It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Deny Work to Conservative Businesses

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.


Newsflash, we have the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause AND we have the Citizens United landmark court ruling that defines corporations as people, making this proposition by Cali Unconstitutional and doomed to not only lose in court, but lose California a nice chunk of money to pay for any damages they cause companies that get tied up in it.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think I've made the exact argument for the Fourteenth in the face of your arguing States Rights and local determination. (On other issues of course)

For the record if you keep reading, I think it's pretty stupid for Cali or NY to do this.

Arguing that a State cannot enforce guidelines for State vendors though ... that's a dicey argument




edit on 27-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
By the way, here's the text of the bill ... if anyone wants to actually, you know, see what it says.

Assembly Bill 946



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The definition of fascism is using socioeconomic pressure against people to create the desired politics.

I fail to see how this isn't fitting of that definition.


That's all the government does. Both Right and Left. They use socioeconomic pressure to create their own desired politics.

Meaning by your definition we've been a fascist government for as long as i can remember.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm also curious to see if this passes, how many subsidiary/LLC spin off companies from major design/build companies will spring up across the land overnight. From a legal point of view, WSP Global owns Parsons Brinckerhoff, while PB owns a number of subsidiaries. WSP is intending to retire the PB persona in the near future, bringing them all under the WSP identity... so technically, PB could chase all kinds of wall related work while WSP claims the PB contracts and pursues work in California and I really doubt many California requisition officers are going to cross reference the two. Same for construction side, really. Take Kiewit for an example. Globally, Kiewit carries weight, but their business model has always revolved around entering a market and buying out one of the top local contractor offices, bringing that company on board in a manner almost akin to an independent contractor agreement by which the contractor promises 10% (or so) profit to the Kiewit mothership while enjoying the insurance, marketing, and reputation of Kiewit. The catch is Kiewit doesn't discard the trademarks acquired in those agreements, they simply mothball them. So let's say they want to chase Wall work, they could easily do so under the TIC Holdings corporate banner and nobody in California would make the connection without doing some research themselves.

If there's money to be made, this law will be pointless.


(post by F4guy removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Reading through the text and qualifying reasons for the bill, it almost seems that California doesn't have nearly as much problem with the wall as they do with the fact that Trump is going to be the president that oks it. How childish.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No this is called Coersion and manipulation because of a threat they will Ban them From anymore work for thw state just because of WHO is paying them to do work.

Blackballing is Illegal. At least it is in my State. And you cannot tell me this would not be coersion by threat of repurcussions.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Why do we have to wait for it. Can't we just disown a state? CA is a burden on our economy and doesn't care to work with anyone that doesn't share their views. Hell...work out a deal and sell them to Russia or NK...let them see what it's like to actually have no say.

So tired of the partisan crap ripping the US apart....cut out the cancer already. If you don't want to be here and think other places are better then MOVE!

I would love to see the figures on those that have actually been to countries with real issues versus those that just read social media posts and get angered.

We have seriously lost our marbles here and it is getting more ridiculous by the week. Some of the posts and threads here on ATS are so delusional it amazes me.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I guess the solution would be for out of state contractors to get the bids. 2 birds, one stone. Deny CA contractors the awarded bid, giving the out of state contractor the federal funds, and deny CA workers their pay check that would have gone back into the CA economy.
This is why NV is filling up with CA transplants. CA has gone full retard.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Why do we have to wait for it. Can't we just disown a state? CA is a burden on our economy and doesn't care to work with anyone that doesn't share their views. Hell...work out a deal and sell them to Russia or NK...let them see what it's like to actually have no say.

So tired of the partisan crap ripping the US apart....cut out the cancer already. If you don't want to be here and think other places are better then MOVE!

I would love to see the figures on those that have actually been to countries with real issues versus those that just read social media posts and get angered.

We have seriously lost our marbles here and it is getting more ridiculous by the week. Some of the posts and threads here on ATS are so delusional it amazes me.

I would support that 100%! California (and NY City) considers themselves and operate as independent from the United States but seem to want all the perks at the same time. If they want to fly solo...why not? It will only sink them. I don't think they have the guts to do it though.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JDmOKI

Calling people names that you disagree with is logically fallacious.

One legislator has introduced a bill, yet, all this hue and cry and political nonsense ensues over nothing.

California is not broke by any stretch of even the right-wing imagination..



Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm right wing and you know this will pass and is actually horrible they would even present this bill.

Why further divide this country? Why do we have to put a line in the sand.

Bunch of children unable to respect others



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey

States can't decide they don't want to work with a contractor based on their previous work?

I guess we'll see.

Yes, I suppose that we will see--but the problem with your "we'll see" comment is that there have been many states over the years that have gotten away with doing unconstitutional things under the guise of state law. Do the Jim Crow laws ring a bell, some of which were in existence for nearly a century before being acknowledged as being unconstitutional and struck down (and were enacted by Democrats...go figure)?

Basing an argument on the metric that something is or isn't okay just because if may become a law is not a good foundation on which to base an argument. But even so, I wholeheartedly believe that, if this passes, it will not be in existence for long, the state will be sued immediately, and there will be a freeze on the law pending the lawsuit and subsequent appeals.

This will go nowhere.


You're trying to claim a whole series of fallacies, but here's the meat: you feel that States deciding how to govern the expenditure of their own funds is wrong, because they choose (if any of this had become law which of course it hasn't) not to work with certain contractors based on their previous work.

You're wrong in your assessment--that's not meat you're serving, that's tofurkey.

I'm claiming that this is textbook government corruption because they are using the threat of banning legitimate businesses able and willing to do a job for the state--possibly as the best deal for the taxpayers--because the state legislators disagree with the politics on one of the projects that they may have worked on. It has nothing to do with the quality of their work, the legitimacy of their business, or their ability to get a job done on time and on budget, it only has to do with the political likes and dislikes of a few legislators.

While you may think that you understand my argument, you either don't, or you do and you're trying to spin it to generalize what I'm saying instead of speaking to the precise issue at hand...and you want to tell me that I'm spewing smoke, tossing red herrings, and claiming a series of fallacies?

Okie dokie.


Your definition of the word "corrupt" is "doesn't agree with my politics." Sorry, if anyone in the situation is known for duplicity in construction hiring ... it's Mr. Trump.

First off, describe "my politics" in detail, since you know so much about me, then maybe we'll see who's talking out of their ass.


You can keep tossing red herring in all you want ... it reminds you of this, what I'm really saying is that.

The fact here is that Donald Trump's need to build a Great Wall in his honor (which is what this is all about) and that he apparently has some support in Congress to do so is being opposed by several sovereign States who still have the right to spend their own tax dollars as their legislatures see fit.

The blatant irony in those bolded sections is too amusing not to point out.

This has nothing to do with Trump, his ego, nor the "right" to spend state dollars as they see fit, it's about the constitutional or unconstitutional nature of putting such politically corrupt caveats on the bidding on public contracts for the state.

If I've tossed a red herring or two, sir, you are farming them for bulk sale.

And just for good measure:

CORRUPTION:

a. dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

b. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

More definitiona (a) than (b), but both describe my use of the word, here. My definition of "corruption" is the dictionary's definition, and it has nothing to do with my politics that you assume that you are so familiar with.

Tell me this, do I support the building of the border wall? Do I think the immigration laws are just fine? Did I vote for Trump? Did I vote for Obama?

Please, enlighten me on my politics, if you feel that you know me so well.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
By the way, here's the text of the bill ... if anyone wants to actually, you know, see what it says.

Assembly Bill 946

That's not the Ricardo Lara bill, but this is, if you want to actually, you know, see what it says
:
SB 30

One thing to appropriately note is that, in presenting this "legislation of corruption," as I'm going to now call it just for S&G, he has amended the original bill to remove the ability of the voters of the state to have a say in this matter (which was the original intent). In my opinion, that even deepens my assertion that this is corrupt on many levels.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I have a problem with discriminating against someone for their political views. You don't?



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tardacus

Exactly.


Basically the state of California is saying, "If you support Trump's immigration policy, you will not be awarded any contract from the state".


I am so sick of the idiots in Sacramento. Do they really assume that only Republican or right-leaning businesses are bidding on these contracts? Work is work, you can bet that any company with the capability wants the job. Hell, I'm surprised Nancy Pelosi's husband hasn't already got it sewn up.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.


Discrimination based on political beliefs is any different than discrimination based on religious beliefs in what way?



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.


Discrimination based on political beliefs is any different than discrimination based on religious beliefs in what way?


It's not any different.,

See Islam that's a marriage of political and religious ideology.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I would give them less than that. As soon as they announced that they could no longer make welfare payments, there would be full blown anarchy in the streets. The ghettos would pour into the middle class areas, and finally into the rich areas. It would be absolute chaos and many people would die.

The end result would be a little third world country attached to the USA. The National Guard would be called in to put down the violent actors, and then we would see the real life version of Escape From L.A.

I hope it happens. California is a MASSIVE burden on this country both financially and culturally. California is a hell hole.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword


But it's okay when states have a "purity test" when it comes to women's health and reproductive rights, and deny Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors, hospitals and clinics that provide legal and Constitutionally protected medical services?



"Constitutional protected medical services"?... Are you talking about abortion?... Could you show us where in the U.S. Constitution it says "abortion is a right"?... Oh and btw, you obviously seem to forget that the Declaration of independence states.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...

www.ushistory.org...

I wonder why the founding fathers wrote down that among the rights given by the "Creator" is life, and it is the first right they wrote down as being one of the unalienable rights...



edit on 28-4-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join