away a tax break, but not a word when the IRS targeted conservative groups or the FBI submitting phony material to a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on a political adversary.

A member of the NRA is the NRA.

Not being a leftist, the argument "They do it too" is a waste of time. I am angry at the manipulation of private businesses by the gov't. Although, when you make remarks about leftists and then are in favor of such blatant gov't interference, it seems hypocritical.

I don't see hypocrisy on the right as much as I do on the left. The right (here) are saying that we are not really crazy about what they are doing to Delta, but on the other hand, the left here are now strongly against government interference with private industry. What????

When the left tries to control industry, Democrat voters have no problem with it at all. Our position more or less is "So how do you like it?"

 

[WinterBorn]

There is a large uproar over the NRA's influence over politicians.

What influence? The NRA is one of the lowest contributors to the Republican party. And BTW, they also contributed to Democrat candidates in the past.

The amount of money is not the point. Are you claiming the NRA does not wield a great deal of influence?

Yes, that's what I'm claiming. Many Republican constituents are strong constitutional supporters particularly the 2nd. So any support our representatives provide when it comes to guns is more because of us than the NRA. Money helps when it comes to getting elected, but votes are more important.

That is laughable. Do you think Cagle made a point to tie the tax exemption to Delta getting back with the NRA because he is a 2nd amendment supporter? That is hilarious!

The removal of the discount didn't matter. It was that a major corporation distanced themselves from the NRA in a very public way. Cagle could have easily stopped the tax exemption without such a public display. But that would not have accomplished when they wanted.

The fact that constituents are strong 2nd amendment supporters does not explain the almost complete invulnerability of the NRA and gun ownership.