Arizona to Los Angeles "No Power For You!"

[CMike]

For Arizona

 

[Ragnar]

Maybe the thread title or people's talking points are getting confused.

Arizona will not cut off power to L.A. and has not threatened to. When the Los Angeles city councel (and Mayor) became one of the first government's to threaten boycotts and economic harm to Arizona it prompted a letter from a member of the AZCC. In it he went a little Jules Winnfield , in his "Well, allow me to retort" style. The L.A. boycott bluff got called out for the hot air and bluster that it was.

Even as more cities join the PC parade, the public (including Democrats) support the Arizona law or at least the major provisions it contains. Both are playing politics and Arizona has the MSM and the Obama admin. against them. However, Zona does have reality (Obamabots keep admitting to not having read the bill) and the public on their side. The fight will last till November and beyond... like all the rest.

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

 

[Yurt]

Maybe the thread title or people's talking points are getting confused.

Arizona will not cut off power to L.A. and has not threatened to. When the Los Angeles city councel (and Mayor) became one of the first government's to threaten boycotts and economic harm to Arizona it prompted a letter from a member of the AZCC. In it he went a little Jules Winnfield , in his "Well, allow me to retort" style. The L.A. boycott bluff got called out for the hot air and bluster that it was.

Even as more cities join the PC parade, the public (including Democrats) support the Arizona law or at least the major provisions it contains. Both are playing politics and Arizona has the MSM and the Obama admin. against them. However, Zona does have reality (Obamabots keep admitting to not having read the bill) and the public on their side. The fight will last till November and beyond... like all the rest.

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

i agree...but i believe the current law only makes it illegal for a US entity or persons to help or participate in a foreign boycott...i can't find anything that makes boycott's between state/local governments illegal...it should be as it seems a form of official economic warfare...

 

[Shogun]

Maybe the thread title or people's talking points are getting confused.

Arizona will not cut off power to L.A. and has not threatened to. When the Los Angeles city councel (and Mayor) became one of the first government's to threaten boycotts and economic harm to Arizona it prompted a letter from a member of the AZCC. In it he went a little Jules Winnfield , in his "Well, allow me to retort" style. The L.A. boycott bluff got called out for the hot air and bluster that it was.

Even as more cities join the PC parade, the public (including Democrats) support the Arizona law or at least the major provisions it contains. Both are playing politics and Arizona has the MSM and the Obama admin. against them. However, Zona does have reality (Obamabots keep admitting to not having read the bill) and the public on their side. The fight will last till November and beyond... like all the rest.

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

 

[Shogun]

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

i agree...but i believe the current law only makes it illegal for a US entity or persons to help or participate in a foreign boycott...i can't find anything that makes boycott's between state/local governments illegal...it should be as it seems a form of official economic warfare...

good grief. talk about putting on a drama queen spin.



This isn't the first time states have not gotten along and it won't be the last. But, I find it hilarious that you'd be of the mind that local governments must be regulated in regards to whom they must do business with under the guise of "economic warfare".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

i agree...but i believe the current law only makes it illegal for a US entity or persons to help or participate in a foreign boycott...i can't find anything that makes boycott's between state/local governments illegal...it should be as it seems a form of official economic warfare...

good grief. talk about putting on a drama queen spin.



This isn't the first time states have not gotten along and it won't be the last. But, I find it hilarious that you'd be of the mind that local governments must be regulated in regards to whom they must do business with under the guise of "economic warfare".

 

[Ragnar]

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

i agree...but i believe the current law only makes it illegal for a US entity or persons to help or participate in a foreign boycott...i can't find anything that makes boycott's between state/local governments illegal...it should be as it seems a form of official economic warfare...

I think your right. I'm using my google-fu to find info but it's a pretty murky area.

Meanwhile the idiot parade marches on...

Stupid Coleman puts me within a couple of degree's of separation to the whole fight. I said hello and shook the bastards hand at an Ohio State v Texas football game in Columbus years ago when I lived there.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...ayor-bans-city-travel-to-Arizona.html?sid=101

Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman has banned city-worker travel to Arizona because of that state's new law allowing police to demand documentation from people they suspect are in the country illegally.

However, they do still approve of the city cash cow that is the red light camera...

In Columbus, contracts will be decided on a case-by-case basis, Williamson said.

Columbus recently extended its agreement with Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., which owns and operates the city's 20 red-light cameras. The new contract will double the number of cameras posted at Columbus intersections to issue tickets to red-light-runners.

Like in L.A.'s boycott of "some" of Arizona, my old city mayor just can't help the political grandstanding. Or hypocracy.

 

[Ragnar]

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

Boycotting is voluntary, an embargo is not. (it has the force of law)

I have a problem with city and State powers that seek that kind of control over what should be a free market. The only orders the bureaucracy should get from on high are find the best deal for the taxpayers, not political agenda's.

It's too much power to grant. Boycott's ought to stay in the relm of individuals.

 

[Shogun]

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

Boycotting is voluntary, an embargo is not. (it has the force of law)

I have a problem with city and State powers that seek that kind of control over what should be a free market. The only orders the bureaucracy should get from on high are find the best deal for the taxpayers, not political agenda's.

It's too much power to grant. Boycott's ought to stay in the relm of individuals.

and, with the possibility of political repercussions, they remain in the realm of individual citizenship. This isn't an embargo as there is no wide scale application to the citizens of LA to restrict them from doing business with AZ. That you need to dance around crafted vocabulary speaks volumes.

And, I think it's fucking hilarious that someone touting free markets is semi-insinuating that such boycotts should be regulated or made illegal by some jurisdiction external to the very tax paying people who elect their city politicians. All they are doing is saying that THEIR business will go elsewhere. Hell, my town saw the same thing happen when another Missouri city tried to pull the Show-Me state games after Columbia elected to decriminalize medical marijuana. Guess what. The sky didn't fall after all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Should do it anyway for a week just to make the point to not fuck with those that hold your leash. 7 days at 75% power... Wonder how much of LA would be in flames after that?

Yeah! Let's punish an entire city because of the words of a politician! That will show 'em that you're right and sane!

The people are responsible for the actions of their leaders.

 

[Ragnar]

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

Boycotting is voluntary, an embargo is not. (it has the force of law)

I have a problem with city and State powers that seek that kind of control over what should be a free market. The only orders the bureaucracy should get from on high are find the best deal for the taxpayers, not political agenda's.

It's too much power to grant. Boycott's ought to stay in the relm of individuals.

and, with the possibility of political repercussions, they remain in the realm of individual citizenship. This isn't an embargo as there is no wide scale application to the citizens of LA to restrict them from doing business with AZ. That you need to dance around crafted vocabulary speaks volumes.

And, I think it's fucking hilarious that someone touting free markets is semi-insinuating that such boycotts should be regulated or made illegal by some jurisdiction external to the very tax paying people who elect their city politicians. All they are doing is saying that THEIR business will go elsewhere. Hell, my town saw the same thing happen when another Missouri city tried to pull the Show-Me state games after Columbia elected to decriminalize medical marijuana. Guess what. The sky didn't fall after all.

Can't get your head around the group think? "The possibility of political repercussions" is not in the realm of the individual it IS in the realm of the collective. It may not be an "embargo" per se but neither is it a boycott if there is no choice in the matter.

They are saying "THEIR business will go elsewhere" but they are saying it with other people's money. It should not be within their power do do so for the stated purpose of doing economic harm to send a political message. Same should go for Arizona's power companies.

A law or regulation stating that government lacks the authority to spend taxpayer dollars for punitive political purposes is consistent with a free market.

Individuals however, should retain the right to boycott anyone they please.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fight fire with fire!!!

Arizona threatens to pull plug on LA's power if city goes through with boycott...

LA's boycott resolution sparks a threat over power the city receives from Arizona
An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.

Power Play Over Immigration Law | NBC Los Angeles

ROFL, the Federal Government owns Hoover Dam, not Arizona.

Let's see what the feds have to say about Arizona trying to use their resources in this manner.

Especially since interstate commerce is ALSO the province of the Federal Government.

 

[Immanuel]

Should do it anyway for a week just to make the point to not fuck with those that hold your leash. 7 days at 75% power... Wonder how much of LA would be in flames after that?

Yeah! Let's punish an entire city because of the words of a politician! That will show 'em that you're right and sane!

The people are responsible for the actions of their leaders.

Somebody has to be. It seems pretty evident that those leaders won't accept responsibility.

Immie

 

[manu1959]

Should do it anyway for a week just to make the point to not fuck with those that hold your leash. 7 days at 75% power... Wonder how much of LA would be in flames after that?

Yeah! Let's punish an entire city because of the words of a politician! That will show 'em that you're right and sane!

isn't that waht the rest of the country is doing to arizona....punishing the average arizona citizen for the actions of their politicians....

now if the feds would enforce their own laws we wouldn't have to boycott arizona....we could boycott the feds.....

 

[manu1959]

Fight fire with fire!!!

Arizona threatens to pull plug on LA's power if city goes through with boycott...

LA's boycott resolution sparks a threat over power the city receives from Arizona
An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.

Power Play Over Immigration Law | NBC Los Angeles

ROFL, the Federal Government owns Hoover Dam, not Arizona.

Let's see what the feds have to say about Arizona trying to use their resources in this manner.

Especially since interstate commerce is ALSO the province of the Federal Government.

the regulate instate commerce....if there is no commerce there is nothing for them to regulate....maybe obama wil sieze control of the arizona power company and or make them sell power to northern mexico....

 

[Shogun]

Boycotting is voluntary, an embargo is not. (it has the force of law)

I have a problem with city and State powers that seek that kind of control over what should be a free market. The only orders the bureaucracy should get from on high are find the best deal for the taxpayers, not political agenda's.

It's too much power to grant. Boycott's ought to stay in the relm of individuals.

and, with the possibility of political repercussions, they remain in the realm of individual citizenship. This isn't an embargo as there is no wide scale application to the citizens of LA to restrict them from doing business with AZ. That you need to dance around crafted vocabulary speaks volumes.

And, I think it's fucking hilarious that someone touting free markets is semi-insinuating that such boycotts should be regulated or made illegal by some jurisdiction external to the very tax paying people who elect their city politicians. All they are doing is saying that THEIR business will go elsewhere. Hell, my town saw the same thing happen when another Missouri city tried to pull the Show-Me state games after Columbia elected to decriminalize medical marijuana. Guess what. The sky didn't fall after all.

Can't get your head around the group think? "The possibility of political repercussions" is not in the realm of the individual it IS in the realm of the collective. It may not be an "embargo" per se but neither is it a boycott if there is no choice in the matter.

They are saying "THEIR business will go elsewhere" but they are saying it with other people's money. It should not be within their power do do so for the stated purpose of doing economic harm to send a political message. Same should go for Arizona's power companies.

A law or regulation stating that government lacks the authority to spend taxpayer dollars for punitive political purposes is consistent with a free market.

Individuals however, should retain the right to boycott anyone they please.

again, you fail to acknowledge that there is plenty of choice for the voting population of LA who don't gel with LA's boycott.

but, at least you finally admit that it's not an embargo.




now, until the voting population of LA decide they need a law regarding how their municipal money is spent why don't you tell us whose authority should restrict such practices.

 

[Vast LWC]

the regulate instate commerce....if there is no commerce there is nothing for them to regulate....maybe obama wil sieze control of the arizona power company and or make them sell power to northern mexico....

What part of "The Hoover Dam is owned by the federal government" was unclear in my post?

And where does the power that Arizona exports to California primarily come from?

 

[Shogun]

Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman has banned city-worker travel to Arizona because of that state's new law allowing police to demand documentation from people they suspect are in the country illegally.

"The mayor will not be approving any travel to Arizona," spokesman Dan Williamson said this morning.

"He agrees with those who want to send a message to the state of Arizona that this is not the American way."

Already, he has rejected a request from the city's technology director to attend a seminar in Phoenix, Williamson said.


http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...ayor-bans-city-travel-to-Arizona.html?sid=101

 

[Ragnar]

and, with the possibility of political repercussions, they remain in the realm of individual citizenship. This isn't an embargo as there is no wide scale application to the citizens of LA to restrict them from doing business with AZ. That you need to dance around crafted vocabulary speaks volumes.

And, I think it's fucking hilarious that someone touting free markets is semi-insinuating that such boycotts should be regulated or made illegal by some jurisdiction external to the very tax paying people who elect their city politicians. All they are doing is saying that THEIR business will go elsewhere. Hell, my town saw the same thing happen when another Missouri city tried to pull the Show-Me state games after Columbia elected to decriminalize medical marijuana. Guess what. The sky didn't fall after all.

Can't get your head around the group think? "The possibility of political repercussions" is not in the realm of the individual it IS in the realm of the collective. It may not be an "embargo" per se but neither is it a boycott if there is no choice in the matter.

They are saying "THEIR business will go elsewhere" but they are saying it with other people's money. It should not be within their power do do so for the stated purpose of doing economic harm to send a political message. Same should go for Arizona's power companies.

A law or regulation stating that government lacks the authority to spend taxpayer dollars for punitive political purposes is consistent with a free market.

Individuals however, should retain the right to boycott anyone they please.

again, you fail to acknowledge that there is plenty of choice for the voting population of LA who don't gel with LA's boycott.

but, at least you finally admit that it's not an embargo.




now, until the voting population of LA decide they need a law regarding how their municipal money is spent why don't you tell us whose authority should restrict such practices.

Again, you sede to the State what should be an individual choice. Again it's enough for you to elect others to think and act on your behalf and with your dollars. All I'm saying is that is more power than government should have.

An embargo is "a legal prohibition on commerce" and a boycott is a chosen one. Which do you think is a little more accurate?

As to your last question, as I have stated, I believe that LA assumed authority they should not have. The people are whose "authority should restrict such practices". If the LA city council were to pass a law making it illegal to wear purple pants on Tuesday I would not expect someone to argue that "until the voting population of LA decide they need a law reguarding dress codes why don't you tell us whose authority should restrict such practices?". It's moronic to assume the government has the authority to do anything until a law comes along that says otherwise. The proper way to look at this kind of thing is to assume the government has no powers, not specificly granted to it by law and further tested by the Constitution besides.

 

[GHook93]

AZ is about to cut power to the traitorous Libtards out in LA who get 25% of their electricity from AZ! I say fucking do. Even if LA like the cowardly libtards they are pull back from the boycott, still do it for be an sanctuary city, not respect other states needs and sovereignty and for promoting and rewarding illegal immigration.

Payback is a BITCH LIBTARD. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!
Power Play Over Immigration Law - KNBC-TV- msnbc.com

Note: TX, AK, ND, SD and WY should all boycott CA and cut off their oil supplies!

Amazing the douche bag Obama has not stepped in and at least state "Yes I disagree with AZ law, but we are all Americans and NO State should economically boycott another. That type of nonsense isn't American and only hurts us all." Yet the do-nothing waste of a President remains idle except apologize to China about the AZ law and to apologize to Mexico about the AZ law, even though Mexico has one of the most xenophobic, harsh and toughest illegal immigration laws in the world (not to mention illegal immigrant to Mexico are open game to police shackdowns and abuse)!