Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 15:11:58 GMT
:::smh:::
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 3, 2018 15:49:11 GMT
Even if what Delta did would be considered by some to be unfair, why is it even important that 13 people lost their discounts? Compared to 17 people who were gunned down. Dead.
|
|
scrappinmama
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,997
Jun 26, 2014 12:54:09 GMT
|
Post by scrappinmama on Mar 3, 2018 16:44:11 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. Giving discounts is not a right. Companies can choose to give or not give discounts.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 3, 2018 17:05:30 GMT
I agree about the legislature getting involved -- ridiculous. I also think that giving large tax breaks to individual companies is a bad idea. If Georgia doesn't need the fuel taxes enough to give a break to the largest airline in the state, then the rest of the airlines shouldn't pay it either. The key is Delta has their headquarters in Georgia and other airlines don’t. Giving tax breaks to businesses is designed to keep them and the jobs they generate in the area. The bigger the presence the bigger the potential tax breaks to keep them there Why do you think Amazon has a list of potential sites for its second headquarters? He’s shopping for the best deal. Sometimes it’s advantageous for a state/city to offer tax deals to lure or keep businesses in a particular area. Sometimes not so much. Not to mention that the businesses “do business” with the government legislators where they to get them to stay by offering tax breaks and then other incentives...but God forbid—if you later take what you believe is a moral stance for your business—those same legislators try to kill your business because of politics. I’m sick to death of conservatives/republicans spouting off that the liberals “play politics” (when they choose moral and humanitarian issues)
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 3, 2018 17:27:19 GMT
The key is Delta has their headquarters in Georgia and other airlines don’t. Giving tax breaks to businesses is designed to keep them and the jobs they generate in the area. The bigger the presence the bigger the potential tax breaks to keep them there Why do you think Amazon has a list of potential sites for its second headquarters? He’s shopping for the best deal. Sometimes it’s advantageous for a state/city to offer tax deals to lure or keep businesses in a particular area. Sometimes not so much. Oh, I understand why companies want them, and why states give them. But time and time again in Massachusetts those types of tax breaks have turned out to be a bust. And I'm pissed that Boston is considering the same thing for Amazon. That’s ok, they can back out. Newark needs the jobs more than $$
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 3, 2018 17:36:12 GMT
This is ridiculous. Georgia, you need to get your law makers under control before they tank your economy over something insanely stupid.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,513
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Mar 3, 2018 17:43:13 GMT
DH adores Tybee Island and Savannah. Now he's ready to buy Delta flights to anywhere but Georgia.
Georgia lawmakers, cutting off your nose to spite your face.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Mar 3, 2018 18:01:05 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. Giving discounts is not a right. Companies can choose to give or not give discounts. Yes I get that thanks.. I never said it was a right...It was already had it clarified as to the why. I still don't know if I agree with it but they can decide.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 21:05:37 GMT
Even if what Delta did would be considered by some to be unfair, why is it even important that 13 people lost their discounts? Compared to 17 people who were gunned down. Dead. Of course one doesn't compare to the other. The problem people see is that the NRA did not cause this or any other shooting. Not a single member of the NRA has ever done this. Not a single NRA member had any control over this or any other shooting. On the other hand, the school policies that kept this kid in school instead of getting the help he needed, the failure by the FBI to do something when they were alerted that he was a "school shooter in the making", the failure by the sheriff's office to do something when they were tipped off 39 times, the failure of the police to stop the shooter while they were there leaves people wondering where the outrage and demonization is for these agencies. Why only demonize the NRA when they had no cause or control over this or any other shooting? Where's the demonization for those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?
|
|
eleezybeth
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,784
Jun 28, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
|
Post by eleezybeth on Mar 3, 2018 21:21:09 GMT
Even if what Delta did would be considered by some to be unfair, why is it even important that 13 people lost their discounts? Compared to 17 people who were gunned down. Dead. Of course one doesn't compare to the other. The problem people see is that the NRA did not cause this or any other shooting. Not a single member of the NRA has ever done this. Not a single NRA member had any control over this or any other shooting. On the other hand, the school policies that kept this kid in school instead of getting the help he needed, the failure by the FBI to do something when they were alerted that he was a "school shooter in the making", the failure by the sheriff's office to do something when they were tipped off 39 times, the failure of the police to stop the shooter while they were there leaves people wondering where the outrage and demonization is for these agencies. Why only demonize the NRA when they had no cause or control over this or any other shooting? Where's the demonization for those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? I wonder how many people can also be blamed in Sandy Hook? Las Vegas? San Bernardino? The list goes on and on and on. If you think that any discussions about guns is happening because of what happened just in FL, you dear are out of your **fucking** mind! To insinuate that none of those other systems have flaws that nobody is talking about is crazy. Do you not get that the gun lobby IS at fault for creating this culture within our country and within our politics. Do you really think that if the NRA wasn’t around, outlawing weapons would be a problem? I You and people who think like you in narrow stove pipes of thought are dangerous to my future and my children’s lives! Do you think the cops and FBI would have time and money to focus on other stuff if only.... What am I doing? Not like she will grasp this anyway... turn off Fox News!! Read something from another source!!! Do any critical thinking!
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,786
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Mar 3, 2018 21:49:53 GMT
Oh, I understand why companies want them, and why states give them. But time and time again in Massachusetts those types of tax breaks have turned out to be a bust. And I'm pissed that Boston is considering the same thing for Amazon. That’s ok, they can back out. Newark needs the jobs more than $$ I hope you get them! Boston's infrastructure and employee pool can't handle it. Even with all the universities around here, it's really hard to find good tech employees.
|
|
|
Post by esperanza on Mar 3, 2018 22:26:17 GMT
I’m so mortified I’m from GA right now. I’m so mad that Amazon might not choose our city because out these idiots in office. I can’t wait to vote their NRA blood lined pockets out of office!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 3, 2018 22:38:19 GMT
Even if what Delta did would be considered by some to be unfair, why is it even important that 13 people lost their discounts? Compared to 17 people who were gunned down. Dead. Of course one doesn't compare to the other. The problem people see is that the NRA did not cause this or any other shooting. Not a single member of the NRA has ever done this. Not a single NRA member had any control over this or any other shooting. On the other hand, the school policies that kept this kid in school instead of getting the help he needed, the failure by the FBI to do something when they were alerted that he was a "school shooter in the making", the failure by the sheriff's office to do something when they were tipped off 39 times, the failure of the police to stop the shooter while they were there leaves people wondering where the outrage and demonization is for these agencies. Why only demonize the NRA when they had no cause or control over this or any other shooting? Where's the demonization for those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? I understand your point, Gia, but look at it from our perspective. What we’re saying is that Delta does not owe any of their customers any preferential treatment. They may do so at their own discretion. It is their right to rescind whatever discounts they offer, regardless of the reason, so long as it does not violate existing anti-discrimination laws. It is also their right to speak their political values, even if it seems they’re “demonizing” the NRA, and structure their corporation’s rules according to those values. The Supreme Court has granted corporations what we commonly refer to as corporate personhood, and as such they have the free speech rights enjoyed by individuals. Liberals have had to accept this when it has not worked in their favor; it is no less of an imperative that Conservatives accept it as well. Re the NRA, may I suggest that you just please pause and understand where Liberals are coming from. Over the last twenty or so years, the NRA has blocked every gun-control initiative, no matter how sensible, and have literally bought their way into our legislature. We cannot even study the societal impact of guns because of the NRA. We cannot even research its impact on public health because of the NRA. We cannot even get a centralized federal system of background checks that states are mandated to feed into because of the NRA. People know it’s not NRA members who flip out and massacre our schoolchildren. Liberals are as equally dismayed and angered by the failures that have come to light. But that is not the point. The point is we cannot achieve any of the above that will at least stem the tide BECAUSE of the roadblocks the NRA has set up every step of the way. Pretend for just a few minutes that you’re at the receiving end of all this. Would you really think the animus is unjustified?
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 3, 2018 23:03:21 GMT
Of course one doesn't compare to the other. The problem people see is that the NRA did not cause this or any other shooting. Not a single member of the NRA has ever done this. Not a single NRA member had any control over this or any other shooting. On the other hand, the school policies that kept this kid in school instead of getting the help he needed, the failure by the FBI to do something when they were alerted that he was a "school shooter in the making", the failure by the sheriff's office to do something when they were tipped off 39 times, the failure of the police to stop the shooter while they were there leaves people wondering where the outrage and demonization is for these agencies. Why only demonize the NRA when they had no cause or control over this or any other shooting? Where's the demonization for those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? I understand your point, Gia, but look at it from our perspective. What we’re saying is that Delta does not owe any of their customers any preferential treatment. They may do so at their own discretion. It is their right to rescind whatever discounts they offer, regardless of the reason, so long as it does not violate existing anti-discrimination laws. It is also their right to speak their political values, even if it seems they’re “demonizing” the NRA, and structure their corporation’s rules according to those values. The Supreme Court has granted corporations what we commonly refer to as corporate personhood, and as such they have the free speech rights enjoyed by individuals. Liberals have had to accept this when it has not worked in their favor; it is no less of an imperative that Conservatives accept it as well. Re the NRA, may I suggest that you just please pause and understand where Liberals are coming from. Over the last twenty or so years, the NRA has blocked every gun-control initiative, no matter how sensible, and have literally bought their way into our legislature. We cannot even study the societal impact of guns because of the NRA. We cannot even research its impact on public health because of the NRA. We cannot even get a centralized federal system of background checks that states are mandated to feed into because of the NRA. People know it’s not NRA members who flip out and massacre our schoolchildren. Liberals are as equally dismayed and angered by the failures that have come to light. But that is not the point. The point is we cannot achieve any of the above that will at least stem the tide BECAUSE of the roadblocks the NRA has set up every step of the way. Pretend for just a few minutes that you’re at the receiving end of all this. Would you really think the animus is unjustified? Well I'm not a liberal and started this thread. I also have my CCW and own a firearm. I still think this what GA lawmakers did is stupid. Taking away discounts for 13 people in order to remove a brand out of the discussion entirely, is hardly "demonizing" to me.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 3, 2018 23:08:24 GMT
Oh and let's not forget the Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010 that ruled corporations and unions could promote individual candidates which was supported by the GOP. Now that a corporation took a stance on an issue, that's a bad thing. SMH.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 23:26:41 GMT
Of course one doesn't compare to the other. The problem people see is that the NRA did not cause this or any other shooting. Not a single member of the NRA has ever done this. Not a single NRA member had any control over this or any other shooting. On the other hand, the school policies that kept this kid in school instead of getting the help he needed, the failure by the FBI to do something when they were alerted that he was a "school shooter in the making", the failure by the sheriff's office to do something when they were tipped off 39 times, the failure of the police to stop the shooter while they were there leaves people wondering where the outrage and demonization is for these agencies. Why only demonize the NRA when they had no cause or control over this or any other shooting? Where's the demonization for those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? I understand your point, Gia, but look at it from our perspective. What we’re saying is that Delta does not owe any of their customers any preferential treatment. They may do so at their own discretion. It is their right to rescind whatever discounts they offer, regardless of the reason, so long as it does not violate existing anti-discrimination laws. It is also their right to speak their political values, even if it seems they’re “demonizing” the NRA, and structure their corporation’s rules according to those values. The Supreme Court has granted corporations what we commonly refer to as corporate personhood, and as such they have the free speech rights enjoyed by individuals. Liberals have had to accept this when it has not worked in their favor; it is no less of an imperative that Conservatives accept it as well. Re the NRA, may I suggest that you just please pause and understand where Liberals are coming from. Over the last twenty or so years, the NRA has blocked every gun-control initiative, no matter how sensible, and have literally bought their way into our legislature. We cannot even study the societal impact of guns because of the NRA. We cannot even research its impact on public health because of the NRA. We cannot even get a centralized federal system of background checks that states are mandated to feed into because of the NRA. People know it’s not NRA members who flip out and massacre our schoolchildren. Liberals are as equally dismayed and angered by the failures that have come to light. But that is not the point. The point is we cannot achieve any of the above that will at least stem the tide BECAUSE of the roadblocks the NRA has set up every step of the way. Pretend for just a few minutes that you’re at the receiving end of all this. Would you really think the animus is unjustified? We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? You have to understand their reasoning. What some label as sensible, or common sense, others often see real problems with them that render them ineffective. Like the point above you have to look at their reasoning. Among other issues, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 4, 2018 20:20:51 GMT
We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? You have to understand their reasoning. What some label as sensible, or common sense, others often see real problems with them that render them ineffective. Like the point above you have to look at their reasoning. Among other issues, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?” We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?
Is 2PR the only place people gather and speak? If your assertion is that blame ought to be equalized among all parties, I have no quarrel with that within the confines of the Parkland shooting that exposed two years of inattention and inaction. However, what you are missing is the point that the NRA has been a powerful impediment to possible solutions for DECADES. Not only an impediment to solutions, but to studies as well that could lead to possibly better, more effective, enforceable laws that won’t infringe on your sacrosanct Second Amendment rights. The mere fact that the NRA had aligned itself with the billion-dollar firearms industry and stocked its board with their chiefs resulting in significantly enriching the association, calls into question whether their professed goal is truly and exclusively the “protection of civil rights” or the protection of a reciprocally-lucrative partnership. You have to understand their reasoning. What some label as sensible, or common sense, others often see real problems with them that render them ineffective.
Like the point above you have to look at their reasoning. Among other issues, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
I’ll address these two together. I am basing my reply on the belief that responsible gun owners themselves want solutions as they, too, have children they want to protect. Realistically and practically speaking, how can we come together and agree (or, at least, compromise) on what are sensible and common-sense solutions when we do not even have federally-funded scientific research to guide ALL of us, and more importantly, our lawmakers? It beggars belief that a study of an issue with this high of a mortality rate cannot get financed by our own gov’t, and it’s not from lack of money but from unremitting pressure by ONE organization. Of course no reasonable person would be supportive of the misuse of science to further a political agenda, but we cannot be paralyzed by the distortions of past studies. If it means demanding better guidelines, a more balanced peer review process, stricter supervision to ensure objectivity, etc., then so be it. But to just stand still and do nothing is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 4, 2018 21:22:23 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. The discount was ONLY for NRA members to purchase a full fare ticket at the Delta group rate to the NRA National Convention. That’s it. They chose not to continue to offer it. Most coupons have expiration dates. It’s just not a big deal that people tried to blow up into something it isn’t. This was extremely short-sighted on the part of our Lt Governor (who is running for Governor) and Governor (who is on his way out). Delta is the largest private employer in our state, and contributes more than $300 million to our state economy. Not to mention the effect this will have on future business considerations. I’m angry and embarrassed by our elected officials.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Mar 4, 2018 21:39:04 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. The discount was ONLY for NRA members to purchase a full fare ticket at the Delta group rate to the NRA National Convention. That’s it. They chose not to continue to offer it. Most coupons have expiration dates. It’s just not a big deal that people tried to blow up into something it isn’t. This was extremely short-sighted on the part of our Lt Governor (who is running for Governor) and Governor (who is on his way out). Delta is the largest private employer in our state, and contributes more than $300 million to our state economy. Not to mention the effect this will have on future business considerations. I’m angry and embarrassed by our elected officials. It might help to go back to read the rest of what I said.. Elaine and others explained it a little better.. I do agree that gov should not be makign these kind of decisions and it should be up to companies what they can offer or don't. I understand a lot if it based on taxes.
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 4, 2018 22:18:54 GMT
The discount was ONLY for NRA members to purchase a full fare ticket at the Delta group rate to the NRA National Convention. That’s it. They chose not to continue to offer it. Most coupons have expiration dates. It’s just not a big deal that people tried to blow up into something it isn’t. This was extremely short-sighted on the part of our Lt Governor (who is running for Governor) and Governor (who is on his way out). Delta is the largest private employer in our state, and contributes more than $300 million to our state economy. Not to mention the effect this will have on future business considerations. I’m angry and embarrassed by our elected officials. It might help to go back to read the rest of what I said.. Elaine and others explained it a little better.. I do agree that gov should not be makign these kind of decisions and it should be up to companies what they can offer or don't. I understand a lot if it based on taxes. No need to for me to re-read. The first part of my post was clarifying what the discount was - just for the one flight. So minor. That’s why I quoted you. The rest wasn’t aimed at you, just my opinion on the whole mess as a long-term resident. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Mar 4, 2018 22:32:19 GMT
It might help to go back to read the rest of what I said.. Elaine and others explained it a little better.. I do agree that gov should not be makign these kind of decisions and it should be up to companies what they can offer or don't. I understand a lot if it based on taxes. No need to for me to re-read. The first part of my post was clarifying what the discount was - just for the one flight. So minor. That’s why I quoted you. The rest wasn’t aimed at you, just my opinion on the whole mess as a long-term resident. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's ok sometimes I have to read threads like this a few times it gets confusing and things are easily misunderstood. I get that. I try to understand both sides.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 22:33:02 GMT
We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't? You have to understand their reasoning. What some label as sensible, or common sense, others often see real problems with them that render them ineffective. Like the point above you have to look at their reasoning. Among other issues, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?” We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?
Is 2PR the only place people gather and speak? If your assertion is that blame ought to be equalized among all parties, I have no quarrel with that within the confines of the Parkland shooting that exposed two years of inattention and inaction. However, what you are missing is the point that the NRA has been a powerful impediment to possible solutions for DECADES. Not only an impediment to solutions, but to studies as well that could lead to possibly better, more effective, enforceable laws that won’t infringe on your sacrosanct Second Amendment rights. The mere fact that the NRA had aligned itself with the billion-dollar firearms industry and stocked its board with their chiefs resulting in significantly enriching the association, calls into question whether their professed goal is truly and exclusively the “protection of civil rights” or the protection of a reciprocally-lucrative partnership. You have to understand their reasoning. What some label as sensible, or common sense, others often see real problems with them that render them ineffective.
Like the point above you have to look at their reasoning. Among other issues, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”
I’ll address these two together. I am basing my reply on the belief that responsible gun owners themselves want solutions as they, too, have children they want to protect. Realistically and practically speaking, how can we come together and agree (or, at least, compromise) on what are sensible and common-sense solutions when we do not even have federally-funded scientific research to guide ALL of us, and more importantly, our lawmakers? It beggars belief that a study of an issue with this high of a mortality rate cannot get financed by our own gov’t, and it’s not from lack of money but from unremitting pressure by ONE organization. Of course no reasonable person would be supportive of the misuse of science to further a political agenda, but we cannot be paralyzed by the distortions of past studies. If it means demanding better guidelines, a more balanced peer review process, stricter supervision to ensure objectivity, etc., then so be it. But to just stand still and do nothing is not an option. Nothing wrong with discussing what goes on here, while we're here. So back to the original question and it's not necessarily addressed to you since we agree, why the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads DEMONIZING those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't in the same way the NRA is being demonized? The Congress lifted the ban on the CDC studying gun violence. In 2013. When Obama was President.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 22:40:59 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. The discount was ONLY for NRA members to purchase a full fare ticket at the Delta group rate to the NRA National Convention. That’s it. They chose not to continue to offer it. Most coupons have expiration dates. It’s just not a big deal that people tried to blow up into something it isn’t.
This was extremely short-sighted on the part of our Lt Governor (who is running for Governor) and Governor (who is on his way out). Delta is the largest private employer in our state, and contributes more than $300 million to our state economy. Not to mention the effect this will have on future business considerations. I’m angry and embarrassed by our elected officials. It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it and people object. It's one or the other. (not addressed to you KAS, just a general disclaimer) My stance on that in no way suggests that I'm in any kind of agreement with the GA lawmakers.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 4, 2018 22:47:06 GMT
Nothing wrong with discussing what goes on here, while we're here. So back to the original question and it's not necessarily addressed to you since we agree, why the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads DEMONIZING those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't in the same way the NRA is being demonized? The Congress lifted the ban on the CDC studying gun violence. In 2013. When Obama was President. Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 4, 2018 22:54:20 GMT
Nothing wrong with discussing what goes on here, while we're here. So back to the original question and it's not necessarily addressed to you since we agree, why the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads DEMONIZING those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't in the same way the NRA is being demonized? The Congress lifted the ban on the CDC studying gun violence. In 2013. When Obama was President. Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill. Thank you. This is what I was coming back here to say. Tacitly allowing the research to take place and actually directing and funding it are two different things. And yes, I'm disappointed that the Obama administration didn't find a way to direct and fund it, though I'm sure the Republicans having control of both houses made that impossible.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 4, 2018 23:01:24 GMT
Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill. Thank you. This is what I was coming back here to say. Tacitly allowing the research to take place and actually directing and funding it are two different things. And yes, I'm disappointed that the Obama administration didn't find a way to direct and fund it, though I'm sure the Republicans having control of both houses made that impossible. Amen. Even Dickey was taken aback by the chilling effect of his own bill. I don't know if there's even a small chance at success but I'm glad it's back on the forefront of discussions at the Hill.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 4, 2018 23:01:29 GMT
Nothing wrong with discussing what goes on here, while we're here. So back to the original question and it's not necessarily addressed to you since we agree, why the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads DEMONIZING those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't in the same way the NRA is being demonized? The Congress lifted the ban on the CDC studying gun violence. In 2013. When Obama was President. Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill. Yes, and after passing the EO Obama asked for money for the research and was voted down by GOP lead Congress, more than once. So (general) you can state that there is nothing stopping them from doing the research all you want, but the reality is that the NRA supported politicians still have a stranglehold on the research. That amendment and the way it was handled created an environment of fear around the whole issue and it wasn't just the funding for the CDC that dried up, the impact was immeasurable.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 4, 2018 23:08:03 GMT
Yes, and after passing the EO Obama asked for money for the research and was voted down by GOP lead Congress, more than once. So (general) you can state that there is nothing stopping them from doing the research all you want, but the reality is that the NRA supported politicians still have a stranglehold on the research. That amendment and the way it was handled created an environment of fear around the whole issue and it wasn't just the funding for the CDC that dried up, the impact was immeasurable. Absolutely. No one can blame the scientists and their bosses because the prevailing belief was if they persisted they can kiss their careers good-bye.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Mar 5, 2018 5:02:05 GMT
I think it’s outrageous. Over a discount? Ridiculous. Amazon would be crazy to choose Atlanta for their headquarters at this point. I agree!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:39:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 5:15:03 GMT
Nothing wrong with discussing what goes on here, while we're here. So back to the original question and it's not necessarily addressed to you since we agree, why the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads DEMONIZING those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't in the same way the NRA is being demonized? The Congress lifted the ban on the CDC studying gun violence. In 2013. When Obama was President. Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill. From the Washington Post article: "Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”When the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout.
|
|