Sacramento to boycott Arizona Businesses

MSNBC

Sacramento City Council is moving forward with plans to adopt a resolution condemning the Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law, asking for its repeal and asking for a citywide boycott of Arizona companies.

The council made the unanimous decision following a four-hour city council meeting Tuesday night attended by more than 300 people.

Looks like Sacramento is to join the ranks of the California cities that will boycott Arizona businesses due to the recently passed immigration law. The division just seems to be widening.

reply to post by Kharron


Sac city is obviously not listening to its own residents, once again the few in control are the mouthpiece for many.

www.sacbee.com...

www.limitstogrowth.org...

Those certain cities in the state are playing HIGH stakes game right now. It is going to backfire big time.

That entire state is in turmoil financially, they are too stoned out to realize that any boycotting can be used against them also. They forget that 74% of the nation supports Arizona, that could translate to 74% of the Nation might boycott these very California cities.





[edit on 26-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

I dont understand the need to boycott. Its not like it'll do much, or have any effect anyways.

Im from Cali myself. Born and Raised, love everything, hate nothing about it.

Im just glad I live 50 mins away from Arizona, and 25 mins away from the border.

please do not make the mistake of believing that just because one foolish city council is going through with this that they have the support of the entire state.

i think alot of folks are getting the wrong impression on whats actually going on over here. i know these little spurts from LA and SF and now sac make the news, but they hardly speak for the entire state. the liberals only flock together in those isolated areas, a lot of the state still has some sense. and even in those areas there is resistance.


and if you dont believe me, go ahead and take a look at the polls for Governer. Meg whitman is leading the pack, and i just saw a commercial on tv a little while ago of her saying she would kick out all of the illegals and go after these foolish "sanctuary cities" that are an embarrassment to California. For the first time in my natural born life here in California we actually have somebody decent on the ballot, going back as far as i can remember it seems every year we were just picking the lessor of 2 evils.

she was the ceo of ebay.

shes also going to force anybody on wellfare to sign a contract that they will work, or get the boot.

reply to post by LurkerMan


I did a thread on Costa Mesa standing up for tougher immigration, California City Stands up for Arizona.

I doubt the entire state is for promoting illegal activities to continue.

reply to post by LurkerMan


I wouldn't be accepting Meg Whitman's exxagerations as fact quite so quickly if I were you:

Whitman Claims She Wants to Help California’s Small Businesses, But as Head of e-Bay, She Hiked their Costs Repeatedly To Turn a Profit

“‘For a long period of time, eBay generated revenue growth by raising fees on sellers,’ said Scot Wingo, the founder of Channel Advisor, which helps small businesses sell on the Internet. ‘Now everyone is starting to realize that was unsustainable.’” – Brad Stone, New York Times, February 22, 2009

“Sellers also complain that, under pressure to meet Wall Street expectations, eBay under Whitman repeatedly jacked up fees, driving off many sellers and making the site far less profitable for others.” - Ken McLaughlin/ Pete Carey, San Jose Mercury News/ Contra Costa Times, October 4, 2009

Whitman Led e-Bay’s Purchase of Skype, Costing the Company More than $1 billion in Losses

“Ms. Whitman also led eBay’s 2005 purchase of the Internet calling service Skype, in part based on the belief that eBay buyers and sellers would want to talk to each other to close deals. Most did not, and less than two years later, eBay acknowledged the mistake and wrote off more than half of the $2.6 billion purchase price.” – Brad Stone, New York Times, February 22, 2009

“Clearly the worst decision was buying Skype for $3.1 billion, on the questionable theory that eBay buyers and sellers would flock to the service to talk to each other to close their deals. Whitman eventually admitted she paid too much for Skype, and the company took a $1.4 billion write-down. ‘Meg was trying to paper over the cracks with acquisitions, and Skype was an unmitigated disaster,’ said Jeff Lindsay, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. ‘I think she did a good job of keeping the growth going for the first five to seven years. But when the growth started to slow down, her record is a lot more mixed.’” - Ken McLaughlin/ Pete Carey, San Jose Mercury News/ Contra Costa Times, 10/4/09

Whitman’s Reign at e-Bay was “Blemished with Poor Decisions” and a “Series of Ethically Dubious Stock Deals”

“In recent weeks, the Mercury News interviewed numerous current and former eBay employees, buyers and sellers, investors and stock analysts, asking them to judge her performance and predict how it might translate to running the state. The consensus: Whitman was a hands-on and savvy CEO whose reign was somewhat blemished by poor decisions and a series of ethically dubious stock deals.” - Ken McLaughlin/ Pete Carey, San Jose Mercury News/ Contra Costa Times, October 4, 2009
Whitman Raked in Nearly $2 Million Through IPO Spinning, A Practice Now Banned

“…some fault Whitman for her ready acceptance of ‘friends and family’ stock from Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs during the superheated dot-com era. Until the practice was banned in 2003, brokerage houses routinely allocated shares of hot stock offerings to top executives as a reward for giving the investment firms corporate business. Whitman had hired Goldman to take eBay public in 1998. For the next four years, the investment bank allocated to her shares in more than 100 initial public offerings. All told, Whitman made a $1.78 million profit when she sold the stocks. After being singled out in a congressional report that called the IPO system rigged and corrupt, Whitman issued an internal memo to eBay employees saying she got the shares because she was a personal client of Goldman Sachs. ‘There is nothing worse than having your integrity questioned under circumstances where you know that you did nothing wrong,’ she wrote. Yet two professors who focus on business ethics — David Shapiro at the City University of New York and William Black at the University of Missouri-Kansas City — predict the issue might prove troublesome for her on the campaign trail. ‘The fact that she could say she could learn no ethical lesson is illustrative of moral blindness,’ Black said.” - Ken McLaughlin/ Pete Carey, San Jose Mercury News/ Contra Costa Times, 10/4/09

californiaaccountability.com...

She's not qualified to be governor: just another unethical corporate type who takes shortcuts and doesn't really understand much about real life outside the boardroom.

That said, good for Sacramento. Arizona should be cracking down on the employers who prefer to hire illegals. Until they do that, all their whining about illegals is merely a convenient cover for their racism. Enforce the current laws and jail the employers, and the illegal problem would come to a screeching halt. But that would mean they couldn't call immigration just before payday and have the current workers deported without having the bother of paying them.

I'll believe it isn't about racism and economic theft when they will hire Americans at American wages and refuse to hire illegals.

And please don't trot out the saw about "Work Americans won't do.." without finishing the sentence: "..for the insultingly low wages offered."

so shes not qualified because she purchased skype?

im sorry but i dont see how its her fault Voice over IP never became what everybody thought it would. at the time everybody wanted it.

shes more qualified than the current Governor even with his new experience. and i could care less how well she did as CEO, what we need is somebody who understands WORK (to turn us out of our wellfare nanny state)

and im just surprised that shes leading, when she doesnt support illegals, or amnesty.

Does Sacramento not know that it's own state law allows for local police officers to verify ones legal status? Almost the exact same as Arizona...

Arizona was right to stand up against the federal government but they choose the wrong issue to do it on.

To me personally (and I think perhaps a few others as well) I feels like a choice between racism (Arizona) or fascism (federal government).

And personally I don't know which side to back.