Arizona to Los Angeles "No Power For You!"

[hyakku]

Coming from los angeles, the best part about this thread is seeing all of the people outside of LA thinking that not only is this going to happen, but the fact that if it did, LA would be the loser there. LOL.

By the way, why in god's name would a private company defend the state of arizona when they can make money continuing to sell to California?

LOL, Arizonans and Texans might be the only people in this nation that can rival the crazies I've met in California though, so this isn't that surprising.

 

[Modbert]

Merged again - Modbert

 

[Shogun]

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.

elected governments act on behalf of their voting constituency. this is exactly in line with what city governments do. You may not like the product of LA's elections, or the repercussions thereof, but your ire probably falls into the "tough titty" category.


Again, your dependence on manipulated vocabulary doesn't impress me. When LA bans all commerce, private and commercial, with AZ let me know. Until then, you really have no reason to use the word "embargo" again in this thread.


LA assumed the authority that it is given when validated by their voting population. Again, if they have crossed a line then there will be fall out. If not, then you are no one whose opinion is more important than LA voters. As to your retarded purple pants scenario, go tell it to the youth of America whose towns have enacted bans on droopy pants. Such does happen and will continue to happen per the autonomy of a local electorate. regardless of your opinion.

 

[csbarry]

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!

Yeah, if some anti-American politician in LA wants to punish Arizona for doing what it had every right to do legally, then LA should be prepared to face the consequences, so I suggest the City of Angels commence to kicking some politician's ass.

 

[Vast LWC]

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)!

OK, first, you do realize that LA is not a state, right?

Secondly, the only thing the city of LA has the power to "Boycott" about Arizona are Los Angeles city contracts.

And if Los Angeles doesn't want to hire Arizona people to work on their contracts, then that's their business.


On the other hand, Arizona's proposal deals with interstate commerce as it applies to private power companies, with power supplied by the Federal Government through Hoover Dam.

Arizona has no legal ability to control either.

If the State of Arizona boycotted hiring Los Angeles companies and people from working on state contracts, that would be a different story, but as it is, what is proposed is a completely empty threat.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

ROFLMNAO...

LOVE IT! ​

 

[Ragnar]

elected governments act on behalf of their voting constituency. this is exactly in line with what city governments do. You may not like the product of LA's elections, or the repercussions thereof, but your ire probably falls into the "tough titty" category.

Again, your dependence on manipulated vocabulary doesn't impress me. When LA bans all commerce, private and commercial, with AZ let me know. Until then, you really have no reason to use the word "embargo" again in this thread.

LA assumed the authority that it is given when validated by their voting population. Again, if they have crossed a line then there will be fall out. If not, then you are no one whose opinion is more important than LA voters. As to your retarded purple pants scenario, go tell it to the youth of America whose towns have enacted bans on droopy pants. Such does happen and will continue to happen per the autonomy of a local electorate. regardless of your opinion.

Having an opinion about the limits of government power is not "ire". (unless your Janet Napolitano)

Embargo does not mean "bans all commerce, private and commercial". Who is manipulating vocabulary here? I simply have correctly noted that between the terms boycott and embargo, only one carries the force of law.

em·bar·go   /ɛmˈbɑrgoʊ/ Show Spelled [em-bahr-goh] Show IPA noun,plural-goes, verb,-goed, -go·ing.
–noun
1.an order of a government prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports.
2.an injunction from a government commerce agency to refuse freight for shipment, as in case of congestion or insufficient facilities.
3.any restriction imposed upon commerce by edict.
4.a restraint or hindrance; prohibition.

My pants scenario depicted, in an absurd way, that I need not site "whose authority" is at stake every time a governmental body over steps its bounds. It is always the people. And fwiw, droopy pants laws are stupid as well.

 

[Intense]

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)!

OK, first, you do realize that LA is not a state, right?

Secondly, the only thing the city of LA has the power to "Boycott" about Arizona are Los Angeles city contracts.

And if Los Angeles doesn't want to hire Arizona people to work on their contracts, then that's their business.


On the other hand, Arizona's proposal deals with interstate commerce as it applies to private power companies, with power supplied by the Federal Government through Hoover Dam.

Arizona has no legal ability to control either.

If the State of Arizona boycotted hiring Los Angeles companies and people from working on state contracts, that would be a different story, but as it is, what is proposed is a completely empty threat.

The Federal Government does not provide anything it did not first take from someone else. In this case it Regulates Interstate commerce. If La wants to Boycott Arizona, I say put up or shut up, Boycott Arizona, Power is part of the package. Is it symbolism over substance or what???

 

[Vast LWC]

The Federal Government does not provide anything it did not first take from someone else. In this case it Regulates Interstate commerce. If La wants to Boycott Arizona, I say put up or shut up, Boycott Arizona, Power is part of the package. Is it symbolism over substance or what???

Umm, in the case of the Hoover Dam, the Federal Government BUILT it.

 

[hyakku]

FOXNews.com - L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights," Beltran said.

LOL. Arizona just got shat on, not only did they lol at his letter, but they won't even respond to it. Gotta love So-cal.

 

[Againsheila]

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

I'm liking Arizona more and more each day.

 

[Intense]

The Federal Government does not provide anything it did not first take from someone else. In this case it Regulates Interstate commerce. If La wants to Boycott Arizona, I say put up or shut up, Boycott Arizona, Power is part of the package. Is it symbolism over substance or what???

Umm, in the case of the Hoover Dam, the Federal Government BUILT it.

Good point, however it in truth was contracted by the Federal Government to private Contractors.

Awarding of the Hoover Dam Contract. Six construction firms created a consortium call Six Company, Inc. to submit a competitive proposal to build Hoover Dam. As the lowest qualified bidder at $48,890,955, Six Company was awarded the contract. It was given incentive bonuses and would be fined for each day construction overran the assigned schedule. Thus began a furious pace of around the clock construction, which would result in completion of Hoover Dam almost two years ahead of schedule.



Hoover Dam Construction History | Hoover Dam Information

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 words of a politician"? Their fucking city council voted to boycott Arizona . . . all except for buying power from us, of course. If they can decide to punish all of Arizona for the votes of our politicians, then we sure the hell can and should punish them for the votes of theirs, especially when it's so blatantly hypocritical and self-serving.

What goes around comes around . . . and usually bites you in the ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK, then how about colorado stop water to Arizona

Sorry, but I believe it's illegal to dam up a river entirely that way.

 

[Vast LWC]

Good point, however it in truth was contracted by the Federal Government to private Contractors.

Awarding of the Hoover Dam Contract. Six construction firms created a consortium call Six Company, Inc. to submit a competitive proposal to build Hoover Dam. As the lowest qualified bidder at $48,890,955, Six Company was awarded the contract. It was given incentive bonuses and would be fined for each day construction overran the assigned schedule. Thus began a furious pace of around the clock construction, which would result in completion of Hoover Dam almost two years ahead of schedule.



Hoover Dam Construction History | Hoover Dam Information

Alright, I'll give you that. But the Federal Government did pay for it to be built, which is why they own it today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How much money will they be forgoing to "hurt" LA?

Why aren't they foregoing it anyway because of LA's boycott? What the smuck are they boycotting, since THAT is the major export they get from us?

I think it's high time SOMEONE give these ass clowns a wake-up call.

 

[Intense]

OK, then how about colorado stop water to Arizona

Sorry, but I believe it's illegal to dam up a river entirely that way.

What makes you so sure Colorado would side against Arizona???

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeap its a bullshit threat that will not happen.

Sorta like LA's dreaded "boycott", right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK, then how about colorado stop water to Arizona

I didn't realize that a river was a government product, let alone the fact that there's any dam capable of stopping the Colorado river for long before it bursts. Go ahead. See what happens.

Yes, it is. THe water comes from the rocky mountains in colorado that supplies the entire southwest, and there are deals in place to allow certain amounts of water and selling of the water rights to southern california and arizona
Western States Water Laws - Colorado

Water rights in Colorado are considered real property and can be bought, sold, and leased to other entities. Although water is considered to be the property of the state, a property right exists in the priority to the use of water. The transfer of a water requires filing a change of water right application with the appropriate water court. As with a change of use or point of diversion application, the applicant must provide evidence that the transfer will not injure the vested water rights of other users.

Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact

All righty. Let's just all sit back and watch while they spend hundreds of millions of dollars - at least - to competely stop up the Colorado River and flood their state. That should be fun.

 

[Intense]

I didn't realize that a river was a government product, let alone the fact that there's any dam capable of stopping the Colorado river for long before it bursts. Go ahead. See what happens.

Yes, it is. THe water comes from the rocky mountains in colorado that supplies the entire southwest, and there are deals in place to allow certain amounts of water and selling of the water rights to southern california and arizona
Western States Water Laws - Colorado

Water rights in Colorado are considered real property and can be bought, sold, and leased to other entities. Although water is considered to be the property of the state, a property right exists in the priority to the use of water. The transfer of a water requires filing a change of water right application with the appropriate water court. As with a change of use or point of diversion application, the applicant must provide evidence that the transfer will not injure the vested water rights of other users.

Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact

All righty. Let's just all sit back and watch while they spend hundreds of millions of dollars - at least - to competely stop up the Colorado River and flood their state. That should be fun.

Sounds like small minds playing God.