SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lawmakers in Georgia removed a $38 million tax exemption for jet fuel from tax-cut legislation on Thursday in a move that will punish Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines.
Republicans vowed to remove the exemption after the airline cut ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Georgia's Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle (R), who is also running for governor, had threatened to kill any tax legislation that benefits Delta after the company's decision to end a discount program for NRA members.
[...] "I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA," Angle tweeted earlier this week.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Georgia Denies Delta Tax Break After Airline Cuts Ties With NRA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 147 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:25AM (11 children)
There's no real consensus, so one side is attacking the other's funding sources by putting pressure on its corporate sponsors. The problem here is that the NRA didn't get to where it is presently by being lousy political fighters. They can boycott as well.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:16AM (6 children)
The NRA got where it is by fighting dirty and abusing campaign finance reform. They're on the wrong side of this issue and the corporations know it. Universal background checks, limits on magazine size and bans on assault weapons are incredibly popular. Yes, the NRA can boycott, but even most of their own members don't support the fight against background checks and limitations on magazine sizes.
Bribing politicians is cheap, convincing corporations to go along with it when the polling numbers show that the public isn't on the NRA's side is much harder. These companies know what the NRA is capable of, but they also know how much money they'll lose by pissing off everybody that isn't a gun nut. And gun nut is completely the right word here. Nobody credible thinks the having the same sort of gun regulations that they have in other countries wouldn't go a long way towards solving our problems with gun violence.
The NRA hasn't represented the membership very well over the last 20 years and they certainly don't have the clout in the face of school massacre after school massacre.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:48AM (4 children)
Fighting dirty? Like going after innocent companies just because they donated money or benefits to a hated foe? I bet the NRA fights dirty better than the opposition does and I don't have a problem with that.
As to the campaign finance reform, I find once again that reform is one of those highly victimized words, like "free" that doesn't mean what it should mean.
They're also incredibly unpopular. Hence, the lack of consensus. Notice that none of these items would do anything to prevent most shooting deaths. Accidental shooting deaths and suicides don't happen, for example, because of magazine size or because some long guns have certain mostly cosmetic features ("assault weapons"). So leading causes of firearms deaths aren't even remotely touched by these proposals. It's only something that would have minor impact at best on a very small portion of deliberate shootings.
Second, background checks for firearms are already near universal [cnn.com] (there probably are some edge cases I'm unaware of). It didn't stop the Douglas School shooting. The shooter passed his background checks.
As to people who want changes that don't mean anything? Fuck them. I'm tired of stupid people breaking things they don't understand.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:12AM (2 children)
You're still an idiot, khallow.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:51AM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:14PM
And for the other rest of SN, this is why I "friended" khallow. He's so entertaining, and it is always a good idea to see what he's up to.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:42PM
I'm curious how much you're being paid to spew this nonsense.
Those measures are incredibly popular with voters. They're all polling at over 70% and the universal background checks are polling at about 90%. The reason we don't get them is because the NRA has bought enough politicians that they won't dare do it. We also know that those things have worked in other countries.
And, no near universal is not universal. In order for background checks to be really useful, it has to be a completely universal check. Anybody who wants to buy one has to be checked. If you're not checking, then there's far less utility in having a check in the first place.
And no, these changes aren't meaningless, it's just needle dicks like you that are terrified of their own shadow that think so. In literally every country where they've enacted meaningful gun regulations there's been a reduction in gun violence. Even in the US there's a significant difference in murder rates between states with universal background checks and ones that don't.
It's pretty much just the uninformed that don't accept that.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday March 04 2018, @11:13PM
The NRA is doing a TREMENDOUS JOB of representing our Gun Industry.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:20AM (3 children)
In this case, the "supplier" owns the arms manufacturer. Hey, I own a Savage shotgun myself. But this is what happens when vulture capitalists sweep up companies. You've got to view them as all parts of the same.
Maybe that's a good argument against conglomerates.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:55AM (2 children)
Not a relevant difference. They would still be targeted because they sell firearms and didn't make the appropriate mealy-mouthed obeisance to the cause.
Same goes for the proposed solutions to the supposed firearm problem. For example, someone has proposed universal background checks (which incidentally we have aside possibly from some edge cases). But the US government is also the NSA which is in a great position to abuse the information contained in those lists. "You got to view them as all parts of the same." The solution obviously is to make sure the US government doesn't collect any sort of information be it firearm ownership, financial, health care, or phone/internet metadata on its citizens, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:15AM (1 child)
I say, make the gun ownership lists public record, with details like physical address, whether or not the weapons are stored in a gun safe, or a real safe. You know, so that it is all on the up and up, and thieves will know which homes to avoid, because there are no guns in them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:52AM