Boycott AZ...especially its Tea!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We do, on occasion, help to defend the rights of some unsympathetic defendants

 

Understatement of the century. And you gotta love the "we".

 

[rob]

John Adams also once represented some unsympathetic defendants, as I recall.

[tvashtarkatena]

The effort to provide legal defense for the Gitmo detainees is called the John Adams project for that reason. I've heard Jeff Robinson, one of the two attorneys from Seattle who are members of the project (the rest of the defense team are in military officers) speak a couple of times. He's an amazing individual. He also speaks very highly of his co-counsel in uniform.

 

It's little wonder why a whiny suburban nobody like TripKunts never misses an opportunity to trash folks like Robinson. He represents a level of principle, honor, and integrity that is completely out of the poor, dumb cubemonkey's reach.

[Fairweather]

John Adams also once represented some unsympathetic defendants, as I recall.

 

That was his son, John Quincy Adams. (If, as I assume, you're referring to the Amistad defendants.)

[rob]

John Adams also once represented some unsympathetic defendants, as I recall.

 

That was his son, John Quincy Adams. (If, as I assume, you're referring to the Amistad defendants.)

 

No, I was referring to the boston massacre.

[Fairweather]

Not back in the day they weren't. Of course, those Brits were just defending themselves against an angry rebellious mob, eh? Good call.

[tvashtarkatena]

Ding Ding Ding! John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired on the crowd.

[Fairweather]

Ding Ding Ding! John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired on the crowd.

 

Um, yea. Did I say otherwise?

[Fairweather]

I'm not sure those Brit soldiers were as unsympathetic as you think. The colonists were pretty split in 1770, with 20% patriot, 20% crown, and 40% who just didn't give a shit. Kinda like today. Frankly, I'm not sure there was a very good case for revolution.

[mkporwit]

I'm not sure those Brit soldiers were as unsympathetic as you think. The colonists were pretty split in 1770, with 20% patriot, 20% crown, and 40% who just didn't give a shit. Kinda like today. Frankly, I'm not sure there was a very good case for revolution.

What were the other 20%?

[Fairweather]

60%

[summitchaserCJB]

[video:youtube]

[rob]

I'm not sure those Brit soldiers were as unsympathetic as you think. The colonists were pretty split in 1770, with 20% patriot, 20% crown, and 40% who just didn't give a shit. Kinda like today. Frankly, I'm not sure there was a very good case for revolution.

 

They must have been pretty sympathetic, actually, considering that most of them got off, and that the two that were convicted we basically let go on a loophole. But, it was politically pretty risky for Adams to represent them, given that he was pretty big into the patriot scene.

Edited May 19, 2010 by rob

[Nitrox]

Arizona dares L.A. to carry out boycott

 

The spat over Arizona's new immigration expanded Tuesday as a state official dared the city of Los Angeles to follow through on its new boycott by agreeing to give up the 25 percent of electricity that city gets from Arizona sources.

 

In a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce said a boycott war is bad for both sides, and said he would "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements" to end the electricity flowing to Los Angeles.

 

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Mr. Pierce said. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

 

Los Angeles's city council voted overwhelmingly last week to adopt a boycott of Arizona businesses — at least in instances where the boycott wouldn't impose a significant economic cost to the city.

 

Arizona's law requires police to ask for proof of legal residence from anyone they have reasonable suspicion is not in the country legally. In most cases a driver's is sufficient to comply, and the law prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion, but critics say they expect the measure to spark racial profiling nonetheless.

 

Civil rights and Hispanic groups have sued to try to block the law, and the Obama administration is reviewing the legislation to see if it violates civil rights laws.

 

The law goes into effect in July, but already a number of municipalities have condemned or announced boycotts of Arizona. Mr. Villaraigosa said his city's boycott was intended to hurt the Arizona economy.

 

Mr. Pierce, the Arizona official, said in his letter to Mr. Villaraigosa that this was the wrong way to go.

 

"I received your message; please receive mine," he said.

 

A message left with the Mr. Villaraigosa's office was not immediately returned.

 

But Mr. Villaraigosa offered his own tongue-in-cheek challenge to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon this week in a bet over the NBA playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns.

 

Mr. Villaraigosa said if Phoenix wins, Los Angeles will have to accept Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration. If the Lakers win, Mr. Villaraigosa said Phoenix will have to accept Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, two Republicans battling for the GOP's gubernatorial nomination in California, where illegal immigration is a major issue.

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/18/arizona-dares-los-angeles-to-carry-out-boycott/

[rob]

 

yeah right, like THAT's gonna happen.

[Fairweather]

Rob, we know where you stand vis a vis Arizona's supposed 'flouting' of federal law, but do you apply this same set of principles to municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' in clear violation of the same?

[rob]

I just disagree with whatever you say, haven't you figured that out yet?

[rob]

Seriously, though, I think that reasonable immigration laws should be enforced.

 

However, I also support reforming immigration law. I'm sympathetic towards a lot of people who try to sneak in. I don't think they're all criminals and welfare cases. I've lived in the southwest. Those fuckers WORK.

Edited May 19, 2010 by rob

[Nitrox]

 

yeah right, like THAT's gonna happen.

 

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are.

 

Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground.

 

 

[AlpineK]

Seriously, though, I think that reasonable immigration laws should be enforced.

 

However, I also support reforming immigration law. I'm sympathetic towards a lot of people who try to sneak in. I don't think they're all criminals and welfare cases. I've lived in the southwest. Those fuckers WORK.

 

Yep I'm sure there are plenty of bad apple Mexicans just like the good old USA has a few native ones.

 

The thing is they're willing to do a lot of work we want done, but the majority of Americans just won't do.

 

Immigration reform would be a good thing, but targeting folks because they have brown skin isn't very American.

[j_b]

Seriously, though, I think that reasonable immigration laws should be enforced.

 

However, I also support reforming immigration law. I'm sympathetic towards a lot of people who try to sneak in. I don't think they're all criminals and welfare cases. I've lived in the southwest. Those fuckers WORK.

 

not only do they work but they are paid peanuts so the nitwits shouldn't be surprised that immigrants need access to social services. Nothing is free, jackasses.

[j_b]

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are.

 

Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground.

 

Not only does your logic suck because LA has a lot to say about illegal immigration and the way it is handled, but the quality of argumentation ("bunch of pussies") isn't really convincing either. You'll have to do better to fan the flames of hate.

[rob]

Well, to be fair, L.A. is made mostly of pussies and douches. It's a match made in heaven.

 

 

[rob]

Rob, we know where you stand vis a vis Arizona's supposed 'flouting' of federal law, but do you apply this same set of principles to municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' in clear violation of the same?

 

So, I've thought about this some more.

 

Actually, I'm OK with so-called "sanctuary cities." Well, actually, it's complicated.

 

I think there is a big difference between deciding not to enforce a law, and deciding to enforce an additional law.

 

For example; I'm totally in support of the City of Seattle deciding not to enforce marijuana laws relating to simple possession. I feel like this sort of "look the other way" allows cities and states to rebel against overreaching federal control.

 

This isn't really the same as enforcing a law in opposition of the federal government which disenfranchises citizens. There seems to be an important distinction there. In the former example, nobody is being oppressed as a result.

 

So, is it OK for states and cities to "flout" federal law? I guess my answer to that is, it depends. What's the effect? Is the flouting of the law protecting civil liberties, or threatening them? Because when it comes down to it, that's more important than "the law."

[rob]

 

yeah right, like THAT's gonna happen.

 

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are.

 

Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground.

 

 

Well, it does involve them. We're a union. When one of your friends or family does something fucked up, you call them on it, and stop buying them beers until they shape up. Or whatever. So, maybe they're a bunch of pussies (See my earlier post on the topic), but it's not fair to say they should "just butt out."

 

If you saw a state pass a law that made it illegal to kill black people on site, would you speak up? After all, if you're not a resident of that state, is it any of your business?

 

Of course, maybe you don't see that as a proper analogy, but if you can admit that some people DO see the Arizona law as a serious affront to civil liberties, then of COURSE they'd be little bitches about it and stick their nose in that shit.