You forgot to add “in my opinion, which is completely unsupported by facts” to that paragraph.
This just isn’t an analogous situation.
Admissions policy is not a case of government requiring accommodation between two specific enterprises.
For example, admissions policy doesn’t does not involve one school being required by government to pay some other school.
Trying to find a race discrimination analogy is just a big fat fail.
Yikes - I should have put more effort into finding your exact post and not accepting what someone copied, which was out of context.
My point is that it doesn’t matter which corporation benefitted from the government action or whether the government action was stated as a benefit or a cost to one of the corporations.
The government simply had NO right to take action affecting the business relationship between two specific corporations.
I now suspect you agree.
And, I’ve learned a lesson and apologize.
Your post is so predictable that I was able to respond to it before you made it.
It’s still totally off topic.
You are confused. I wasn’t arguing anything about the role of government.
The poster had claimed the argument for ignoring race in the evaluation of candidates is not far from racism. I was wondering how close to racism was a policy of race-based admission and hiring. The question will go unanswered, because the responder would have to sound foolish to do so.
Racism<<ignoring race<<race-based policies
Or
Racism<<race-based policies<<ignoring race
I’m pointing out that the GA move against Delta has NO analogy related to racism.
The entire discussion of racism is off topic in the OP and title.
I see this as important, because the act taken by the GA government is HIGHLY objectionable - to the point where it should justify impeachment.
Sorry…deleted so I can write something better.
Who should be impeached? The GA Lt. Gov? Which entity in Georgia is responsible for impeachment? The legislature (that just gave him what he asked for)? Sounds like the available remedy might have to be the voters.
I agree with that. Holding high public office accountable is always hard.
But, I really don’t understand how the supposedly conservative right wing that’s sensitive to corporate issues can tolerate government stepping in on business like that.
“Stepping on business like that”? It sounds like the GA Legislature cancelled a bit of corporate welfare. I would have thought that was something both sides could applaud.
Did you object to the ACA mandates that forced some corporations to buy insurance coverage from other corporations? You’re acting like this is something new for governments to do. This is decades old government technique at work.
It was done as punishment for an action taken between two specific corporations.
The Gove made that clear.
That kind of action by government is NOT OK.
Republicans/conservatives adhering to their stated ideals? Not sure where you’ve been for the last year but I am hard pressed to think of something they haven’t caved on except abortion and guns (and Trump almost caved on guns all by himself till the NRA set him straight).
The government has mandated that you buy insurance if you want to drive a car. If you own a company the company has to buy insurance for any vehicles it runs. Been that way for ages.
Have you been complaining about that all this time?
What part about “decades old government technique” did you fail to understand?
Do you think it is wrong for the government to mandate car insurance if you drive?
For which offense should the GA legislators be impeached - for giving Delta the tax break, or for removing it?
Regards,
Shodan
Government should have never given them the tax break in the first place. Delta lobbying for special handouts from the government was political. Now the tax break is the subject of the vagaries of the political system. You buy the ticket, you take the ride.
My god, who cares? Mandatory insurance is not remotely like the government punishing Delta over dropping a discount for the NRA.