Arizona to cut LA's power over boycott?

[thaiboxerken]

Similar. The threat is there.

 

[dtugg]

The mafia would actually burn down your place if you didn't buy "insurance" from them. Arizona could not cut off power to LA. There is no similarities between the two.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The mafia would actually burn down your place if you didn't buy "insurance" from them. Arizona could not cut off power to LA. There is no similarities between the two.

The ability to follow through with the threat doesn't cancel it's status as a threat.

 

[dtugg]

The ability to follow through with the threat doesn't cancel it's status as a threat.

Not necessarily, but it makes your analogy stupid. And it makes some sort of veiled threat more unlikely, which was only there to begin with if you choose to see it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The ability to follow through with the threat doesn't cancel it's status as a threat.

They are threatening to allow LA to renegotiate the power deals.

 

[Complexity]

Well, this guy'd like to, but LA will go crying to the Feds, who will pull some "Interstate Commerce" crap out of a hat, and repeal the 3rd law--so LA-La land get to have their cake and eat it, too, through political posturing...

I'd be surprised if there weren't some contractual obligation on both parties with regard to the power supply.

There is no such contractual obligation not to boycott Arizona.

Quit whining.

 

[Complexity]

Oh, the sweet irony. A minority huh? You mean the elected government, right?



Really? Because passing resolutions that ban all city employees from travelling to the state of Arizona (to hurt the tourism industry) and making plans to cancel contracts with companies from Arizona (not the government) with the express intention of damaging Arizona's economy is somehow "targeted"...right.

Nuke 'em.

Actually, if Arizona wants to retaliate, let them retaliate in kind - they can boycott LA. That's 'fair' (in this insane world).

 

[rwguinn]

I'd be surprised if there weren't some contractual obligation on both parties with regard to the power supply.

There is no such contractual obligation not to boycott Arizona.

Quit whining.

Who's whining? The only whining I see is from Librulz who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted, if it inconveniences them in any way.
LA wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
If they truly abhor the Arizona law, and want to punish Arizona by withdrawing any economic dealings with the State, they should be prepared to suffer some hardship along with that withdrawal.
If you're going to make a statement based on your ideology, you should stand behind it and take the inconvenience.

 

[WildCat]

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.
I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. 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."

While he doesn't say it in so many words, he is making a veiled threat to turn off the power. This is just like mafioso telling a store owner that they should buy insurance from the mafia to insure nothing bad happens to the store.

So, you can try your conservative spin, but the threat is there. I doubt that it's a sincere threat, though. It's just posturing, as far as I'm concerned.


​

Do you know what the word "renegotiate" means? Do you need a link to an online dictionary?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you know what the word "renegotiate" means? Do you need a link to an online dictionary?

Mafioso: I'd like to talk about "renegotiating" your insurance contract with us, since you don't like what we're doing.


The AZ official is pandering, but he's pandering a veiled threat to make his point. I don't see it as actually threatening power to LA, though. It's like a christian saying I'll go to hell.

 

[eeyore1954]

Similar. The threat is there.

The only threat is to allow California renogotiate their contract for the power, as Newtons Bit points out.

This is not conservative spin it is a contractural agreement between the two parties.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Anybody else notice that the frothing-at-the-mouth Librulz and atheists on this board don't even have a sense-of-humo(u)r surrogate?

We're all out of troll food here. Try the CT forum.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Who's whining? The only whining I see is from Librulz who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted, if it inconveniences them in any way.
LA wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
If they truly abhor the Arizona law, and want to punish Arizona by withdrawing any economic dealings with the State, they should be prepared to suffer some hardship along with that withdrawal.
If you're going to make a statement based on your ideology, you should stand behind it and take the inconvenience.

Yeah! Because protesting a law that affects only one segment of the population of Arizona by boycotting tourism should be met with reneging on a contract and illegally cutting off power to 25% of the population of LA, potentially murdering thousands of people in hospitals, halting emergency services, and endangering the lives of millions.

Isn't it obvious?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yeah! Because protesting a law that affects only one segment of the population of Arizona by boycotting tourism should be met with reneging on a contract and illegally cutting off power to 25% of the population of LA, potentially murdering thousands of people in hospitals, halting emergency services, and endangering the lives of millions.

Isn't it obvious?

Good thing no one suggested that then.

Good thing the only thing suggested was to display the courage of one's convictions.

 

[dtugg]

Who is talking about reneging on a contract and illegally cutting off power? If LA was serious about boycotting AZ they could re-negotiate contracts so that none of their electricity comes from AZ. But they won't, because that wouldn't be convenient to them. That's all this guy was saying.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Yeah! Because protesting a law that affects only one segment of the population of Arizona by boycotting tourism should be met with reneging on a contract and illegally cutting off power to 25% of the population of LA, potentially murdering thousands of people in hospitals, halting emergency services, and endangering the lives of millions.

Isn't it obvious?

Nope, the boycott does not just effect tourism, LA in their own words wants to hurt arizona's economy, not tourism industry

 

[thaiboxerken]

The only threat is to allow California renogotiate their contract for the power, as Newtons Bit points out.

This is not conservative spin it is a contractural agreement between the two parties.

Uhm.. no. It's saying "you want to boycott us? Ok, then let's talk abou this electricity that yous guys like to have."

It is a threat, although not a threat of any substance.

 

[pipelineaudio]

the old "It all started when Frank hit me back first" equivocation

 

[eeyore1954]

Uhm.. no. It's saying "you want to boycott us? Ok, then let's talk abou this electricity that yous guys like to have."

It is a threat, although not a threat of any substance.

It is an offer not a threat but I guess there is no use discussing it. A toungue in cheek offer at that, because Arizona doesn't want to lose that revenue.

 

[Freddy]

Uhm.. no. It's saying "you want to boycott us? Ok, then let's talk abou this electricity that yous guys like to have."

It is a threat, although not a threat of any substance.

No. It's saying, "If you really want to boycott us, rather than just grandstand, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and boycott our electricity? Oh, that's right, because you're only willing to stand up for your position if it doesn't require you to do anything remotely difficult. That's some conviction you have, LA."

Which is true and perfectly fair to point out. LA is not really boycotting AZ if they are buying 25% of their electricity from AZ, are they?