csmonitor.com— Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose have softened the boycotts they pledged in the wake of the Arizona immigration law's passage.
Jun 24, 2010View in Crawl 4
Well if there were ever an argument needing some explanation on how its logic worked...
For a State it might be difficult (but difficult isn't the point, if you are going to boycott something you don't care if it'll be hard), but boycotts in general can be quite effective. I presume your argument is based on something like the MW2 "Boycott," where it was more a failure in American Consumerism, lack of any real air time with Gamers, and this idea that peer-to-peer hosting works just peachy.
At any rate, boycotts can work provided the people have the will to see them through and don't place convenience over the principle they're trying to uphold.
The 39% number is about two months old. Rasmussen has newer numbers indicating:
"Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.
When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.
Arizona voters support the state's new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it."
"..His father, a registered sex offender.."
"Villaraigosa attended the People's College of Law (PCL), an unaccredited law school in Los Angeles that promotes illegal alien and labor union causes. Villaraigosa failed the California Bar Exam four times and is not licensed to practice law.[7]"
"while Corina (wife) was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, Villaraigosa was involved with a friend's wife"
"..he assignment of high-paying government jobs to those with close family or other personal connections to those in political power....Ms. Villar (daughter) reportedly has no degrees or other particular qualifications for the position[66], to which she was appointed by close political allies of her father"
Hmm, is his father illegal? If so that could make it slightly relevant- after all, if my father an illegal immigrant was a sex offender, I would think I'd have enough personal experience to want stricter immigration.
The boycott by California-based entities is quite interesting considering the state has a similar law on the books. Though the California law allows for racial profiling while the Arizona law specifically outlaws it.
It was obvious even to the cities planning to boycott Arizona that it would not be a complete boycott. On May 12th cbs2 in LA had a news article with the following statement...
"Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected."
So CSMonitor can try to make things sound as rosy as they would like but until enough time passes to measure the impact of the boycotts I don't think I would be professing any resounding economic success story for Arizona.
I think the coming Federal lawsuit is more news worthy and should bring some sane light to the meaning and purpose of the United States constitution and just how much sovereignty the states have over United States citizens.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
They failed because the majority of Americans don't like the thought of illegals streaming into our country and eating up tax dollars and jobs while committing a high percentage of crime in the areas they live.
We spent the last 9 years locking down our airports because of terrorists, meanwhile thousands of illegals stroll into the country every day from Mexico. It's hypocritical.
wertachJun 25, 2010
Boycotts don't work, it usually hurts the "boy-cotters" more. Hang in there Arizona !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
starlessknightJun 26, 2010
Well if there were ever an argument needing some explanation on how its logic worked...
For a State it might be difficult (but difficult isn't the point, if you are going to boycott something you don't care if it'll be hard), but boycotts in general can be quite effective. I presume your argument is based on something like the MW2 "Boycott," where it was more a failure in American Consumerism, lack of any real air time with Gamers, and this idea that peer-to-peer hosting works just peachy.
At any rate, boycotts can work provided the people have the will to see them through and don't place convenience over the principle they're trying to uphold.
Closed AccountJun 26, 2010
Montgomery bus boycott?
leadoffmanJun 25, 2010
Considering the vast majority of Americans support the AZ law, who did these idiots think they were to attempt this boycott anyway?
atarioJun 25, 2010
"the vast majority of Americans support the AZ law"
[Citation needed]
crunchdiggJun 26, 2010
there you go, with your Socshulist "dictionary" again!
Next you're going to claim that 39% is not more than half.
hobardJun 26, 2010
The 39% number is about two months old. Rasmussen has newer numbers indicating:
"Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.
When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.
Arizona voters support the state's new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/56_oppose_justice_department_challenge_of_arizona_immigration_law
Closed AccountJun 26, 2010
I wonder if the majority has ever been wrong or if anybody has addressed the concept of mob rule before...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majorityComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theswashbucklerJun 26, 2010
51% is NOT a "vast majority"...
cristinamkJun 25, 2010
Man behind the boycott:
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:
"..His father, a registered sex offender.."
"Villaraigosa attended the People's College of Law (PCL), an unaccredited law school in Los Angeles that promotes illegal alien and labor union causes. Villaraigosa failed the California Bar Exam four times and is not licensed to practice law.[7]"
"while Corina (wife) was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, Villaraigosa was involved with a friend's wife"
"..he assignment of high-paying government jobs to those with close family or other personal connections to those in political power....Ms. Villar (daughter) reportedly has no degrees or other particular qualifications for the position[66], to which she was appointed by close political allies of her father"
sanchomandovalJun 25, 2010
Well some of those are valid points, but what the hell control does he have over the fact that his father was a sex offender?
bonestampJun 25, 2010
I think he was suggesting that his father was a catholic priest, classic Chewbacca defense.
korvan504521Jun 25, 2010
No, its that whole "sins of the father shall be visited up to the 7th generation" thing.
mauvemarauderJun 26, 2010
Hmm, is his father illegal? If so that could make it slightly relevant- after all, if my father an illegal immigrant was a sex offender, I would think I'd have enough personal experience to want stricter immigration.
ascusJun 26, 2010
Could it be that a boycott of a state would violate interstate commerce laws (Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution)?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10
oboshoeJun 26, 2010
No.
People are still free to make decisions are any information that is available to them.
spritomJun 26, 2010
The boycott by California-based entities is quite interesting considering the state has a similar law on the books. Though the California law allows for racial profiling while the Arizona law specifically outlaws it.
hollowexJun 26, 2010
That falls under the "California's don't say what they mean" rule. Example, "Let's do lunch sometime!"
bsnielsenJun 26, 2010
It was obvious even to the cities planning to boycott Arizona that it would not be a complete boycott. On May 12th cbs2 in LA had a news article with the following statement...
"Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected."
So CSMonitor can try to make things sound as rosy as they would like but until enough time passes to measure the impact of the boycotts I don't think I would be professing any resounding economic success story for Arizona.
I think the coming Federal lawsuit is more news worthy and should bring some sane light to the meaning and purpose of the United States constitution and just how much sovereignty the states have over United States citizens.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
taxmoreJun 26, 2010
They failed because the majority of Americans don't like the thought of illegals streaming into our country and eating up tax dollars and jobs while committing a high percentage of crime in the areas they live.
We spent the last 9 years locking down our airports because of terrorists, meanwhile thousands of illegals stroll into the country every day from Mexico. It's hypocritical.