In your opinion. We could find many people on both sides that say that AZ is a shit hole and who would say that CA is is the shit hole.
I never said it wasn't anything but my opinion. I think Ohio sucks too, and I'm from there.
The difference here is you're getting annoyed by the fact that I'm calling Arizona a shithole while I really could care less what you -- or anyone else -- thinks of California.
I answered this in the "other" thread, but I'll summarize here: I'll go with Tact for $500, Alex. Arizona managed to annoy a lot of people who bring money into the state with this act. Right in the middle of a struggling economy too. Good job, guys.
I live in Florida, why would I get upset with or care about AZ being called a shit hole. On the other hand I am interested in what you consider to be qualifications for a state to reach "shit hole" status. Your posts indicated that it was this law that elevated AZ to that unique status. Now it appears that CA also meets the criteria. I'm just interested as to why one would be a shit hold and not the other.
So it looks like your position is that its A.O.K for CA to pass the same laws, but since they did it at a different time AZ is now magically different. As for people who bring money into the state, with less illegals you will now have job opportunities for those who are jobless at better rates of pay. Add to that the penalties for companies that hire illeglas and it will be at worst a wash and more likely result in money in the hands of legal aliens and citizens alike.
Oh and speaking about money there is this too:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
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.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
LINK Wow. If LA really wants to remain true to their principles then I guess they only have one choice.