Arizona's white supremacist terrorists threaten California's electricity supply
Phlip
"I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide
elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing
Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the
“resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact,
approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los
Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
generation."
Never mind explaining to the cracker that A> you can't shut down just
part of a grid - circuit breakers everywhere would blow and cause a
regional blackout, and B> threatening an entire state's electricity
supply is the same as threatening an individual's, and is probably
already a felony.
The PHANTOM
> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-respond...
I would suggest closing the last valve on the west side of any
pipeline crossing Arizona into California since the prunepickers in
the state of fruits and nuts hate "DIRTY" oil so much. Let the
lunatics in the Granola state burn their Prius's and 62' Chebby
peekups to light and cool their casitas.
Phlip
May we call you "Casper"? C-:
> I would suggest closing the last valve on the west side of any
> pipeline crossing Arizona into California since the prunepickers in
> the state of fruits and nuts hate "DIRTY" oil so much. Let the
> lunatics in the Granola state burn their Prius's and 62' Chebby
> peekups to light and cool their casitas.
I was about to threaten cutting off y'alls raisin & cheap wine supply,
then I remembered y'all have 5 years worth of Kraft "food" stored up
in your Costcos anyway, and you typically can't tell the difference...
Enjoy that hydrogenated veggie oil!
Patriot Games
wrote:
>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-responds-to-la-boycott-over-sb1070/
>"I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide
>elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing
>Arizona�s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the
>�resources and ties� we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact,
>approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los
>Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
>"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
>encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
>Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
>generation."
BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!
----------------------------
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Galleries updated 5/17/10!
Learn the TRUTH about:
Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Names,
SilentOtto,
Freestyle,
Iarnrod,
Major Debacle,
Michael Coburn,
RobW,
Gandalf Grey,
Tater Gumfries,
Tim Crowley...
Salty Stan
> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-respond...
>
LOL! That was hilarious, thanks for sharing that with us, Phillip!
I can just imagine what quickly that boycott will collapse if he went
thru with his threat. Liberals' devotion to their pat cause ends when
their personal comfort is threatened.
Phlip
> >"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
> >encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
> >Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
> >generation."
>
> BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!
One Brian Marick pointed out, elsenet, "CA threatens to boycott AZ, so
AZ threatens to not sell things to CA?"
Phlip
If he followed thru, he'd run afoul of all kinds of federal
regulations covering interstate commerce. (LA's boycott might, too!)
You know - big gov't messing with state's rights!
> Liberals' devotion to their pat cause ends when
> their personal comfort is threatened.
Except for scrubbing pelicans or giving deportees legal
representation. They're kind'a funny, like that.
Walter Harding
> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-respond...
>
> elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing
> Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the
> “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact,
> approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los
> Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
>
> "If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
> encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
> Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
> generation."
>
> Never mind explaining to the cracker that A> you can't shut down just
> part of a grid - circuit breakers everywhere would blow and cause a
> regional blackout, and
Regional backouts is kinda the point of throwing the switch. This is
why it's a very, very, VERY bad idea for one state to launch a boycott
against another. Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and
they most certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
Arizonians should be every bit as concerned about CA blackouts as the
Los Angeles City Council are about small AZ businesses who they've
driven out of business.
BTW, California gets about half it's water from AZ.
>B> threatening an entire state's electricity
> supply is the same as threatening an individual's, and is probably
> already a felony.
Electric companies cut electricity in private residences every day.
Walter Harding
People can do far better without raisins than they can without water
or electricity.
Bert Hyman
Walter Harding <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Phlip
> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> Walter Harding <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
That didn't stop Cheney & Enron during the 2000s.
David Hartung
> In news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
> Walter Harding<gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
>> CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>
>
> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
It seems to me that if LA refuses to do business with Arizona, they
would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with them.
Phlip
> On 05/19/2010 03:44 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> > Walter Harding<gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> >> CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> > Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>
> It seems to me that if LA refuses to do business with Arizona, they
> would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with them.
Why does SF have all the gays and LA have all the lawyers?
SF drew first pick.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
And, um, you're under the impression that California imports oil and
water from ARIZONA?
Bert Hyman
<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
Not if there are contracts in place.
Samuel Adams
Or BP and Barack Obama.
During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
according to financial disclosure records.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
-
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,
the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
awake; since history and experience prove that
foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes
of Republican Government.
-George Washington September 19, 1796
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >People can do far better without raisins than they can without water
> >or electricity.
>
> And, um, you're under the impression that California imports oil and
> water from ARIZONA?
We pump our own oil - you can see the pumps around.
But, yes, we get a big chunk of the Colorado river
Responding to the Subject line "Californians upset when they realize
boycotts run both ways": I don't think anyone around here has even
heard of this news article, less cares about it. Except for the
airheads on the H8 radio station, 640 AM, who proudly trumpet it as
evidence that CA's boycott is wrong.
Oh, and Carly Fiorina has a nice new radio spot. She promises to H8 on
Latinos even more than Gov Brewer does. I guess she doesn't care about
the votes of anyone who even likes non-Taco Bell tacos...
But she played the spot on 103 FM, which is a prog-rock station that
plays 70s and 80s AOR formats; lots of songs about peace, love, and
understanding. Go figure!
ArmyOfDorkness
"Walter Harding" <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:41 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-respond...
>>
>> "I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide
>> elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing
>> Arizona�s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the
>> �resources and ties� we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact,
>> approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los
>> Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
>>
>> "If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
>> encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
>> Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
>> generation."
>>
>> Never mind explaining to the cracker that A> you can't shut down just
>> part of a grid - circuit breakers everywhere would blow and cause a
>> regional blackout, and
>
> Regional backouts is kinda the point of throwing the switch. This is
> why it's a very, very, VERY bad idea for one state to launch a boycott
> against another. Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and
> they most certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
And as a privately owned company do you really think that they will stop
those electric meters from turning? Hell no. They don't make their money
from tourism. They'll keep the money flowing.
Phlip
> > Regional backouts is kinda the point of throwing the switch.
More than CA.
> And as a privately owned company do you really think that they will stop
> those electric meters from turning? Hell no. They don't make their money
> from tourism. They'll keep the money flowing.
Imagine the irony if they withheld power from that sterling example of
American Socialism at its best, the Hoover Dam.
> > Electric companies cut electricity in private residences every day.
If they don't pay; that's in the contract.
Walter Harding
> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
Of course there are. That's why the offer was made to release
California from to contracts, forcing the incompetent Mayor of Los
Angeles to bluster foolishly.. I'm quite certain that lawyers could
find violations in Los Angeles' contracts that could gum up the
works. I suspect that Arizona could easily at massive taxes out of
state providers. They could have "accidents" on the hottest days.
There's a million ways the State of Arizona can make life miserable
for Los Angeles.
Walter Harding
> Innews:8cudnW_6kY2N_mnW...@giganews.comDavid Hartung
>
> <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
> > On 05/19/2010 03:44 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
> >> In
> >>news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most
> >>> certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> >> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>
> > It seems to me that if LA refuses to do business with Arizona, they
> > would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with them.
>
> Not if there are contracts in place.
Ever have a pissed of supplier? You'd be AMAZED how little contracts
can help.
Walter Harding
>
> news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 5:41 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-respond...
>
> >> "I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide
> >> elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing
> >> “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact,
> >> approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los
> >> Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
>
> >> "If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
> >> encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
> >> Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
> >> generation."
>
> >> Never mind explaining to the cracker that A> you can't shut down just
> >> part of a grid - circuit breakers everywhere would blow and cause a
> >> regional blackout, and
>
> > Regional backouts is kinda the point of throwing the switch. This is
> > why it's a very, very, VERY bad idea for one state to launch a boycott
> > against another. Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and
> > they most certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> And as a privately owned company do you really think that they will stop
> those electric meters from turning? Hell no. They don't make their money
> from tourism. They'll keep the money flowing.
What on Earth makes you believe the electric meters would stop
turning. There are LOTS of places to sell electricity. Remember?
The econuts insisted we stop building electric plants decades ago.
Much demand, little supply.
First Post
Indeed. Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
the machinery so to speak.
My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
Walter Harding
> On May 19, 4:47 pm, "ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAsKni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Regional backouts is kinda the point of throwing the switch.
>
> More than CA.
>
> > And as a privately owned company do you really think that they will stop
> > those electric meters from turning? Hell no. They don't make their money
> > from tourism. They'll keep the money flowing.
>
> Imagine the irony if they withheld power from that sterling example of
> American Socialism at its best, the Hoover Dam.
That electricity goes to Las Vagas.
> > > Electric companies cut electricity in private residences every day.
> If they don't pay; that's in the contract.
And you don't believe contracts can be broken?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On May 19, 3:30�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09"
><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> >People can do far better without raisins than they can without water
>> >or electricity.
>>
>> And, um, you're under the impression that California imports oil and
>> water from ARIZONA?
>
>We pump our own oil - you can see the pumps around.
>
>But, yes, we get a big chunk of the Colorado river
Which is SHARED by Arizona and California.
>
>Responding to the Subject line "Californians upset when they realize
>boycotts run both ways": I don't think anyone around here has even
>heard of this news article, less cares about it. Except for the
>airheads on the H8 radio station, 640 AM, who proudly trumpet it as
>evidence that CA's boycott is wrong.
>
>Oh, and Carly Fiorina has a nice new radio spot. She promises to H8 on
>Latinos even more than Gov Brewer does. I guess she doesn't care about
>the votes of anyone who even likes non-Taco Bell tacos...
Looks like the GOP has written off the Hispanic vote. I wonder if
Fiorini is another right wing moron who thinks all Hispanics are
illegal aliens and thus can't vote anyway.
>
>But she played the spot on 103 FM, which is a prog-rock station that
>plays 70s and 80s AOR formats; lots of songs about peace, love, and
>understanding. Go figure!
Probably trying to appeal to America v. 6.0 yupscum.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
"Binding contracts". Arizonans aren't obliged to buy California
oranges.
but the Power and water agreements are contractural. In fact, mostly
federal, so Arizona has no say anyway.
Phlip
> > Imagine the irony if they withheld power from that sterling example of
> > American Socialism at its best, the Hoover Dam.
>
> That electricity goes to Las Vagas.
Note the word "Imagine". As in "imagine there's no country", by
reputed liberal John Lennon.
> > > > Electric companies cut electricity in private residences every day.
> > If they don't pay; that's in the contract.
>
> And you don't believe contracts can be broken?
I am certain that big corporations break contracts with citizens all
the time. Look at HMOs, for example.
Further, the AM radio station that I only listen to every day for 15
seconds or so was claiming that Gary Pierce meant his statement
rhetorically, and that down at the bottom he was only presenting the
option as a hypothesis. The professional liar, between citing Rush L,
then claimed that all the news organizations and blogs who ran with
this story were too lazy to read the whole letter.
I can't tell what part he was talking about. Is this yet another
fabrication of the far-right? Lies are indeed all they have to support
their positions these days. The conclusory paragraph starts "If an
economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
generation." That does not look very hypothetical to me, but maybe we
are indulging in some Orwellian double-think or new-speak I'm unaware
of.
Phlip
> What on Earth makes you believe the electric meters would stop
> turning. There are LOTS of places to sell electricity. Remember?
> The econuts insisted we stop building electric plants decades ago.
> Much demand, little supply.
Are you even aware when one of your own paragraphs contradicts its own
sentences?
Phlip
> Or BP and Barack Obama.
>
> During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
> received a total of $77,051
Oh my gawd! I absolutely did not know that!!! Say it isn't true!!
Did any it come from one of the 170 lobbyists directly employed on
McCain's campaign staff?
(And why the fuck is your nym an alleged liberal?)
Phlip
> Indeed. Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
> manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
> the machinery so to speak.
> My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
> Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
> getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
This is exactly why economic boycotts ("sanctions") are better than
warfare. Unlike warfare, they directly interfere with the dictators'
cronies' forecasts & stocks.
LA boycotting over AZ apartheid compares favorably to LA boycotting
over South African apartheid. I seem to recall you wingnuts opposed
that boycott, and supported that apartheid, too!
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
<Slyt...@brewski.com> wrote:
>Heretic, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 19, 1:44�pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> Walter Harding <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
>>> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>>
>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>>
>>That didn't stop Cheney & Enron during the 2000s.
>
>Or BP and Barack Obama.
>
>During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
>received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
>recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
>according to financial disclosure records.
>
>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Say, bubbles, could you tell us what percentage that is of the $750
million in campaign contributions Obama got?
Ramon F Herrera
Yeah, the boycott runs two ways, indeedy...
How many way do I boycott thee?
Let me count the ways...
Arizona <==> Los Angeles
Arizona <==> San Francisco
Arizona <==> Oakland
Arizona <==> West Hollywood
Arizona <==> Seattle
Arizona <==> Chicago
Arizona <==> Seattle
Arizona <==> St. Paul, MN
Arizona <==> Milwaukee
Arizona <==> Boulder
Arizona <==> Boston
Arizona <==> Springfield, MA
Arizona <==> Worcester, MA
Arizona <==> New York City
Arizona <==> Washington, DC
on the international side:
Arizona <==> Mexico (and the rest of Latin America)
Arizona <==> The UN
...and last, but not least:
Arizona <==> Phoenix
Arizona <==> Tucson
Arizona <==> Flagstaff
-Ramon
Gandalf Grey
"Bob Milby pretending to be Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in
message news:v1b8v5pp4tv2dnefr...@4ax.com...
>
> BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!
Oh look! The village idiot is having an attack.
Ramon F Herrera
Yeah, the boycott runs two ways, indeedy...
How many ways do I boycott thee?
Let me count the ways...
Arizona <==> Los Angeles
Arizona <==> San Francisco
Arizona <==> Oakland
Arizona <==> West Hollywood
Arizona <==> Seattle
Arizona <==> Chicago
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
That's what she thinks.
All the classic rock channels have far-right on-air personalities.
It's incredible - they play songs about heroically resisting The Man,
and then their station breaks scoff at Obama for having the nerve to
try to reform the status quo.
But in the case of 10.3 they are new, so I think they are cheap. And
their DJs are human.
Phlip
> >During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
> >received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
> >recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
> >according to financial disclosure records.
>
> >http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
>
> Say, bubbles, could you tell us what percentage that is of the $750
> million in campaign contributions Obama got?
He can't, because that 75,000 number (with is the only thing the
corporatists have to go with on this one!) is _cumulative_ thru his
legislative career. The actual amount in his presidential campaign is,
perforce, smaller.
And I doubt the wingnut blogs will be reporting it, so he can't tell
you it.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Whatever idiot wrote this line apparently has never heard of the
California Aquaduct Project.
The vast majority of water in California comes from the Sierra, and
the mountains in the north of the state.
Further, AZ runs a bigger water deficit than any other state in the
union.
First Post
Why not just move your illegal immigrant ass from Texas back to Mexico
and join your brethren in their boycott.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On May 19, 3:43�pm, Samuel Adams <SlytB...@brewski.com> wrote:
Without that $77,000, Obama would never have broken the 753 million
mark in his donations, but would have had to settle for 752.9 million.
Obviously, BP had him in their pocket.
Phlip
A wingnut would probably think that diagram reflects a win for AZ.
Ramon F Herrera
Never been in Mexico. Don't know many people there.
I happen to be a beaner, though. From Beantown. We call ourselves "The
Spirit of America", but we really mean "The Brains of America". Far
conservs don't need to apply to the better schools.
-Ramon
First Post
You act like ya'lls piddly little boycott is actually going to hurt
the state.
Anything that is produced in the locations you listed can be found
somewhere else likely at the same cost.
And what have you to say about Costa Mesa? They've announced that
they aren't going to be a safe city for any illegals and will be a
"rule of law" city and can do exactly as Arizona is under existing
California law.
And good luck convincing all of those that are looking for more ways
to do business with Arizona firms as well as the tourists that have
said they will be vacationing there more often.
And you will have better luck pissing up a rope than convincing the
thousands of college kids that descend on lake Havasu each year to
abandon their party spot.
Salty Stan
Let Arizona cut off the juice for a few hours and we'll see how
quickly this boycott will collapse.Liberals' devotion to their pet
causes ends at their personal comfort.
Phlip
> You act like ya'lls piddly little boycott is actually going to hurt
> the state.
> Anything that is produced in the locations you listed can be found
> somewhere else likely at the same cost.
> And what have you to say about Costa Mesa? They've announced that
> they aren't going to be a safe city for any illegals and will be a
> "rule of law" city and can do exactly as Arizona is under existing
> California law.
So does Escondido. That doesn't make the law right.
From the top: As late as 20 years ago, immigration was one of those
issues, like abortion, that the GOP kept alive, so they could rely on
single-issue voters. Meanwhile, with lots of holes in the border,
migrant laborers could literally commute to US crops and help harvest
them.
The balance of power maintains when unscrupulous employers use
undocumented immigrants, because both sides break the law equally.
However, as the GOP runs out of options, they must appeal to haters,
like you, who can't see beyond skin color. So instead of cracking down
on employers, they crack down on undocumenteds, with random sweeps.
Meanwhile, the one thing the GOP can improve is the border. Crossing
is now so hard that migrant laborers, for the past 15 years or so,
have stayed on this side of the border, and raised their families
here. Just because they are Mexicans, and therefor automatically know
how to commit all kinds of crimes, as wingnuts imagine them, doesn't
mean they automatically know how to get back across the border once
they are deported.
And that's why the current system continues to reward employers for
illegal hiring practices, while at the same time randomly breaking up
families. Instead of fixing the problem - by issuing as many work
visas as we have open jobs - the GOP wants to exploit the situation by
making a public example of each deportee.
And sorry pieces of human shit like you are falling for it, because
you can't see beyond your bleary miasma of hate.
Salty Stan
> On May 19, 5:31 pm, First Post <LyingLefti...@reInvalid.org> wrote:
>
> > Indeed. Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
> > manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
> > the machinery so to speak.
> > My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
> > Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
> > getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
>
> This is exactly why economic boycotts ("sanctions") are better than
> warfare. Unlike warfare, they directly interfere with the dictators'
> cronies' forecasts & stocks.
Yes, they worked so well against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Burma...
>
> LA boycotting over AZ apartheid
"AZ apartheid "?! I'm guessing you actually haven't read this law.
> Lies are indeed all they have to support their positions these days
Irony, anyone?
-
Ramon F Herrera
Hi Phlip,
It is so refreshing to read a posting from a thinking individual. The
following article is an excellent complement, to add perspective. The
Arizona Capitol Times did a great, original investigative work:
-Ramon
Proud Supporter of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
------------------------------------------
Black is the New White.
Boehner the New Beaner.
Sarah the New Charo:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004819/
Phlip
> http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/05/17/trespassing-law-may-turn-mo...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2cwa6vb
"And if nationwide figures can be applied to Arizona, one in four of
those who are released from federal custody fail to appear in court."
No!! D'ya think??
Chi-Town Commie
Just like Goldman Sachs was a heavy bundler for Obama and Obama had to
throw them under the bus when the heat got hot. The same for BP. Obama
has to make public display of him wagging his finger at them in front
of the cameras.
Who's next? Probably Google, being one of his top contributors, since
Obama is a proponent for net neutrality and Google is against it.
That's how Don Obama operates.
Once he gets all the money out of taxpayers, he won't think twice
about throwing the American taxpayer under the bus. By that time, tax
receiver roles will be so huge, they will be a dependent majority. He
will then be President-for-life dada, just like his fellow African
Idi.
#####
A year into Obama's first term in office,
unemployment is higher, the national debt
is higher and there are more soldiers
serving in Afghanistan. When asked about
it, Obama said,
"Well, technically that is change."
Chi-Town Commie
>On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:43:05 -0700, Samuel Adams
><Slyt...@brewski.com> wrote:
>
>>Heretic, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 19, 1:44�pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>> Walter Harding <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
>>>> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>>>
>>>That didn't stop Cheney & Enron during the 2000s.
>>
>>Or BP and Barack Obama.
>>
>>During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
>>received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
>>recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
>>according to financial disclosure records.
>>
>>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
>
>Say, bubbles, could you tell us what percentage that is of the $750
>million in campaign contributions Obama got?
Just enough to force Obama to cover it.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal
candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their
money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Donations come from a mix of employees and the company�s political
action committees � $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related
PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.
Phlip
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:43:05 -0700, Samuel Adams
>
> >>Heretic, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On May 19, 1:44 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>>> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> >>>> Walter Harding <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> >>>> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> >>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>
> >>>That didn't stop Cheney & Enron during the 2000s.
>
> >>Or BP and Barack Obama.
>
> >>During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
> >>received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
> >>recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
> >>according to financial disclosure records.
>
> >>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
>
> >Say, bubbles, could you tell us what percentage that is of the $750
> >million in campaign contributions Obama got?
>
> Just enough to force Obama to cover it.
to cover what?
And how could $75,000 "force" anyone to do anything? I thought the
nature of the system was these _weren't_ bribes. (And if you want
collusion, look at AT&T sponsoring the Dem National Convention in
exchange for immunity from wiretapping law enforcement.)
> BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal
> candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their
> money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
> Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political
> action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related
> PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.
So what? Obama then took the money and deregulated them?
Do you have any paperwork on that - without Cheney's fingerprints on
it?
I didn't think so...
Phlip
> Just like Goldman Sachs was a heavy bundler for Obama
You heard it here first, folks - Goldman Sachs is just the victim!
Sparks
> On May 19, 5:31 pm, First Post <LyingLefti...@reInvalid.org> wrote:
>
> > Indeed. Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
> > manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
> > the machinery so to speak.
> > My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
> > Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
> > getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
>
> This is exactly why economic boycotts ("sanctions") are better than
> warfare. Unlike warfare, they directly interfere with the dictators'
> cronies' forecasts & stocks.
It's also going to hurt the people you supposedly care about. If the
boycotts succeed, a lot of the people you supposedly care about will
be out of work. But then I doubt you actually care about those people
anyway.
David Hartung
> In news:8cudnW_6kY2N_mnW...@giganews.com David Hartung
> <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>
>> On 05/19/2010 03:44 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> In
>>> news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>>> Walter Harding<gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most
>>>> certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>>
>> would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with them.
>
> Not if there are contracts in place.
Was there not a contract in place for Arizona to host the Super-bowl
some years ago? Did not the NFL break that contract for no reason other
than that the Arizona voters refused to vote for a Martin Luther King
holiday?
I don't recall hearing the left cry about upholding contract then.
Bert Hyman
<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 05:41 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:8cudnW_6kY2N_mnW...@giganews.com David Hartung
>> <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/19/2010 03:44 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>> In
>>>> news:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.co
>>>> m Walter Harding<gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most
>>>>> certainly CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that if LA refuses to do business with Arizona, they
>>> would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with
>>> them.
>>
>> Not if there are contracts in place.
>
> Was there not a contract in place for Arizona to host the Super-bowl
> some years ago? Did not the NFL break that contract for no reason
> other than that the Arizona voters refused to vote for a Martin Luther
> King holiday?
Well, did they? Were there any legal or financial repercussions?
> I don't recall hearing the left cry about upholding contract then.
I don't hear them crying now, either.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Chi-Town Commie
It is rather curious, Goldman Sachs got reamed in front of Congress
while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sit back and wait for more bailouts.
This Congress has the entrepreneurial spirit in producing the most
epic dog and pony shows known to this nation with Barack Obama as ring
master. He's the Jerry Springer of politics.
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 19, 8:36�pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>> �"5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:43:05 -0700, Samuel Adams
>> ><SlytB...@brewski.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Heretic, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On May 19, 1:44�pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>>
>> >>>> Walter Harding <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
>> >>>> > CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>>
>> >>>> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>>
>> >>>That didn't stop Cheney & Enron during the 2000s.
>>
>> >>Or BP and Barack Obama.
>>
>> >>During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama
>> >>received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top
>> >>recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
>> >>according to financial disclosure records.
>>
>> >>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
>>
>> >Say, bubbles, could you tell us what percentage that is of the $750
>> >million in campaign contributions Obama got?
>>
>> Just enough to force Obama to cover it.
>
>to cover what?
Obama wants to cover up his cozy relationship with BP during his term
as Senator and his campaign.
Salty Stan
For all those opposed to the new AZ law let me say this:
At least, they are trying to do something. If you don't like this new
law, then what's YOUR solution? How would you fix the illegal alien
problem?
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On May 19, 11:22�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
>> >"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to
>> >encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so
>> >Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based
>> >generation."
>One Brian Marick pointed out, elsenet, "CA threatens to boycott AZ, so
>AZ threatens to not sell things to CA?"
Well... Not exactly... But the whole boycott-thing is hilarious!
----------------------------
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Galleries updated 5/17/10!
Learn the TRUTH about:
Freestyle,
Gandalf Grey,
Iarnrod,
Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Names,
Major Debacle,
Michael Coburn,
Rightardia,
RobW,
SilentOtto,
Tater Gumfries,
Tim Crowley...
Gandalf Grey
"Bob Milby posing as Patriot Games" <Pat...@america.com> wrote in message
news:7i0bv5pu7g1fodmk6...@4ax.com...
> The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
> http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Turns out to be the RepubiCUNTS Hall of Shame.
Russell Ronco
> On May 19, 5:31 pm, First Post <LyingLefti...@reInvalid.org> wrote:
>
> > Indeed. Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
> > manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
> > the machinery so to speak.
> > My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
> > Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
> > getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
>
> This is exactly why economic boycotts ("sanctions") are better than
> warfare. Unlike warfare, they directly interfere with the dictators'
> cronies' forecasts & stocks.
The problem is that Los Angeles desperately needs Arizona for its very
survival, while Arizona doesn't need Los Angeles at all.
Russell Ronco
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 17:15:44 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us>
> wrote:
>
> >On 05/19/2010 03:44 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
> >> Innews:c67499a7-183b-43c5...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> Arizona's power companies are privately owned, and they most certainly
> >>> CAN throw the switch any time they like.
>
> >> Do you really think that there aren't binding contracts in place?
>
> >would be in a very bad position to force AZ to do business with them.
>
> oranges.
>
> but the Power and water agreements are contractural. In fact, mostly
> federal, so Arizona has no say anyway.
Have you ever tried to deal with a pissed off supplier? If Arizona
wants Los Angeles to have brown outs and water shortages, they *will*
happen. "Oh, my, we had a relayer shut down. Sorrrrreeeeeeeee. We'll
have it fixed by Monday. Oh, wait, that's Valentines Day - we can't
ask our repair crew to. You'll only be dark for three weeks, or
months."
Brown outs and water shortages will continue until it's time to re-
negotiate the water and electricity contracts.
Why do you think Los Angeles has shut the frak up about the boycott
anyway?
Russell Ronco
> On May 19, 5:29 pm,WalterHarding<gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What on Earth makes you believe the electric meters would stop
> > turning. There are LOTS of places to sell electricity. Remember?
> > The econuts insisted we stop building electric plants decades ago.
> > Much demand, little supply.
>
> Are you even aware when one of your own paragraphs contradicts its own
> sentences?
And that contradiction is....?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Yeah, tell us again how self-sustaining Arizona is.
Make us laugh.
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 19, 5:31�pm, First Post <LyingLefti...@reInvalid.org> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. �Amazing how many problems with back ordering and
>> manufacturing and just all kinds of other little things that can stop
>> the machinery so to speak.
>> My own boss found that out the hard way one year.
>> Almost lost a couple of major contracts due to a "minor" hold up on
>> getting partws from a supplier he had cussed out.
>
>This is exactly why economic boycotts ("sanctions") are better than
>warfare. Unlike warfare, they directly interfere with the dictators'
>cronies' forecasts & stocks.
>
>LA boycotting over AZ apartheid compares favorably to LA boycotting
>over South African apartheid. I seem to recall you wingnuts opposed
>that boycott, and supported that apartheid, too!
You using the word apartheid to describes Arizona's law just shows you
are stupid and ignorant.
You do not even know what apartheid is.
What did you do drop out pre-school?
Sparks
Of course you're right. Additionally, Los Angeles is very likely being
pelted with emails and voice mails from the overwhelming majority of
the American people who support Arizona's new law. I left a message
for the Mayor of Los Angeles, telling him I'm boycotting his city as
long as they boycott Arizona. I also sent an email saying the same
thing. I encourage everyone who supports Arizona to tell Los Angeles
you won't be visiting that city because of their actions. Here's a
handy website with some email addresses and phone numbers:
Sparks
Don't worry, an overwhelming majority of the American people support
Arizona. I live in the Los Angeles area, and I'm boycotting Los
Angeles and supporting Arizona. I will visit Arizona and spend money
there, and I will no longer visit Los Angeles, and I will not spend
money there. There are many more Americans who agree with me than
agree with Los Angeles.
Russell Ronco
> Yeah, the boycott runs two ways, indeedy...
>
> How many way do I boycott thee?
> Let me count the ways...
>
> Arizona <==> Los Angeles
> Arizona <==> San Francisco
> Arizona <==> Oakland
> Arizona <==> West Hollywood
> Arizona <==> Seattle
> Arizona <==> Chicago
> Arizona <==> Seattle
> Arizona <==> St. Paul, MN
> Arizona <==> Milwaukee
> Arizona <==> Boulder
> Arizona <==> Boston
> Arizona <==> Springfield, MA
> Arizona <==> Worcester, MA
> Arizona <==> New York City
> Arizona <==> Washington, DC
>
> on the international side:
>
> Arizona <==> Mexico (and the rest of Latin America)
> Arizona <==> The UN
>
> ...and last, but not least:
>
> Arizona <==> Phoenix
> Arizona <==> Tucson
> Arizona <==> Flagstaff
>
> -Ramon
Here's your problem - for every one American who's against the law,
there are two who support it.
Last year, the left started a boycott of Whole Foods. They wound up
find the number of customers INCREASE.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
...wait, don't tell me, let me GUESS!
You're one of those ignorant morons who thinks civil rights are up for
majority vote, but taxes should require a super-majority!
>
>Last year, the left started a boycott of Whole Foods. They wound up
>find the number of customers INCREASE.
I never even heard about it, which suggests it wasn't nearly as
controversial as the Arinazis are.
Phlip
> Don't worry, an overwhelming majority of the American people support
> Arizona. I live in the Los Angeles area, and I'm boycotting Los
> Angeles and supporting Arizona. I will visit Arizona and spend money
> there, and I will no longer visit Los Angeles, and I will not spend
> money there.
my paragraph break
> There are many more Americans who agree with me than
> agree with Los Angeles.
modulo a shifting definition of "American"...
Sparks
What's so controversial? That an overwhelming majority of the American
people support Arizona?
Sparks
Incorrect. You get an "F" for fail.
Phlip
> > > There are many more Americans who agree with me than
> > > agree with Los Angeles.
>
> > modulo a shifting definition of "American"...
>
> Incorrect. You get an "F" for fail.
¿Norteamericano o sudamericano?
Sparks
Ask *most* people around the world who the "American people" are, and
see what they tell you.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Let 'em. Rights aren't subject to plebiscite, bubbles.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Fat, ignorant and bigoted, and seemingly intent on destroying their own
country?
Salty Stan
And not a single one has an idea.
Phlip
Nobody read your question.
The ideas are
A> to issue as many work visas as we have open jobs (yes,
cheap labor is good for the economy - IF it's are above-ground
and controlled by the rule of law), and
B> to stop remotely thwarting the Mexican political forces that
would help them make all their own jobs, in Mexico.
I can't seem to recall posting those answers before around here.
Probably just an oversight - sorry!
In the current system, Big Government (who you hate, right?)
deliberately issues fewer work visas than we need to fill our guest
labor force. And Big Government constantly applies a vestige of the
Monroe Doctrine to Mexico, aggressively propping up their governments
that favor feudal oligarchies over free labor and social justice.
Oh, and then there's the War on Some Drugs, also an artifice of your
favorite institution, Big Government.
If you agree with that system, then why do you love Big Government so
much??
Sparks
Sparks
wrote:
Except they're wising up now that they see the people they elected to
run the country are destroying the country.
David Hartung
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
> <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's your problem - for every one American who's against the law,
>> there are two who support it.
>
> ...wait, don't tell me, let me GUESS!
>
> You're one of those ignorant morons who thinks civil rights are up for
> majority vote, but taxes should require a super-majority!
What "civil right" is at issue here?
David Hartung
Once again, what "right" is at stake?
Mitchell Holman
news:0budne2MaueQOWrW...@giganews.com:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Ramon F Herrera
Read all about here...
The ACLU has a great site, together logo and what has to be with one
of the greatest mottos in recent political history:
"What happens in Arizona, stops in Arizona"
http://www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
-Ramon
Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
100% Supporter of the position on Comprehensive Immigration
Reform being lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce
------------------------------------------------
Black is the New White.
Boehner the New Beaner.
Sarah the New Charo:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004819/
------------------------------------------------
Sparks
> David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote innews:0budne2MaueQOWrW...@giganews.com:
>
> > On 05/21/2010 06:21 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
>
> >>> Here's your problem - for every one American who's against the law,
> >>> there are two who support it.
>
> >> ...wait, don't tell me, let me GUESS!
>
> >> You're one of those ignorant morons who thinks civil rights are up for
> >> majority vote, but taxes should require a super-majority!
>
> > What "civil right" is at issue here?
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
> searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There is nothing in the Arizona law that calls for "unreasonable"
searches and seizures. But why aren't you leftists up in arms about
the federal law upon which the Arizona law is based? ICE agents don't
even need the *lawful* contact Arizona police officers are required to
have. ICE agents can approach anyone they suspect of being in this
country illegally. It's been federal law since 1952. Why aren't
leftists boycotting the entire country?
Sparks
I wonder why the ACLU hasn't complained about federal law in all these
years? The Arizona law puts restrictions on Arizona police that the
federal law does not put on ICE agents. Yet irrational leftists are
going crazy over a state law, and ignoring the federal one. Can you
explain why?
David Hartung
How does this law violate this right?
First Post
Why isn't California boycotting itself?
http://www.kpsplocal2.com/Content/Feature/story/CA-Immigration-Law-Similar-To-Controversial/peAYn09n6kSh2AmNhsdXHA.cspx
CA Immigration Law Similar To Controversial Arizona Law
As Arizona's new immigration law is set to take effect at the end of
August, a little known law in California has some striking
similarities to the controversial Arizona statute.
Arizona's law will require an officer to inquire about a person's
immigration status when they are stopped and detained. If the officer
believes they are in the U.S. illegally the person will be arrested.
California's law requires a suspect to be arrested first, but
according to Capt. Raymond Gregory of the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department, swift action is then taken if cops believe the arrestee is
an illegal immigrant.
"We have a system and policy in place when people come in, when they
self admit that they're illegal aliens or ir they list they were born
out of the country we do notify I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs
Enforcement) of that information", said Gregory.
Gregory tells KPSP Local 2 that Federal agents from I.C.E. are at the
Indio jail nearly every day acting on referals from deputies who
suspect inmates of being illegal aliens.
The California law is spelled out in California Penal Code Section
834(b):
First Post
This is especially for Ramon:
Sparks
Good point, thanks for this.
>
> http://www.kpsplocal2.com/Content/Feature/story/CA-Immigration-Law-Si...
> CA Immigration Law Similar To Controversial Arizona Law
>
> As Arizona's new immigration law is set to take effect at the end of
> August, a little known law in California has some striking
> similarities to the controversial Arizona statute.
>
> Arizona's law will require an officer to inquire about a person's
> immigration status when they are stopped and detained.
That's a mischaracterization of the Arizona law (once again media
can't get it right). Arizona police will not be "required" to inquire
about a person's immigration status.
>
> If the officer
> believes they are in the U.S. illegally the person will be arrested.
All of this is after the police have stopped the person for some other
*lawful* reason. Only after stopping the person for some other
*lawful* reason, if the police officer becomes suspicious that the
person is not in the country legally (for instance, not being able to
produce a valid ID), will the officer then check with ICE to determine
the person's status to legally be in this country.
>
> California's law requires a suspect to be arrested first, but
> according to Capt. Raymond Gregory of the Riverside County Sheriff's
> Department, swift action is then taken if cops believe the arrestee is
> an illegal immigrant.
>
> "We have a system and policy in place when people come in, when they
> self admit that they're illegal aliens or ir they list they were born
> out of the country we do notify I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement) of that information", said Gregory.
>
> Gregory tells KPSP Local 2 that Federal agents from I.C.E. are at the
> Indio jail nearly every day acting on referals from deputies who
> suspect inmates of being illegal aliens.
>
> The California law is spelled out in California Penal Code Section
> 834(b):
This is great information. Thank you, I'm going to make sure the
leftist city councils in California cities that are boycotting Arizona
are aware of it.
First Post
And of course you don't see any of the MSM saying jack squat about
Californias law.
Wonder if the Gov of Arizona is aware of Californias similar law?
She could have a field day with that.
Sparks
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
>
>
>
I don't think they're aware of it. I live in California and I wasn't
aware of it. I already sent communications to Los Angeles and San
Diego to tell them I'm officially boycotting those cities (which are
in my vicinity). I won't spend a dime in either of those cities as
long as they're boycotting Arizona.
>
> Wonder if the Gov of Arizona is aware of Californias similar law?
> She could have a field day with that.
This is going to come out. You're on top of this story! I'm going to
send your article to as many places as I can to get the word out.
FP Fuckup
"First Post" <LyingL...@reInvalid.org> wrote in message
news:ieufv5910jnqco4lr...@4ax.com...
CA Immigration Law is nothing like AZ racial profiling.
Give away your rights, not others rights, shit-for-brains.
Sparks
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
>
>
>
Well, I just discovered that Los Angeles Police have a policy that
they don't enforce the state law. Sort of the way the federal
government has a policy that they don't enforce federal law. So L.A.
can get themselves off the hook on a technicality, though they still
should be boycotting parts of California that do enforce the law (as
was shown in the article you posted).
Sparks
> "First Post" <LyingLefti...@reInvalid.org> wrote in message
> > CA Immigration Law Similar To Controversial Arizona Law
>
> CA Immigration Law is nothing like AZ racial profiling.
I already responded to this, but you've got your follow-up set so my
own reply didn't show up on the group I read. What I told you is that
the Arizona law specifically forbids racial profiling.
>
> Give away your rights, not others rights, shit-for-brains.
To which rights do you refer?
Ramon F Herrera
Read all about it here...
The ACLU has a great site, together with logo and what has to be one
of the greatest mottos in recent political history:
"What happens in Arizona, stops in Arizona"
http://www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona
-Ramon
Sparks
First Post
Likely because they are terrified that Arizona authorities will
actually enforce the law unlike the feds.
Salty Stan
So,ever get an answer to that?
Ramon F Herrera
Yes, several.
Suffer from selective blindness much?
-Ramon