Proud of my company
02-25-2018, 05:49 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
You sure did and it was an absolutely absurd argument. Is anyone allowed to possess an automatic machine gun, a shoulder launched missile, a tank or chemical weapons? The 2nd Amendment is in no danger of being repealed, but is has become clear that people, much less teenagers, being able to walk in an by a weapon with the lethality of an AR-15 is ridiculous. You might want to read Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision.
Exactly, What the hell were these companies doing ever giving the National Gun Lobby discounts? Glad they corrected their mistake.
We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.
Exactly, What the hell were these companies doing ever giving the National Gun Lobby discounts? Glad they corrected their mistake.
We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.
02-25-2018, 05:54 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Fly
“We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.”
The fools think we can stop evil men in our lifetime by such simple means, fools think killing all the wolves protect their sheep.
There is so much foolish passion in the noisy din of the crowd we forget the most immediate concern, who’s protecting our sheep?
Maybe as most pursue our selfish pleasure and green pastures some of us will look back and remember to protect our innocent.
“We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.”
The fools think we can stop evil men in our lifetime by such simple means, fools think killing all the wolves protect their sheep.
There is so much foolish passion in the noisy din of the crowd we forget the most immediate concern, who’s protecting our sheep?
Maybe as most pursue our selfish pleasure and green pastures some of us will look back and remember to protect our innocent.
02-25-2018, 06:27 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
Fly
“We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.”
The fools think we can stop evil men in our lifetime by such simple means, fools think killing all the wolves protect their sheep.
There is so much foolish passion in the noisy din of the crowd we forget the most immediate concern, who’s protecting our sheep?
Maybe as most pursue our selfish pleasure and green pastures some of us will look back and remember to protect our innocent.
“We are the fools who allowed the wolves easy access to weapons of mass killing.”
The fools think we can stop evil men in our lifetime by such simple means, fools think killing all the wolves protect their sheep.
There is so much foolish passion in the noisy din of the crowd we forget the most immediate concern, who’s protecting our sheep?
Maybe as most pursue our selfish pleasure and green pastures some of us will look back and remember to protect our innocent.
02-25-2018, 06:51 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Amazing how snowflakes have twisted this from ending a discount to becoming anti-gun. This goes on top of the fact that these same snowflakes are twisting why United did this. United pulled the discount over the comments made by the NRA leadership, not because of the school shooting.
02-25-2018, 07:37 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
Amazing how snowflakes have twisted this from ending a discount to becoming anti-gun. This goes on top of the fact that these same snowflakes are twisting why United did this. United pulled the discount over the comments made by the NRA leadership, not because of the school shooting.
If a CEO wanted to make a personal opinion then do it on their own time and dime... not as the voice of 100,000 customers and millions of shareholders... many who don't agree with the CEOs opinion.
02-25-2018, 07:38 AM
#46
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
+1
This amounts to empty showmanship by our executive suite.
Here's the problem for me;
This puts our employees on the spot.
When I put on that uniform I am identified with the corporation and their publicly spoken values and goals (whether I agree or not).
For decades, those values have been focused on our passengers' safety, comfort, and reliability, with a smattering of general support of the air travel industry. Other than labor disputes, there has never been a need for concern for my employers public policy statements. They were usually and rightfully aligned.
Enter the new CEO, the new social justice warrior, with an identity politics pen and a corporate ad budget. He is out spoken on social policy matters that are at best, weakly linked to the operation of the airline and the corporation.
He stated in thinly veiled terms he disagreed with the President's policy on physical border control of our country. Yet, those borders account for much of our business- moving people around them under an umbrella of national security and national industry safety standards. He inserts the airline (and us) into controversial social causes that have NOTHING to do with our business. He can hide from the public in his ivory tower, while we are left to answer to the public for this divisive rhetoric.
IT IS A DISTRACTION. No where in our annual reports is there claim that this adds one penny to our bottom line or makes us safer. In fact, the opposite is likely true, because it is a distraction.
The last CEO got into a public ****ing match with the Houston mayor and city council about negotiations for airport developement. It turned out badly for us.
We need to stick to our knitting and leave politics to the crooks we elect.
This amounts to empty showmanship by our executive suite.
Here's the problem for me;
This puts our employees on the spot.
When I put on that uniform I am identified with the corporation and their publicly spoken values and goals (whether I agree or not).
For decades, those values have been focused on our passengers' safety, comfort, and reliability, with a smattering of general support of the air travel industry. Other than labor disputes, there has never been a need for concern for my employers public policy statements. They were usually and rightfully aligned.
Enter the new CEO, the new social justice warrior, with an identity politics pen and a corporate ad budget. He is out spoken on social policy matters that are at best, weakly linked to the operation of the airline and the corporation.
He stated in thinly veiled terms he disagreed with the President's policy on physical border control of our country. Yet, those borders account for much of our business- moving people around them under an umbrella of national security and national industry safety standards. He inserts the airline (and us) into controversial social causes that have NOTHING to do with our business. He can hide from the public in his ivory tower, while we are left to answer to the public for this divisive rhetoric.
IT IS A DISTRACTION. No where in our annual reports is there claim that this adds one penny to our bottom line or makes us safer. In fact, the opposite is likely true, because it is a distraction.
The last CEO got into a public ****ing match with the Houston mayor and city council about negotiations for airport developement. It turned out badly for us.
We need to stick to our knitting and leave politics to the crooks we elect.
Last edited by BMEP100; 02-25-2018 at 08:01 AM.
02-25-2018, 07:47 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Who are the snowflakes, again? All these companies did was stop offering the members of the National Gun Lobby special discounts that never should have been given. I am especially impressed with the CEO of Delta doing it in the heart of Dixie. Time to treat the National Gun Lobby for what it is.
02-25-2018, 07:49 AM
#48
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 90
Right. They usually use a truck.
As for intent, it seems to hurt your case. It's just another way of saying guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And it's ironic, since a gun ban is yet another possession law. Simple possession has no requirement for intent. No act, no victim, and no guilty mind required. Intent in possession law is often a mitigating rather than a compounding factor. Drugs "For personal use" vs. "With intent to distribute" have very different penalties. No doubt "she was abused" would be a mitigating factor in gun possession cases.
Possession laws harm our 4th amendment rights by bootstrapping searches. They harm our right to trial by jury by convicting based on facts alone rather than allowing a jury to weigh intent along with facts. This explains why so many cases are plea bargained. Only a fool would take simple possession to trial. Mitigating vs. compunding intent also allows for police discretion and, failing that, selective enforcement on record. This is a favorite tool of the police state. Oh, about that state. Did I mention that possession laws need no victim? Society or some marginalized group is the victim in this context. And who is society but the state itself? With no victim to refuse to press charges, die, or cross examin poorly, the state's legal incapacitation machine can run unimpeded. The penalties have proven to be severe too with five to ten years being common. Something that is legal in one state is punsihable by a life-crushing prison sentence just across the border. Clearly the punishment never fits the crime in gun possession cases, and this has never been constitutionally challenged as cruel and unusual.
I just described why gun bans (or any possession law for that matter) are terrible, and I didn't even bring up the 2nd amendment. Funny you should mention intent.
As for intent, it seems to hurt your case. It's just another way of saying guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And it's ironic, since a gun ban is yet another possession law. Simple possession has no requirement for intent. No act, no victim, and no guilty mind required. Intent in possession law is often a mitigating rather than a compounding factor. Drugs "For personal use" vs. "With intent to distribute" have very different penalties. No doubt "she was abused" would be a mitigating factor in gun possession cases.
Possession laws harm our 4th amendment rights by bootstrapping searches. They harm our right to trial by jury by convicting based on facts alone rather than allowing a jury to weigh intent along with facts. This explains why so many cases are plea bargained. Only a fool would take simple possession to trial. Mitigating vs. compunding intent also allows for police discretion and, failing that, selective enforcement on record. This is a favorite tool of the police state. Oh, about that state. Did I mention that possession laws need no victim? Society or some marginalized group is the victim in this context. And who is society but the state itself? With no victim to refuse to press charges, die, or cross examin poorly, the state's legal incapacitation machine can run unimpeded. The penalties have proven to be severe too with five to ten years being common. Something that is legal in one state is punsihable by a life-crushing prison sentence just across the border. Clearly the punishment never fits the crime in gun possession cases, and this has never been constitutionally challenged as cruel and unusual.
I just described why gun bans (or any possession law for that matter) are terrible, and I didn't even bring up the 2nd amendment. Funny you should mention intent.
02-25-2018, 08:20 AM
#50
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 657
I haven't been this proud of my company since Oscar called Trump's immigration policies "damning and damaging" to America. GO UNITED!! and * the NRA.
United CEO Munoz: Trump's Mexico wall 'damaging' to America - Business Insider
United CEO Munoz: Trump's Mexico wall 'damaging' to America - Business Insider
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 02-25-2018 at 04:43 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
