U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2013, 02:10 PM
 
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
18,586 posts, read 19,553,902 times
Reputation: 48806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You have to consider that a significant majority of Americans who have the leisure and/or resources to travel to Arizona recreationally (affluent and/or retired) are of a political persuasion that they would approve overall of the Arizona position. If these people chose to go to Arizona with comparable motivations, they would be expected to outnumber the boycotters.

What do you suspect the population growth might be caused by.

Arizona QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

U.S. population growth flat; N.D. fastest growing state
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2013, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,069,277 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
The South
What a shock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 08:13 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,185,053 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
What a shock.
You know, you start to wonder if someone started this thread JUST to bring out the jackasses...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:23 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,542,642 times
Reputation: 746
Actually, boycotts often do change policies. There was an earlier boycott of Arizona for its failure to enact a Martin Luther King Day holiday. Within a couple of years, the governor changed course and got an MLK day holiday enacted.

If boycotts had no effect, the state involved wouldn't care. In fact, the state of Arizona was very concerned about all the boycotts, all the conventions that were being cancelled. I don't know if that had anything to do with slightly moderating immigration legislation (legally the role of the federal government) that was passed last year. But clearly the state's leaders didn't yawn and say oh well.

On an international scale, there was a major campaign in the 1980's to force institutions to divest themselves of companies doing business in South Africa. The campaign became a major problem for the South African government and led to economic problems that helped bring down the apartheid government. It will be interesting to see if the current movement for divestment from gun-related businesses has similar success.

The free marketeers keep telling me I have "consumer sovereignty." If I have consumer sovereignty, what is wrong with my using it to not support people doing things I find repugnant?

I suspect that many of you aren't necessarily against the idea of boycotts per se, but just don't support the politics of the Arizona boycott. Have you come and stayed in a San Francisco hotel lately? Surely you wouldn't want to miss a city that's often rated the best visitors' city in the world. Have you been buying maple syrup and other products from gay marriage leader Vermont? Etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleBrat View Post
It's kind of hypocritical of you to spout off your nonsense about what is criminal in our country when illegally entering our country is also considered a criminal offense. So you are now cherry-picking which criminal offenses you wish to highlight or support so it suits your agenda?
It is unconstitutional for a law enforcement officer to detain a person without probable cause that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Arizona cannot just bypass the US constitution whenever they go into a snit. If entering the USA is illegal, all they need to do is follow due process and arrest and prosecute the offenders, like in every other state. I did not say that was not illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:53 PM
 
171 posts, read 275,418 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It is unconstitutional for a law enforcement officer to detain a person without probable cause that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Arizona cannot just bypass the US constitution whenever they go into a snit. If entering the USA is illegal, all they need to do is follow due process and arrest and prosecute the offenders, like in every other state. I did not say that was not illegal.
As I asked you earlier, have you read through SB1070? Where exactly does it state that it IS constitutional for a law enforcement officer to detain a person without probably cause?? How has Arizona bypassed the US constitution since SB1070 also stated that officers would have to have probable cause to stop anyone?

While entering the US has been illegal (true), Arizona has spent tons of money on incarcerating (and educating/hospitalizing) offenders in the past. While Janet Napolitano was governor, she begged (and sent letters to) Washington to help pay back money to the state of Arizona that the state was paying since the federal government wasn't doing its job in securing the border. Funny how (now that she is in Obama's back pocket) she is now acting as though the border was never that much of a problem to begin with. While I'm not a fan of Jan Brewer, I will admit that she was handed what Janet Napolitano had started.

While your theory sounds great on paper, it is hardly the reality when it comes to arresting and prosecuting offenders. ICE doesn't even work effectively with AZ.

Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Phoenix Arizona
2,032 posts, read 4,036,932 times
Reputation: 2693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are countries in the world that are just as beautiful as Arizona, if not more so,and your Treasury Department, working for you, has made it a criminal offense for you to enter into any financial transaction that would economically benefit those countries in any way. If the US Government systematically institutionalizes boycotting for political reasons and enforces it with criminal sanctions, who are you to say "but it has pretty cactuses".

The US government has a list a mile long of "terrorist organizations" and you can be sent to prison for donating a dollar to an orphanage that one of those organizations has also donated a dollar to. In my opinion, Sheriff Joe is a terrorist organization, much worse than most of those on the no-fly list, because he is in a position of huge discretionary power, with deployed weaponry to back him up. And he has the support and endorsement of the democratic majority of the people of Arizona, whom I refuse to reward for that political posture, even if they're WalMart greeters who depend on my travel purchase while passing through. In America, the people themselves are responsible for their government's actions, and liable for the consequences of it.
Sheriff Arpaio isn't the sheriff of AZ, there isn't one. He's the sheriff of only Maricopa County, meaning it can not be said he has the whole support of the majority of voters in the state. He has authority over law enforcement only on rural Maricopa County land or small towns without their own police who rely on the Sheriff's Dept. for law enforcement. He has no jurisdiction in Phoenix and must ask the PHX PD for permission to conduct operations in city limits, something former PHX mayor Phil Gordon has tried to prevent.

Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County where Tucson is, is the sheriff of a county with an urban area of roughly 1mil. people.He has stated publicly his opposition to SB 1070 and his unwillingness to enforce it. He's a good counterargument to the idea that Arpaio in representative wholly of the will of all Arizonans.

In regards to your other post about law enforcement detaining people without probable cause, that's not what SB 1070 entails. It's controversial point is that after a person has committed a crime and has been arrested for it, if while processing their personal info an officer has reason to believe they're in the country illegally he can ask for proof of citizenship or legal residency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleBrat View Post
As I asked you earlier, have you read through SB1070? Where exactly does it state that it IS constitutional for a law enforcement officer to detain a person without probably cause?? How has Arizona bypassed the US constitution since SB1070 also stated that officers would have to have probable cause to stop anyone?
HB 2162 had to be enacted a week later to modify SB 1070, exactly because even Arizona bigots recognized that SB 1070 called for abuse of constitutional rights. HB 2162 introduces the probable cause provision to any SB 1070 detention. Arizona's government, by the will, advice and consent of the majority of the electorate has clearly stated its desire to trample the constitutional and natural rights of the people, and I will boycott all relevant participants (which includes the electorate) in this swashbuckling adventure until I see evidence that their attitude has been brought into conformity with my own and that of other civilized people..

Last edited by jtur88; 01-25-2013 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 12:22 PM
 
2,492 posts, read 3,774,141 times
Reputation: 1387
Boycotting a state is absurd. We have 50 of them and they each offer something unique, interesting and valuable. I wouldn't even think of not buying a product or visiting one of the 50.

I do, however, prefer to buy local as much as possible. I'd much rather support businesses in my city/state/region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 12:25 PM
 
10,558 posts, read 13,124,167 times
Reputation: 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by abr7rmj View Post
I do, however, prefer to buy local as much as possible. I'd much rather support businesses in my city/state/region.
i agree with this
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top