Federal Government Agencies To Join Arizona Boycott

[OutHouse]

You are assuming that all branches and division of the military would join the federal government.

im pretty sure neither side would want the Navy.

 

[drebo]

What a terrible comparison.

I don't think spidey's intention was to drag the significance of what the Civil War was about down to the level that is the current schism.

The point is that with all of the prodding and bullshit the Federal Government is doing to the states, it's inevitable that the states are going to poke back.

The issues aren't nearly the same calibre, but the causes of actual conflict are similar.

 

[CrackRabbit]

The "controversy" over this law is non existent except in the mind of the "progressives" who are pandering to illegal immigrants.

Ooooh the big scary progressives!
You're full of shit, and you know it.
So you simply make things up, like your OP.

 

[Patranus]

Ooooh the big scary progressives!
You're full of shit, and you know it.
So you simply make things up, like your OP.

Making things up?

70% of the country supports what Arizona is doing. Countless other cities/counties/states have similar legislation in the pipeline.

There is NOTHING controversial about the Arizona law considering they are just enforcing federal law with a higher burden of proof placed on their officers.

It is all just a bunch of huffing and puffing by "progressives" pandering to illegals.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't think so. Unless, the Arizona gov't and it's citizens have been stocking piling tanks, planes, etc...

Terrorism is apparently beyond your imagination. An inferior force uses stealth and subversion. It uses guerrilla tactics. It does not march out into a field to die.

War has evolved since 1860. Pray you never learn.

 

[Red Dawn]

For one, the National Guard belonging to each state would end up choosing its loyalties, and I'd bet on the states for that. For two, think of it like an insurgency - the locals sneaking about in the territory they know, setting up ambushes on federal troops. For three, if the states and citizens were somehow willing to fight the federal government, then a show of tanks/plans won't do much, it'll be the bloody use of them that ends this hypothetical second civil war.

Well back in the 1860's the average American was in pretty good shape. These days not so much. Hell most of them can't be bothered to go out jogging let alone conduct a running covert battle. Of course with all the food sources drying up do to the conflict Americans will be losing a lot of weight and not in a good way.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I'm starting to think a little cival war action might not be so bad, thin the herd some.
We sure have some stupid motherfuckers in this country, I kinda hope they take up arms against the government

 

[Slick5150]

Making things up?

70% of the country supports what Arizona is doing. Countless other cities/counties/states have similar legislation in the pipeline.

There is NOTHING controversial about the Arizona law considering they are just enforcing federal law with a higher burden of proof placed on their officers.

It is all just a bunch of huffing and puffing by "progressives" pandering to illegals.

And roughly 0% of law enforcement support the law largely because it's essentially unenforceable. Unless you're just going to tell them to round up all the Mexican looking people and figure it out later. But that's a rather different debate then isn't it.

 

[spidey07]

Uhh, most law enforcement support it. It's all the crime from illegals that is causing the law in the first place. Illegal lovers just don't get it. One of the best ways to reduce violent crime would be to get rid of illegals and you think law enforcement doesn't want that? L-O-L.

 

[woolfe9999]

Did you even read the OP?

I don' think you helped your case.
The conference was (pointlessly) moved BECAUSE of the law.
Now, if 1/4 of your workforce was in 1 location why would you move your conference and increase travel costs.

Government in action.

Your thread title is, like just about ALL of your thread titles, highly misleading. The federal government did NOT join any sort of "boycott" of Arizona. The content of the article makes that pretty clear.

Saying that they did not go to a conference "because of the law" is a different thing, but you didn't frame it that way in your title, because as usual, you had to overstate the case.

- wolf

 

[highland145]

Your thread title is, like just about ALL of your thread titles, highly misleading. The federal government did NOT join any sort of "boycott" of Arizona. The content of the article makes that pretty clear.

Saying that they did not go to a conference "because of the law" is a different thing, but you didn't frame it that way in your title, because as usual, you had to overstate the case.

- wolf

Still, the results are the same no matter how he posted it.

 

[spidey07]

Your thread title is, like just about ALL of your thread titles, highly misleading. The federal government did NOT join any sort of "boycott" of Arizona. The content of the article makes that pretty clear.

Saying that they did not go to a conference "because of the law" is a different thing, but you didn't frame it that way in your title, because as usual, you had to overstate the case.

- wolf

It's an exact quote from the article, nothing misleading here.

 

[soulcougher73]

The war is coming. It's getting closer, but it's coming. What happened the last time the fed pissed off the states so much? I don't know, sometime around 1860s?

I highly doubt the military people would attack US Citizens over an issue they themselves most likely agree with. I was in the military and i would disobey an order to fight against Arizona since i agree with them that the Fed Gov is not doing its job.

They might be ordered to but i doubt they would. Most would go awall if it came to civil war im sure.

 

[bfdd]

The million or so citizens who died in the fighting. I suspect if a civil war actually erupted it would be the bloodiest war this country ever fought.

No shit especially now a days.

 

[BoberFett]

This is a war between states rights and an over-reaching federal government. States have a right and a responsibility to stand against the tyrany of the federal government. If the Federal Government does not secure the border then the southern states have a right to withold funds from the federal government. The situation between the federal government and the states represents a contract that has been broken.

This has nothing to do with O'Bammah. However, O'Bammah has the responsibility as the Commander-in-chief to secure the border. Bush also had the responsibility to secure the border but he was a failure also.

I'd love to see a state withhold their federal taxes. I think they're all too chicken shit to do it though. Maybe California will be first with their failing budget and the fact that they pay more than the get back. It'd be a great experiment.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just to clarify, as my last post was a directed response to conventional military hardware and not to the situation itself.

Arizona, being lead by civilian politicians, will do as they're trained to do. They'll BP&M and wait helplessly for a non existent political solution. I do not actually expect them to fight for their human rights, trampled though they may be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm starting to think a little cival war action might not be so bad, thin the herd some.
We sure have some stupid motherfuckers in this country, I kinda hope they take up arms against the government

You might end up on the wrong end of that deal. If a situation arose where a number of people did take arms against DC, then you had better not figure on having enough support for the political system from the military to shoot their kin.

I'm sure that you'd stand against them if they did.

You and Obama standing in front of the White House giving orders to shoot the masses.

I wonder how that would work for you?

 

[woolfe9999]

Still, the results are the same no matter how he posted it.

Intent and result are different things; both matter for different reasons. Patranus is quite clearly suggesting that "democrat ass clowns" in D.C. are on some ideological crusade to boycott Arizona because said "ass clowns" are ideologically opposed to Arizona immigration laws. Whether or not the "result," as you say, is the "same," Patranus is strongly implying something about intent here that is not accurate.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

It's an exact quote from the article, nothing misleading here.

You're right. There's nothing misleading except the article itself. It's factual content belies the notion that these agencies are participating in some sort of boycott. A boycott is an intentional and organized avoidance of something in order to make a political point. That is not what happened with these 2 agencies.

- wolf

 

[OutHouse]

And roughly 0% of law enforcement support the law largely because it's essentially unenforceable. Unless you're just going to tell them to round up all the Mexican looking people and figure it out later. But that's a rather different debate then isn't it.

0%? lol what is your source on that number other than your knee-jerk emotions.

 

[JS80]

The million or so citizens who died in the fighting. I suspect if a civil war actually erupted it would be the bloodiest war this country ever fought.

This time around our good men in the Military will NOT fire upon it's own people. May be an opportunity to usurp the White House and have a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the piece of trash that's currently at the National Archives.

Yea right. But a freedom loving patriot can dream.

 

[JS80]

I'm starting to think a little cival war action might not be so bad, thin the herd some.
We sure have some stupid motherfuckers in this country, I kinda hope they take up arms against the government

Good thing the military isn't made up of atheist lolibtards like you. If there is a civil war the good boys in the military will turn around and aim the guns at the democrats in Congress.

 

[Patranus]

You're right. There's nothing misleading except the article itself. It's factual content belies the notion that these agencies are participating in some sort of boycott. A boycott is an intentional and organized avoidance of something in order to make a political point. That is not what happened with these 2 agencies.

- wolf

1/4 of ICE staff are in Arizona and then schedule a conference in Arizona and then they move the conference because the agency (in D.C.) doesn't like the law?

Ya, they aren't trying to make a political point

Hell, let flush a ton of cash to move a conference and have 1/4 of the people attending travel somewhere else because we don't like a law.

 

[JSt0rm]

The million or so citizens who died in the fighting. I suspect if a civil war actually erupted it would be the bloodiest war this country ever fought.

Not.

the South: assault rifles and make shift explosives

the Fed: Predator drones and ac-30 gunships.

 

[irishScott]

Hurrah for the bonny blue flag.. wait...

Seriously guys, blow out of proportion much? Any civil war will be decided by the loyalties of the military. Maybe they'll split, maybe they won't. Militia may have their place, but it will be minor. Have fun taking out mechanized forces with AR-15s.

In any case it isn't going to happen barring a violation at least 10x worse than what's happening. If you think otherwise, might want to make sure you have the blinders off.