06-04-2010, 08:49 PM
<!--quoteo(post=99971:date=Jun 4 2010, 08:44 PM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Jun 4 2010, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99970:date=Jun 4 2010, 08:36 PM:name=Lance)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lance @ Jun 4 2010, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99969:date=Jun 4 2010, 08:35 PM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jun 4 2010, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99968:date=Jun 4 2010, 08:34 PM:name=Lance)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lance @ Jun 4 2010, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99957:date=Jun 4 2010, 07:34 PM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jun 4 2010, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99956:date=Jun 4 2010, 07:21 PM:name=Destined)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Destined @ Jun 4 2010, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->All this push from local politicians for the California teams to leave Arizona over that law, is fucking ridiculous. If the Cubs left for that reason, I would disappointed in the franchise for letting such a petty political reason affect a ballclub.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[1960]Yeah, why should anybody boycott the South because of Jim Crow laws? The South has a problem and it's trying to deal with it. Any boycott is just a petty political action.[/1960]
Fortunately, the law will be struck down in short order (not only for violating Equal Protection, but for violating the Supremacy Clause).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a little disappointed in your analogy. I agree with you on the Supreme Court invalidating this state law. However, I think there is a stretch in equating a state attempting to enforce federal law (against illegal immigration) and having laws which were clearly unconstitutional. In Arizona's defense, it is asking for help (albeit misguidedly and, perhaps in a racist manner) as opposed to a southern state deliberately flouting federal and constitutional protections.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't equating the AZ law with Jim Crow. I was making a point about Destined's anti-boycott post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gotcha. I misunderstood.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me clarify a little further. I do believe Arizona's law to be racist. Obviously, Jim Crow was exponentially far more severe than the Arizona law, but I think in the end they are different symptoms of the same disease.
The racist elements of the law I believe justify the boycotts. I don't think boycotts would be appropriate in response to everyday political situations. California shouldn't boycott Arizona because Arizona is inadequately funding education, and Arizona shouldn't boycott California because California's taxes are too high. But a racist law is something else altogether.
Again, a much more extreme example, but most western countries, including the U.S., imposed sanctions on and boycotted South Africa during apartheid. I don't think there's many people arguing against that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone can boycott anything because they do not agree with their policies. I don't think they need to be justified. However, I was amused by that Arizona power commission guy who invited L.A. to boycott their power supply.
On a side note, none of this solves Arizona's problem--a flood of illegal immigrants entering the state. It's a federal issue that the feds either can't or won't solve and Arizona is at the point of the spear.
[1960]Yeah, why should anybody boycott the South because of Jim Crow laws? The South has a problem and it's trying to deal with it. Any boycott is just a petty political action.[/1960]
Fortunately, the law will be struck down in short order (not only for violating Equal Protection, but for violating the Supremacy Clause).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a little disappointed in your analogy. I agree with you on the Supreme Court invalidating this state law. However, I think there is a stretch in equating a state attempting to enforce federal law (against illegal immigration) and having laws which were clearly unconstitutional. In Arizona's defense, it is asking for help (albeit misguidedly and, perhaps in a racist manner) as opposed to a southern state deliberately flouting federal and constitutional protections.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't equating the AZ law with Jim Crow. I was making a point about Destined's anti-boycott post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gotcha. I misunderstood.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me clarify a little further. I do believe Arizona's law to be racist. Obviously, Jim Crow was exponentially far more severe than the Arizona law, but I think in the end they are different symptoms of the same disease.
The racist elements of the law I believe justify the boycotts. I don't think boycotts would be appropriate in response to everyday political situations. California shouldn't boycott Arizona because Arizona is inadequately funding education, and Arizona shouldn't boycott California because California's taxes are too high. But a racist law is something else altogether.
Again, a much more extreme example, but most western countries, including the U.S., imposed sanctions on and boycotted South Africa during apartheid. I don't think there's many people arguing against that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone can boycott anything because they do not agree with their policies. I don't think they need to be justified. However, I was amused by that Arizona power commission guy who invited L.A. to boycott their power supply.
On a side note, none of this solves Arizona's problem--a flood of illegal immigrants entering the state. It's a federal issue that the feds either can't or won't solve and Arizona is at the point of the spear.
I'm 100% fine with this. I'm just glad there's an actual plan in place that isn't, "Let's load up on retreads and hope we get lucky." I'm a little tired of that plan.
Butcher
Butcher