100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: LA Council Bans Official Travel to Arizona | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I agree with the AZ law and would be more likely to visit because of it and 70% of the US population actually agrees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One state wont do anything, many states agree with AZ and will send there business there. CA doesn't have the corner market on business you know. Most of the rest of the country never agrees with Cali anyways. No biggie. Californians should get over themselves already. They are not the deciding factor in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Arizona and personally, I think all this boycott and hoopla about this new law may end up backfiring on those opposed to it. From what I have been hearing, many other states are considering copycat laws similar to SB1070. I also think it's strange that Police can't ask if you are here legally. I haven't been stopped by a cop in awhile but last time I was he seemed to ask a lot of questions: Where you going? Have you had anything to drink? Can I see your drivers license and proof of insurance? Do you have any weapons in the vehicle? Do you mind if I search your vehicle? Is this your current address on your driver's license? etc. etc.. I am a native Arizonan and remember all the hoopla about the MLK Holiday. We would have had the state holiday sooner but the dang NFL had to open their mouths and threaten the people of Arizona. It came to a vote and the people of AZ don't take to threats to kindly so they voted the holiday down. It came up to a public vote several years later and this time, the NFL kept their mouths shut and the voters approved the state holiday. And by the way, I think Arizona was the first State in the Union to have a "Voter Approved" MLK Holiday. thats true , Ronald Reagan had already signed it into LAW, without a vote, and many states accepted it, AZ was not one from http://m.www.helium.com/items/1700263-how-martin-luther-king-jr-day-became-a-holiday The acceptance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, has been ongoing since it was declared in 1986. Illinois was the first state to accept it. In 1987, Governor Evan Mecham of Arizona, repealed the law. People from all over the U.S. boycott the state. In 1991, the NFL decides to hold the 1993 Super Bowl in Pasadena, California instead of Phoenix Arizona. This change is made because of the boycott of Arizona. In 1992, the boycott of Arizona works and the Arizonians vote to approve MLK Day. The Super Bowl is held in Tempe, in 1996, after the recognition. All the states, in 1993, recognize the holiday in some form. Some of the states called it by a different name, “Civil Rights Day” or “Robert E. Lee Day”. In some states, it was not a paid state holiday. Finally, in 2000, all the states recognize MLK Day. Utah was the last state to call it MLK Day rather than Human Rights Day. South Carolina becomes the last state to make MLK a paid holiday. Up until this point, South Carolinians could choose to celebrate MLK Day or three Confederate-related holidays. Ms Harmony, your facts are a little distorted. I was here and lived to tell the tale! Hahaha Getting the King Holiday had nothing to do with the boycott of Arizona! And Governor Evan Mecham did not "repeal a law" as I don't think a Governor can do that. He repealed the MLK Paid State Holiday that was signed as an executive order by his predecessor, Governor Bruce Babbit. Then it came to the voters to decide whether or not to appove a MLK Holiday in 1990. The NFL Committee had already approved Phoenix for Superbowl XXVII said that they would move the game if voters did not approve the holiday. That was the THREAT! So voters got angry and voted the holiday down in 1990. 2 years later, in 1992, it came before the voters again to decide whether or not to approve a paid State MLK Holiday. Now the second time around, the NFL Committee got smart and kept their mouths SHUT, no threats, and the voters approved the Holiday. I think Arizona may be the only State with a "voter approved" MLK Holiday. And I don't think the issue with the voters of Arizona was ever really about anything racial....it was about being threatened by outsiders like the NFL. That was the sentiment that was flowing throuigh the streets. Now Governor Mecham, the guy who rescinded the MLK Holiday that his predecessor had initiated, was attacked by the voters and I believe he was a racist. He was the 1st Governor ever impeached in the State of Arizona. So what does that tell you about the people? Back to my original statement, I think these boycotts are a very bad idea and may end up backfiring on those initiating them. I also think these boycotts are like sanctions....similar to what we do to Iran. C'mon! Aren't we the UNITED STATES! Do we impose sanctions against our fellow states? I believe if people are opposed to the law, there is a political process to undo the law. I believe that's called a referrendum. We have a system, people need to understand what it is and use it. thanx for the information, I do not purport to tell others what they experienced , but to clarify,,,they arent actually 'my facts' they are the facts from the website and governors can and do often repeal laws,,,, I was alive then too, and temporarily in Arizona, and I remember that Ohio had MLK day and I was surprised when I arrived in Arizona to find that they did not,,that it had indeed (for whatever reason) been refused. as to opposing laws, the political process is not the ONLY way to act,,and can sometimes be a very TIME CONSUMING way,,,,in a capitalist country,, money talks ,, money gets things done,,and so does the threat of taking money away Ms Harmony, you are a wonerful person but I beg to differ with you. Maybe Nevada operates differently than Arizona? A governor in Arizona cannot "Repeal" a law. They can merely "Sign Legislation" that repeals a law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard on a discussion last night that the law even allows citizens to racially profile folks too. Takes this country back to the "good ole racists days". Sick. PROVE IT. Pick out ONE LINE in that law ( which of course means you'd actually have to READ it ) that says any such thing. You CAN'T because it doesn't exist. All this hand wringing is nothing but an obvious attempt to distract the people of this country from the REAL problem of Illegal Immigration. Even Eric Holder ( one of the most high positioned people in this country ) was degrading the bill before he even READ any of it. This coming from the Attorney General for christ's sake. Obama called it " misguided " without READING the damn thing. This is utterly and completely ridiculous. READ the damn law. THEN take a god, long look at your arguments here. Maybe ( I highly doubt it ) you'll see just how off base and emotionally irresponsible your stance is. Educate yourself about the thing you are arguing about. Until you do, and can back up the **** you are talking, there is no way you can be taken seriously. I mean, seriously, do you even REALIZE, in ANY way, how much of a joke this whole issue is making the Democrat party and screamin Liberals in general out to be?? " The law is RACIST!!! " " Have you actually READ it??? " " WEll..no.....but it's RACIST!!! " See how stupid that sounds???? Of course you don't. It takes logical thinking to see just how stupid that kind of statement is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does Arizona provide water to LA? I would guess that large ocean right BESIDE california helps quite a bit....seriously,,,I doubt LA, in a state that is right next to the ocean, is depending upon Arizona, a desert state, for water(the geography just doesnt seem likely) Wrong. California, and L.A. in particular do, indeed, get water from Arizona. It gets diverted from the Colorado river. Ocean water isn't DRINKING water. So no matter how much water is " right next door " it's unusable for their needs. It's nice to look at....but pretty much useless to them other than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Arizona and personally, I think all this boycott and hoopla about this new law may end up backfiring on those opposed to it. From what I have been hearing, many other states are considering copycat laws similar to SB1070. I also think it's strange that Police can't ask if you are here legally. I haven't been stopped by a cop in awhile but last time I was he seemed to ask a lot of questions: Where you going? Have you had anything to drink? Can I see your drivers license and proof of insurance? Do you have any weapons in the vehicle? Do you mind if I search your vehicle? Is this your current address on your driver's license? etc. etc.. I am a native Arizonan and remember all the hoopla about the MLK Holiday. We would have had the state holiday sooner but the dang NFL had to open their mouths and threaten the people of Arizona. It came to a vote and the people of AZ don't take to threats to kindly so they voted the holiday down. It came up to a public vote several years later and this time, the NFL kept their mouths shut and the voters approved the state holiday. And by the way, I think Arizona was the first State in the Union to have a "Voter Approved" MLK Holiday. thats true , Ronald Reagan had already signed it into LAW, without a vote, and many states accepted it, AZ was not one from http://m.www.helium.com/items/1700263-how-martin-luther-king-jr-day-became-a-holiday The acceptance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, has been ongoing since it was declared in 1986. Illinois was the first state to accept it. In 1987, Governor Evan Mecham of Arizona, repealed the law. People from all over the U.S. boycott the state. In 1991, the NFL decides to hold the 1993 Super Bowl in Pasadena, California instead of Phoenix Arizona. This change is made because of the boycott of Arizona. In 1992, the boycott of Arizona works and the Arizonians vote to approve MLK Day. The Super Bowl is held in Tempe, in 1996, after the recognition. All the states, in 1993, recognize the holiday in some form. Some of the states called it by a different name, “Civil Rights Day” or “Robert E. Lee Day”. In some states, it was not a paid state holiday. Finally, in 2000, all the states recognize MLK Day. Utah was the last state to call it MLK Day rather than Human Rights Day. South Carolina becomes the last state to make MLK a paid holiday. Up until this point, South Carolinians could choose to celebrate MLK Day or three Confederate-related holidays. Ms Harmony, your facts are a little distorted. I was here and lived to tell the tale! Hahaha Getting the King Holiday had nothing to do with the boycott of Arizona! And Governor Evan Mecham did not "repeal a law" as I don't think a Governor can do that. He repealed the MLK Paid State Holiday that was signed as an executive order by his predecessor, Governor Bruce Babbit. Then it came to the voters to decide whether or not to appove a MLK Holiday in 1990. The NFL Committee had already approved Phoenix for Superbowl XXVII said that they would move the game if voters did not approve the holiday. That was the THREAT! So voters got angry and voted the holiday down in 1990. 2 years later, in 1992, it came before the voters again to decide whether or not to approve a paid State MLK Holiday. Now the second time around, the NFL Committee got smart and kept their mouths SHUT, no threats, and the voters approved the Holiday. I think Arizona may be the only State with a "voter approved" MLK Holiday. And I don't think the issue with the voters of Arizona was ever really about anything racial....it was about being threatened by outsiders like the NFL. That was the sentiment that was flowing throuigh the streets. Now Governor Mecham, the guy who rescinded the MLK Holiday that his predecessor had initiated, was attacked by the voters and I believe he was a racist. He was the 1st Governor ever impeached in the State of Arizona. So what does that tell you about the people? Back to my original statement, I think these boycotts are a very bad idea and may end up backfiring on those initiating them. I also think these boycotts are like sanctions....similar to what we do to Iran. C'mon! Aren't we the UNITED STATES! Do we impose sanctions against our fellow states? I believe if people are opposed to the law, there is a political process to undo the law. I believe that's called a referrendum. We have a system, people need to understand what it is and use it. thanx for the information, I do not purport to tell others what they experienced , but to clarify,,,they arent actually 'my facts' they are the facts from the website and governors can and do often repeal laws,,,, I was alive then too, and temporarily in Arizona, and I remember that Ohio had MLK day and I was surprised when I arrived in Arizona to find that they did not,,that it had indeed (for whatever reason) been refused. as to opposing laws, the political process is not the ONLY way to act,,and can sometimes be a very TIME CONSUMING way,,,,in a capitalist country,, money talks ,, money gets things done,,and so does the threat of taking money away Ms Harmony, you are a wonerful person but I beg to differ with you. Maybe Nevada operates differently than Arizona? A governor in Arizona cannot "Repeal" a law. They can merely "Sign Legislation" that repeals a law. ok,,,but IF a governor signs legislation to repeal a law,, who puts forth the legislation,,, would it not be fellow Arizona politicans to put forth the repeal paperwork he must sign? It was only a semantical error, if any, but I respect your view. Many sources that are considered legitimate and government based do indeed post this information with wording that states the governor 'repeals' the law,, just google governor repeals and you will find several examples. but that wasnt the point I was making specifically, I was just pointing out the precedent when Arizona (whomever was in the position to in Arizona anyhow) refused the holiday that other states were accepting,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard on a discussion last night that the law even allows citizens to racially profile folks too. Takes this country back to the "good ole racists days". Sick. PROVE IT. Pick out ONE LINE in that law ( which of course means you'd actually have to READ it ) that says any such thing. You CAN'T because it doesn't exist. All this hand wringing is nothing but an obvious attempt to distract the people of this country from the REAL problem of Illegal Immigration. Even Eric Holder ( one of the most high positioned people in this country ) was degrading the bill before he even READ any of it. This coming from the Attorney General for christ's sake. Obama called it " misguided " without READING the damn thing. This is utterly and completely ridiculous. READ the damn law. THEN take a god, long look at your arguments here. Maybe ( I highly doubt it ) you'll see just how off base and emotionally irresponsible your stance is. Educate yourself about the thing you are arguing about. Until you do, and can back up the **** you are talking, there is no way you can be taken seriously. I mean, seriously, do you even REALIZE, in ANY way, how much of a joke this whole issue is making the Democrat party and screamin Liberals in general out to be?? " The law is RACIST!!! " " Have you actually READ it??? " " WEll..no.....but it's RACIST!!! " See how stupid that sounds???? Of course you don't. It takes logical thinking to see just how stupid that kind of statement is. Has OBama stated he hadnt read this,,,,,I find that Highly unlikely, its a short read,,,,,,and when he made the statement the bill was still worded in such (question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant,,,what would cause such a suspicion upon just seeing someone?) a way as to leave open the option to racially profile,,,, I read the bill before and after and I was also opposed before.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard on a discussion last night that the law even allows citizens to racially profile folks too. Takes this country back to the "good ole racists days". Sick. PROVE IT. Pick out ONE LINE in that law ( which of course means you'd actually have to READ it ) that says any such thing. You CAN'T because it doesn't exist. All this hand wringing is nothing but an obvious attempt to distract the people of this country from the REAL problem of Illegal Immigration. Even Eric Holder ( one of the most high positioned people in this country ) was degrading the bill before he even READ any of it. This coming from the Attorney General for christ's sake. Obama called it " misguided " without READING the damn thing. This is utterly and completely ridiculous. READ the damn law. THEN take a god, long look at your arguments here. Maybe ( I highly doubt it ) you'll see just how off base and emotionally irresponsible your stance is. Educate yourself about the thing you are arguing about. Until you do, and can back up the **** you are talking, there is no way you can be taken seriously. I mean, seriously, do you even REALIZE, in ANY way, how much of a joke this whole issue is making the Democrat party and screamin Liberals in general out to be?? " The law is RACIST!!! " " Have you actually READ it??? " " WEll..no.....but it's RACIST!!! " See how stupid that sounds???? Of course you don't. It takes logical thinking to see just how stupid that kind of statement is. Has OBama stated he hadnt read this,,,,,I find that Highly unlikely, its a short read,,,,,,and when he made the statement the bill was still worded in such (question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant,,,what would cause such a suspicion upon just seeing someone?) a way as to leave open the option to racially profile,,,, I read the bill before and after and I was also opposed before.. Well....considering the fact that he came out and said it was " misguided " what....less than 24 hours after it was signed....and his Attorney General hadn't read it until just a couple of days ago....the likelihood of Obama having actually read it before he started flapping at the lips about it are pretty slim. Ah yes....when he came out against it....it was still worded the " wrong " way. But yet....now that the wording has been cleared up...has he made any further statement about it??? Nahhh...he's just sent the lapdogs out to shout their " talking points " which are now COMPLETELY and utterly irrelevant. Obama is SUCH a great strategist. You would figure that a Harvard Educated man would be bright enough to know when it's time to call the lapdogs back and tell them they need to actually READ what they are railing against. But...alas....he made a statement...sicced the lapdogs...and is now sitting back saying and doing NOTHING. What he has done is make himself AND his entire staff look like a bunch of bumbling fools. What a shock. Looks like pretty much the same strategy used for Health Care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 05/15/10 03:48 PM
|
|
I heard on a discussion last night that the law even allows citizens to racially profile folks too. Takes this country back to the "good ole racists days". Sick. PROVE IT. Pick out ONE LINE in that law ( which of course means you'd actually have to READ it ) that says any such thing. You CAN'T because it doesn't exist. All this hand wringing is nothing but an obvious attempt to distract the people of this country from the REAL problem of Illegal Immigration. Even Eric Holder ( one of the most high positioned people in this country ) was degrading the bill before he even READ any of it. This coming from the Attorney General for christ's sake. Obama called it " misguided " without READING the damn thing. This is utterly and completely ridiculous. READ the damn law. THEN take a god, long look at your arguments here. Maybe ( I highly doubt it ) you'll see just how off base and emotionally irresponsible your stance is. Educate yourself about the thing you are arguing about. Until you do, and can back up the **** you are talking, there is no way you can be taken seriously. I mean, seriously, do you even REALIZE, in ANY way, how much of a joke this whole issue is making the Democrat party and screamin Liberals in general out to be?? " The law is RACIST!!! " " Have you actually READ it??? " " WEll..no.....but it's RACIST!!! " See how stupid that sounds???? Of course you don't. It takes logical thinking to see just how stupid that kind of statement is. Has OBama stated he hadnt read this,,,,,I find that Highly unlikely, its a short read,,,,,,and when he made the statement the bill was still worded in such (question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant,,,what would cause such a suspicion upon just seeing someone?) a way as to leave open the option to racially profile,,,, I read the bill before and after and I was also opposed before.. Well....considering the fact that he came out and said it was " misguided " what....less than 24 hours after it was signed....and his Attorney General hadn't read it until just a couple of days ago....the likelihood of Obama having actually read it before he started flapping at the lips about it are pretty slim. Ah yes....when he came out against it....it was still worded the " wrong " way. But yet....now that the wording has been cleared up...has he made any further statement about it??? Nahhh...he's just sent the lapdogs out to shout their " talking points " which are now COMPLETELY and utterly irrelevant. Obama is SUCH a great strategist. You would figure that a Harvard Educated man would be bright enough to know when it's time to call the lapdogs back and tell them they need to actually READ what they are railing against. But...alas....he made a statement...sicced the lapdogs...and is now sitting back saying and doing NOTHING. What he has done is make himself AND his entire staff look like a bunch of bumbling fools. What a shock. Looks like pretty much the same strategy used for Health Care. As I have stated before, I consider myself far from a bumbling fool,and based upon the wording (which I read the same day I read about his statement which makes me think he probably had access to read it too),, I thought it was misguided too. I still think it leaves room for profiling with the phrasing, but I am open to inititiating it and making further amendments later. At least they cant just stop people randomly who are not breaking the law because of some asthetic suspicion that they may not be 'documented' (it would be like stopping me because you suspect Im not licensed, there is no rational way to draw such a suspicion on site). They must have some LEGALLY binding reason to stop someone BEFORE the interaction that would cause them to have other suspicions... I respect his stance against the bill, or anyone elses, out of the respect for potential racial profiling, and dont feel it is an issue of being foolish or not,,, just an issue of perspective. |
|
|
|
|
