JAYoung: darcsun: Getting yet another kick out of the state I live in. Both the wife and I are from out of state. I have a grad degree and a professional license, she actually works for ASU management and helps with the sustainability department. We're both extremely liberal and live in a small area in the downtown historic districts where there is a music and arts center (Roosevelt Row).

The one thing about AZ is this though... we're allowed to be armed to the teeth. I would have never owned a gun before moving here, but we're armed to the teeth now. It'll be a short fight, but I plan on taking as many of these f#*kers out as I can before I go down.

Of course, I'm fairly sure darwin will get to them first.

Derps typically present a large target and they don't move too fast.
Aim low and squeeze.

Good advice. I've always been shocked that they get so big out here with the heat and all.

trev29: keylock71: Karac: Nah, make the QR code link to google a google maps page zoomed into their house. Bonus points if you use another QR for their work.

Lol...Even better.

That is awesome. They would go apeshiat.

I love all yous guys.

And bow to your greatness......


heh

_{/this is so tempting!!!!}

Jackson Herring: I know, the best I could do was Commander in Briefs which is not as good as Chairman of the Bed :(

You have to admit though that even Ayn Rand would not be able to resist the current Commander in briefs.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I suppose no one in AZ bothered to read the bill. If they did, they would have come across two minor details:

1. The entire thing is a non-binding resolution/statement of shared principles

2. Participation in achieveing any stated goals is VOLUNTARY


Score another point for reality.

The text of the bill Azlefty posted in contradictory to what you are saying here.

So I went back to re-read the bill. It not only prohibits implementing or adopting "the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet" of the Rio Declaration, but also prohibits the same with respect to the "Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development", which as far as I can tell is a reference to the entirety of Agenda 21 as developed in Rio.

If I'm reading it correctly, and this really is a reference to all of Agenda 21, this opens up a whole bunch of other stuff that AZ and it's affiliates will be _prohibited_ from doing:

(From http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml)

- provide all persons urgently with the opportunity to earn a sustainable livelihood

- Empowering women through full participation in decision-making

- Respecting the cultural integrity and the rights of indigenous people and their communities

- Provide substantial increases in economically efficient resource productivity and measures to ensure that the local population benefits in adequate measure from resource use;

- Empower community organizations and people to enable them to achieve sustainable livelihoods;

- Provide the poor with access to fresh water and sanitation;

- Provide the poor with access to primary education.

- Develop and implement rational and affordable approaches to the establishment and maintenance of health facilities;

- New approaches to planning and managing health care systems and facilities should be tested, and research on ways of integrating appropriate technologies into health infrastructures supported.

- Develop new technologies for the effective control of communicable diseases;

- Promote policies and practical measures to minimize and limit, where appropriate, the generation of radioactive wastes and provide for their safe processing, conditioning, transportation and disposal;

- Ensure the survival, protection and development of children

I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around how massively broad this bill is.

Stefanwulf: So I went back to re-read the bill. It not only prohibits implementing or adopting "the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet" of the Rio Declaration, but also prohibits the same with respect to the "Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development", which as far as I can tell is a reference to the entirety of Agenda 21 as developed in Rio.

If I'm reading it correctly, and this really is a reference to all of Agenda 21, this opens up a whole bunch of other stuff that AZ and it's affiliates will be _prohibited_ from doing:

(From http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml)



- provide all persons urgently with the opportunity to earn a sustainable livelihood

- Empowering women through full participation in decision-making

- Respecting the cultural integrity and the rights of indigenous people and their communities

- Provide substantial increases in economically efficient resource productivity and measures to ensure that the local population benefits in adequate measure from resource use;

- Empower community organizations and people to enable them to achieve sustainable livelihoods;

- Provide the poor with access to fresh water and sanitation;

- Provide the poor with access to primary education.

- Develop and implement rational and affordable approaches to the establishment and maintenance of health facilities;

- New approaches to planning and managing health care systems and facilities should be tested, and research on ways of integrating appropriate technologies into health infrastructures supported.

- Develop new technologies for the effective control of communicable diseases;

- Promote policies and practical measures to minimize and limit, where appropriate, the generation of radioactive wastes and provide for their safe processing, conditioning, transportation and disposal;

- Ensure the survival, protection and development of children


I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around how massively broad this bill is.

I don't blame them. A lot of those things sound like fascist communism. "Provide the poor with access to primary education"? Psshhh.

God damn the farking Sun City blue hair immigrant crowd and the Tea party for farking up Arizona for the rest of us. And fark everyone in this thread with their wonderfully ignorant generalizations about the State. I was hoping the two opposing forces of weapons grade stupid would cancel each other out but I guess not. :/

qorkfiend: I don't blame them. A lot of those things sound like fascist communism. "Provide the poor with access to primary education"? Psshhh.

"Sorry, public schools are only for kids with families above the poverty line. Your parents took a pay cut, so you can't go to school anymore. Also, when you get home you'll notice that we've shut off your water and sewage, as required by law. When your parents start earning enough money again, then we'll turn them back on and let you go back to school."

I'm laughing because there's no way I can see this being taken seriously, even if passed. It has to either be ignored or quickly overturned in the courts, right?

Does any American truly fear the United Nations? I sure don't. Heck, we pretty much run the thing!

/home of the brave my ass

I don't know what shutting down welfare/unemployment money would do, but mass looting and people fighting over essentials like food come to mind.

HellRaisingHoosier: Does any American truly fear the United Nations? I sure don't. Heck, we pretty much run the thing!

/home of the brave my ass

Yes, they exist. I work with at least two Americans that fear the UN, and several more that don't fear it so much as hate it.

I was going to ask if we could have an "Arizona Tag", but instead we can just use "Asinine" for any story from AZ in the future, especially if it concerns politics


How about "AZinine"?

meat0918: HellRaisingHoosier: Does any American truly fear the United Nations? I sure don't. Heck, we pretty much run the thing!

/home of the brave my ass

Yes, they exist. I work with at least two Americans that fear the UN, and several more that don't fear it so much as hate it.

But...but why?

What is it about hot arid climates and batsh*t extremism?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: This. In fact, let's use AZ as the test case. They want to be all 10th amendment/boot strappy? Fine! Remove every single federal dollar, employee, and resource from the state. ALL of it, including law enforcement. Let AZ fend for themselves for a year, and see how they do.

If you were also going to eliminate all of the state's and its citizens' obligations to the federal government, such as federal income tax, SS, medicare, federal gasoline tax, etc., at the same time that you were removing every single federal dollar, employee, and resource from the state, then the people of Arizona might be happy to take you up on that and see how they do fending for themselves. If you were suggesting that every single federal dollar, employee, and resource be removed from the state to see how they fend for themselves while they're still having to pay federal taxes then that would be a pretty shiatty deal from AZ's perspective and I don't think they would take you up on the offer. It has been my experience that, most of the time, when I see someone suggest that we let x do without any federal money/resources/etc. they were only planning on removing the things from the federal government that are beneficial and not the things that flow from x to the federal government.

I honestly do think it would be a very interesting experiment to see how a state, AZ or otherwise, would fare on their own if the federal government were removed from the picture, both the money/resources/employees and the obligations/taxes/regulations. I would think that this would help us gain a better understanding of the costs/benefits to some of our policies and, perhaps, help us make adjustments to improve the cost:benefit ratio of those policies.

I realize that you seem to think that it would be a disaster if this were to happen and that they would be happy to come back after the year was over but, even though I realize that there's a very real possibility(or probability) that it would happen like that, I'm not nearly as certain it would be such a disaster. The loss of the federal money and resources would certainly be very significant to the state but they would then be in a position where they could significantly increase taxes on their citizens to help offset some of the money/resources they're loosing while also boasting a tax rate considerably lower than anywhere else in the country, so long as the state tax rate they set is equal to or less than the federal tax rates. Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses. I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

I'm not saying that I think AZ would do great if that were to happen, but I do think it would be very interesting to see how it played out.

runin800m: Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses.I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

Yeah, people love pollution, unsafe working conditions, and tainted food. Look at how people flock to places like Haiti and Somalia.

Lionel Mandrake: GO BACK TO MEXICO, you fkn lunatics

No! The derp might be contagious!.

/Quarantine the area for a few years
//And reconquer the ruins all sentient life has been wiped out

qorkfiend: meat0918: HellRaisingHoosier: Does any American truly fear the United Nations? I sure don't. Heck, we pretty much run the thing!

/home of the brave my ass

Yes, they exist. I work with at least two Americans that fear the UN, and several more that don't fear it so much as hate it.

But...but why?

They're engineers that are trying to find a pattern to the randomness of life and listen to Art Bell instead of reason?

meat0918: They're engineers that are trying to find a pattern to the randomness of life and listen to Art Bell instead of reason?

Dave Mustane also hates/fears the UN.

/Also, some nonsense about black helicopters

runin800m: The loss of the federal money and resources would certainly be very significant to the state but they would then be in a position where they could significantly increase taxes on their citizens to help offset some of the money/resources they're loosing while also boasting a tax rate considerably lower than anywhere else in the country, so long as the state tax rate they set is equal to or less than the federal tax rates. Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses. I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

Of course, we'd also have to let everyone know that they're no longer under the protection of the US military, so any invasions or attacks would be free of reprisals on anyone's part except Arizona's.

Stefanwulf: runin800m: The loss of the federal money and resources would certainly be very significant to the state but they would then be in a position where they could significantly increase taxes on their citizens to help offset some of the money/resources they're loosing while also boasting a tax rate considerably lower than anywhere else in the country, so long as the state tax rate they set is equal to or less than the federal tax rates. Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses. I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

Of course, we'd also have to let everyone know that they're no longer under the protection of the US military, so any invasions or attacks would be free of reprisals on anyone's part except Arizona's.

I'm sure Mexico won't take advantage of that.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I give up...

/just nuke it from orbit

Let me outta here first.

runin800m: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This. In fact, let's use AZ as the test case. They want to be all 10th amendment/boot strappy? Fine! Remove every single federal dollar, employee, and resource from the state. ALL of it, including law enforcement. Let AZ fend for themselves for a year, and see how they do.

If you were also going to eliminate all of the state's and its citizens' obligations to the federal government, such as federal income tax, SS, medicare, federal gasoline tax, etc., at the same time that you were removing every single federal dollar, employee, and resource from the state, then the people of Arizona might be happy to take you up on that and see how they do fending for themselves. If you were suggesting that every single federal dollar, employee, and resource be removed from the state to see how they fend for themselves while they're still having to pay federal taxes then that would be a pretty shiatty deal from AZ's perspective and I don't think they would take you up on the offer. It has been my experience that, most of the time, when I see someone suggest that we let x do without any federal money/resources/etc. they were only planning on removing the things from the federal government that are beneficial and not the things that flow from x to the federal government.

I honestly do think it would be a very interesting experiment to see how a state, AZ or otherwise, would fare on their own if the federal government were removed from the picture, both the money/resources/employees and the obligations/taxes/regulations. I would think that this would help us gain a better understanding of the costs/benefits to some of our policies and, perhaps, help us make adjustments to improve the cost:benefit ratio of those policies.

I realize that you seem to think that it would be a disaster if this were to happen and that they would be happy to come back after the year was over but, even though I realize that there's a very real possibility(or probability) that it would ha ...

Go be stupid somewhere else.

qorkfiend: Stefanwulf: runin800m: The loss of the federal money and resources would certainly be very significant to the state but they would then be in a position where they could significantly increase taxes on their citizens to help offset some of the money/resources they're loosing while also boasting a tax rate considerably lower than anywhere else in the country, so long as the state tax rate they set is equal to or less than the federal tax rates. Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses. I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

Of course, we'd also have to let everyone know that they're no longer under the protection of the US military, so any invasions or attacks would be free of reprisals on anyone's part except Arizona's.

I'm sure Mexico won't take advantage of that.

I'm sure Sheriff Joe's Posse is all they need.

Morons, without federal protection, AZ would be the new kingdom of Mexican cartels.

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: Stefanwulf: runin800m: The loss of the federal money and resources would certainly be very significant to the state but they would then be in a position where they could significantly increase taxes on their citizens to help offset some of the money/resources they're loosing while also boasting a tax rate considerably lower than anywhere else in the country, so long as the state tax rate they set is equal to or less than the federal tax rates. Additionally, if they were not bound by federal regulations and able to set their own environmental/safety/etc regulations, they could operate under much less stringent regulations that would reduce the cost of operating businesses. I think that the combination of a considerably lower tax rate and significantly lower costs for businesses to operate and comply with regulations would be extremely attractive to many people, most especially those who are fairly well off financially and some businesses.

Of course, we'd also have to let everyone know that they're no longer under the protection of the US military, so any invasions or attacks would be free of reprisals on anyone's part except Arizona's.

I'm sure Mexico won't take advantage of that.

I'm sure Sheriff Joe's Posse is all they need.

I guess this is a fair point. Arizona is heavily armed.

FTA:

"The tea party and conspiracy theorists run the state now, Campbell told msnbc.com.

Truer words have never been spoken.

HellRaisingHoosier: Does any American truly fear the United Nations? I sure don't. Heck, we pretty much run the thing!

/home of the brave my ass

To be slightly more serious than I have been over the last few posts, it occurs to me that a lot of Americans probably would. To me, as an educated coastal person, I can absolutely look at the UN and say, "Of course we basically control that." To someone from the southwest who doesn't identify with people on the coasts, and views us as cultural outsiders with strange ways which threaten what they have always known as the American way of life, then the statement suddenly changes to "They control the UN". And an alliance of all the foreign countries in the world with the US "outsiders" who already threaten you seems like quite a big threat to America (in the sense of the culture and traditions you and all your friends and family grew up with).

If you're talking about America as a nation-state, sure the UN isn't interested in ending that, and couldn't if they wanted. If, however, you're talking about America as the way of life found in the midwest, southwest, and mountain states, then the UN is saying some of that will have to change, and they see the federal government and many of the people in the cities agreeing with it.

If I saw the federal government suddenly mandating that Boston be run according to what I perceived as the goals of a threatening outside group (say, for me, an extremely fundamentalist religious organization with strong ideas about dress codes, alcohol, women's equality, gay rights, and/or scientific research), I might find it pretty scary too, and I'd almost certainly question whether this religious ("outsider") organization was somehow influencing the government.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I suppose no one in AZ bothered to read the bill. If they did, they would have come across two minor details:

So don't worry that your legislature is expressing schizophrenic bullshiat as policy.

If my uncle starts talking like that, the doctor ups his meds.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, people love pollution, unsafe working conditions, and tainted food. Look at how people flock to places like Haiti and Somalia.

Yeah, because their only two options would be to either keep all of the existing regulations in place or be Somalia and have zero regulations, right?

As I said, it would be very interesting and I think we would be able to learn a great deal from watching it unfold, especially about the cost:benefit relationship for various regulations/programs. Obviously, we know that people are going to value the extra income that they would be able to keep from lower taxes, but, like everyone, they also value a clean environment, good working conditions, and safe food, all to varying degrees. I would imagine that they would keep many regulations, do away with many, and weaken but not totally eliminate many others. I would expect that, in the end, we would see that in some cases they were able to save enough money at the expense of a small enough impact(environmental or otherwise) that people would happily make the trade off. In other cases we would likely find that the lowered regulations had too great an impact to justify a relatively small savings.

I'm not saying that I would want to be a part of this little experiment, but it would be very fascinating to watch it happen.

runin800m: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, people love pollution, unsafe working conditions, and tainted food. Look at how people flock to places like Haiti and Somalia.

Yeah, because their only two options would be to either keep all of the existing regulations in place or be Somalia and have zero regulations, right?

As I said, it would be very interesting and I think we would be able to learn a great deal from watching it unfold, especially about the cost:benefit relationship for various regulations/programs. Obviously, we know that people are going to value the extra income that they would be able to keep from lower taxes, but, like everyone, they also value a clean environment, good working conditions, and safe food, all to varying degrees. I would imagine that they would keep many regulations, do away with many, and weaken but not totally eliminate many others. I would expect that, in the end, we would see that in some cases they were able to save enough money at the expense of a small enough impact(environmental or otherwise) that people would happily make the trade off. In other cases we would likely find that the lowered regulations had too great an impact to justify a relatively small savings.

I'm not saying that I would want to be a part of this little experiment, but it would be very fascinating to watch it happen.

You suggested "much less stringent regulations" in your original post, not some minor tweaking.

How does enacting a law that says you have to do the opposite of whatever the UN suggests in its nonbinding resolutions make you more free?

I predict a nonbinding UN resolution suggesting everyone shoot themselves in the head, soon.

*NOT shoot themselves in the head

Preview post, how does it work?

FlashHarry: jesus farking christ, you farking retarded farking morons -- please just secede, or die, or do something other than polluting our farking country with your idiotic bullshiat.

This times a billion.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: And deduct a point from me for bad spelling. :(

...and another ten billion for completely missing the point. Binding or Non-Binding, the fact remains that the whole idea is moronic. Is there nothing better they could be doing with their time?

Philip Francis Queeg: You suggested "much less stringent regulations" in your original post, not some minor tweaking

I only meant to suggest that they would be able to adopt much less stringent regulations, rather than imply they necessarily would or should adopt much less stringent regulations. I would expect they would probably do away with some, make some others much less stringent, and keep many pretty much in tact, but who knows what they would do in this hypothetical situation.

Apparently, most people seem to have the impression that I think AZ would do just great and would be some kind of paradise with low taxes and little government involvement that results in a great economy where everyone prospers. I don't think that. I think there would be some instances where we saw that they eliminated regulations that saved money with very little consequence, but there would be plenty of instances where we saw that they eliminated regulations and saved money but with significant consequences that far outweigh the money saved. The latter would probably be the case quite a bit more often than the former, but we would be able to learn from either. I wouldn't want to be a part of that experiment, but it would be fascinating to watch it unfold from the outside.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I suppose no one in AZ bothered to read the bill. If they did, they would have come across two minor details:

1. The entire thing is a non-binding resolution/statement of shared principles

2. Participation in achieveing any stated goals is VOLUNTARY


Score another point for reality.


since you've obviously read the bill, can you show me where it says participation is voluntary?

thank you in advance.

I'm actually ok with this. Round em all up in Texas and Nevada and let em legislate and deregulate themselves to death.

Both states will be toxic cess pools in no time.

Hypnozombie

colon_pow: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I suppose no one in AZ bothered to read the bill. If they did, they would have come across two minor details:

1. The entire thing is a non-binding resolution/statement of shared principles

2. Participation in achieveing any stated goals is VOLUNTARY


Score another point for reality.


since you've obviously read the bill, can you show me where it says participation is voluntary?

thank you in advance.

Speaking as someone who went through this with the Grand Moff back on like, page 2 of the comments - he wasn't saying that the Arizona Bill is non-binding, with voluntary participation; he was saying that the Rio Declaration is. And from that point, he was surmising that nobody in the AZ legislature had actually read the Rio Declaration, or they wouldn't have felt threatened.

scarmig: On the flip side, the UN is pretty farking useless, so while I don't think cutting off your head despite your face is a smart move for AZ, giving the UN the finger is pretty cool.

Yeah, the UN has never done anything useful, except for eradicating small box and saving millions of lives. But what have they done latey.

Obviously, I meant small pox, small boxes are okay with me.

Stefanwulf: colon_pow: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I suppose no one in AZ bothered to read the bill. If they did, they would have come across two minor details:

1. The entire thing is a non-binding resolution/statement of shared principles

2. Participation in achieveing any stated goals is VOLUNTARY


Score another point for reality.


since you've obviously read the bill, can you show me where it says participation is voluntary?

thank you in advance.

Speaking as someone who went through this with the Grand Moff back on like, page 2 of the comments - he wasn't saying that the Arizona Bill is non-binding, with voluntary participation; he was saying that the Rio Declaration is. And from that point, he was surmising that nobody in the AZ legislature had actually read the Rio Declaration, or they wouldn't have felt threatened.

here's a link to the rio declaration Link

i dont see the voluntary part...

nmrsnr: Arizonans should work to screw over the poor and increase their numbers (okay, the Arizona GOP might actually like this one)

being opposed to government-forced equality does not mean that one hates the poor.


I would rather be free than equal.