In Flagrant Abuse of Power, Georgia Lt. Gov Casey Cagle‏ Threatens Delta to Revenge NRA

This is a good example of why ATS is not a reliable news source. An objective journalist would not write, "In a flagrant abuse of power" He or she would simply write, "Gov XX threatens Delta over NRA issue." a simple neutral statement of facts. Now I did not recognize who authored this when I clicked on the thread, but a quick glance told me who, a fellow who is as biased as the day is long. Taking a look at his avatar is all I needed to know. The thread is not worth reading. This guy is completely predictable.

a reply to: notsure1

You must have wrote 20 threads regarding that call for a boycott cried at how deplorable it was for him to call for a boycott of a corporation because of political agenda.

I authored 0 threads about it. I do however believe that a President of the United States should not be calling for the boycott of American businesses, much less because they won't bend to his political will.

It was so wrong in every way for him to call for a boycott and try and hurt businesses.

True.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and you guys are doing the exact same thing.

What? There's a world of difference between citizens calling for a boycott and the President doing so. Citizens call for boycotts all the time. Trump supporters for instance have called or the boycott of: Pepsi, Kellog's, Macy's, Amazon, Oreos, Netflix, Ben & Jerry's, the NFL, Budweiser, Starbucks, Disney, the movie Rogue One, Hamilton and briefly Apple (with Trump's encouragement) — among others.

And that's got nothing to do with what Lt. Gov Cagley is doing/threatening to do. Though, if you want to draw parallels here, it's actually another example of a right-wing politician trying to harm a business for not kowtowing to his purely political demands. In this case however, Cagley has taken it several steps beyond calling for a boycott.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Rhetoric is legal. For Delta and the Governor.

Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for the government to attempt to regulate speech under threat of retaliation and that's what this is.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: notsure1

The President called for a boycott of the NFL. Gonna top that one? No? And that's got nothing to do with what's happening here anyway.

You must have wrote 20 threads regarding that call for a boycott cried at how deplorable it was for him to call for a boycott of a corporation because of political agenda.

It was so wrong in every way for him to call for a boycott and try and hurt businesses.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and you guys are doing the exact same thing.

So deplorable hypocrites?

You don't see the difference between the executive branch of a government calling for a boycott (or to flip that around, promoting certain businesses) and private citizens doing it on their own? The former criteria is similar to what the governor is doing here.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: notsure1

The President called for a boycott of the NFL. Gonna top that one? No? And that's got nothing to do with what's happening here anyway.

You must have wrote 20 threads regarding that call for a boycott cried at how deplorable it was for him to call for a boycott of a corporation because of political agenda.

It was so wrong in every way for him to call for a boycott and try and hurt businesses.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and you guys are doing the exact same thing.

So deplorable hypocrites?

You don't see the difference between the executive branch of a government calling for a boycott (or to flip that around, promoting certain businesses) and private citizens doing it on their own? The former criteria is similar to what the governor is doing here.

you guys keep saying that like no elected official on the left has been calling for boycotts?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: notsure1

So private citizens boycotting a company is the same thing as the government using policy to punish a company for expressing views they don't agree with?

If you truly believe that then what do you think the First Amendment actually does?

but but but what about the elected officials calling for boycotts?

there are alot of them btw

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Rhetoric is legal. For Delta and the Governor.

Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for the government to attempt to regulate speech under threat of retaliation and that's what this is.

One rhetoric matching another rhetoric. I see nothing in the Governor's statement about 'speech' or first amendment rights. Merely a catch-all argument until there's a more specific angle to hit it with.

a reply to: notsure1

I don't agree with politicians calling for boycotts either. However, a boycott still requires for the populace to voluntarily take part for it to be effective.

It is not a direct punishment handed down by the government for not holding the same beliefs as those in power.

Can you really not see the difference?

If the government of New York raised taxes on NRA members, would you argue that it's not unconstitutional?

originally posted by: notsure1
you guys keep saying that like no elected official on the left has been calling for boycotts?

Show me which ones have, and I'll say they're wrong too if it's within their jurisdiction.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One rhetoric matching another rhetoric. I see nothing in the Governor's statement about 'speech' or first amendment rights. Merely a catch-all argument until there's a more specific angle to hit it with.

So lets flip it around: You would be fine if the state of Georgia gave companies tax breaks in exchange for making deals with the Planned Parenthood?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yet another reason not to rely on government for subsidies and handouts...they will always use it to their advantage.

I think that Delta is fine doing what they want, but I also think that this is an example of tit-for-tat legislation, and if conservatives are going to decry the Clintons and the correlation of donations to their foundation and friendly deals for the countries of donators, they need to be intellectually honest and not hypocritical.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One rhetoric matching another rhetoric. I see nothing in the Governor's statement about 'speech' or first amendment rights. Merely a catch-all argument until there's a more specific angle to hit it with.

So lets flip it around: You would be fine if the state of Georgia gave companies tax breaks in exchange for making deals with the Planned Parenthood?

I doubt Georgia would, but I wouldn't doubt it's already happening in Democrat states....

a reply to: nwtrucker

States give tax breaks all kinds of companies to come to their states to avoid high taxes, i.e. the mass exodus of business' from Commiefornia en route to texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, etc.

a reply to: theantediluvian

"Cannot attack conservatives"

Is the NRA really only conservatives?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I doubt Georgia would, but I wouldn't doubt it's already happening in Democrat states....

So you're fine with that happening?

The law of unintended consequences strikes again:

New York, Virginia court Delta following backlash from Georgia Republicans.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I doubt Georgia would, but I wouldn't doubt it's already happening in Democrat states....

So you're fine with that happening?

I'm not going to loss much sleep over it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The law of unintended consequences strikes again:

New York, Virginia court Delta following backlash from Georgia Republicans.

I'm curious what this will do for their Amazon HQ2 bid. The rumor was that Atlanta was the leading contender among the cities that are still in the running. I don't mind, because I would like to see HQ2 come to Columbus but this move could have really shot Georgia in the foot. Delta wouldn't hesitate to move, airline hubs are relatively cheap to relocate, and the ROI would be almost instantaneous given the cost of jet fuel.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not only could this hurt Atlanta but it could help the DC area to get Amazon. If Delta moves to Virginia it will be to Dulles. Which just so happens to be where same area Amazon would be putting HQ2.

Not only would this show that the area is big business friendly but it would also increase the capabilities of nearest international airport. Two things that are at the top of Amazon's requirements.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I don't mind, because I would like to see HQ2 come to Columbus...

I'm holding out for lovely Newark, NJ.

Delta wouldn't hesitate to move, airline hubs are relatively cheap to relocate, and the ROI would be almost instantaneous given the cost of jet fuel.

I think they were referring to the corporate headquarters which is in Atlanta.