Sierra CLub Pledges Support For Kerry/Edwards

[Rick Latrani]

Well now my mind is made up who I am voting for hands down. Bush 04

Found here at www.johnkerry.com

San Francisco, CA - The Sierra Club - the nation's oldest, largest and most influential environmental group – today endorsed Senator John Kerry for President of the United States, citing his outstanding leadership in safe-guarding America's air, water and public lands.


Found here at www.sierraclub.org

Edwards Praised by Sierra Club for Environmental Leadership


Washington, DC: John Edwards is a leader on protecting Americans' health and safety. In a 2003 Earth Day release Edwards stated, "our country needs real leadership on many critical issues: safeguarding the water our children drink, preserving our national parks and forests, and achieving energy independence while addressing dangerous climate changes are just a few." In the Senate, Edwards has built a strong record on these and other environmental issues:


Senator Edwards supported the Clinton Administration's Roadless Rule and took votes to reduce harmful subsidies for commercial logging, to reduce overgrazing on public lands, and against weakening public lands protections in 2000 and 2001 (S20000207, S20000175, S20000208).


:mad:

[jeepsonly]

Well big surprise there. I can't see the Sierra Club EVER supporting a Republican candidate.

[Hackle]

It is nice to see the group catching on. Between Land Use issues, Gun Rights, and trust how can any of us support Kerry. Kerry has been on every side of every issue I could support someone even if I disagree on some issues if at least they had the balls to take a stand. No stand, no trust, no support.
Jim F.

[Woody]

If I were voting based on this one issue, Bush would get my vote.

But when I consider our current President's antiquated views on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, indecency over the airwaves, his extreme religious fanaticism, the so-called "war on terror" in Iraq (more money is spent in a week in Iraq than has been spent on homeland security since 9/11...our borders are still not secure), and lastly, the guy's an idiot, IMO.

It's too bad that we have to base our votes on what we don't like about a candidate.

Woody

[jeepin_al]

Are you sure this is the appropriate place to have a political debate? Got lots to say but politics is a very touchy subject lately and very divisive.

[highjeeps]

Are you sure this is the appropriate place to have a political debate? Got lots to say but politics is a very touchy subject lately and very divisive.

It's the Off Topic forum, why not?

Besides, this is how you find out who's a flaming liberal, who's a right wing fanatic, who's a disillusioned whatever, etc. and you can decide who's your type to wheel with. / :D (kidding a little bit)

[FlexyXJ]

If I were voting based on this one issue, Bush would get my vote.

But when I consider our current President's antiquated views on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, indecency over the airwaves, his extreme religious fanaticism, the so-called "war on terror" in Iraq (more money is spent in a week in Iraq than has been spent on homeland security since 9/11...our borders are still not secure), and lastly, the guy's an idiot, IMO.

It's too bad that we have to base our votes on what we don't like about a candidate.

Woody

Woody's just pissed because His Homosexual, out of wedlock baby cant be terminated, and Howard Stern wont take his calls to talk about it. :D


So HOWS THAT FOR POLITICS?????

Joe BTW....You go gurl!!!!

[skruize]

I have listened to and understand both sides of the debate. Since doing so, I'm even more indecisive about which candidate to pick.

But if the election were about which first lady to vote for, it certainly would be Laura Bush. Kerry's wife does not seem like first lady material. She'd be the First ***** (but not the very first one, because we already had Hillary in the 90s).

Yikes!

Scott K

[Brad]

I found the following posted on another forum:


Following is a brief backround on Mrs. John Kerry. She hates being called that, by the way:

Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry. Married Senator Kerry in 1995. She only took his name eighteen months ago and she is an "interesting" paradox of conflicts.

If you thought John Kerry was scary, he doesn't hold a candle to his wife! Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, was educated in Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60's when she met a "handsome" young American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in Geneva. He told her his family was "in the food business."

They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his family ran the giant H. J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms in the United States Senate. A Republican, he wrote a burning diatribe against some of the causes backed by young House member John Kerry.)

Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his plane collided with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb. The senator, his pilot and copilot, and both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed. He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons.

Four years later, having inherited Heinz's $500 million fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal then-junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization was set in motion.

Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry to sign a prenuptial agreement before they were married. John Kerry may not have check writing privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it.

A lot of hard-earned money, made through many years of hawking catsup, mustard, and pickles has fallen into the hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneurship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth.

So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money?

Just one example:

According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?

They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried.

They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states.

They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.

They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico.

These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady, the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States.

Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for America, regardless of your political views. If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and see the real Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate her position as ultra rich fairy godmother of the radical left. They will not want to imagine her laying her head on a pillow each night inches away from the President of the United States.

Hopefully they love this country enough to decide that the only way these two will ever be allowed into the White House is with an engraved invitation in hand.

Instead of deleting this, pass it on. Let everyone know these people may be unfit to represent this great nation. The uninformed will never hear the truth from the press, who want Kerry elected!

Those who buy the Kerry facade, beware of what you vote for - - - you
may regret what you get!

[Joe West]

Good discussion, but decidedly political so I pushed it into the political forum.

Joe West

[skruize]

You know Joe, I'm with you on this. W is not my first choice. He makes my stomach churn. But on the flip side (no pun intended) I just cant do the Kerry thing either. I think I'll vote for W and anxiously await 2008. I hope he doesnt do something stupid like invade Iran or N Korea before that.

Scott K

[Diablo]

You know Joe, I'm with you on this. W is not my first choice. He makes my stomach churn. But on the flip side (no pun intended) I just cant do the Kerry thing either. I think I'll vote for W and anxiously await 2008. I hope he doesnt do something stupid like invade Iran or N Korea before that.

You can count on invading Iran if he's re-elected.

I too don't want to vote for either candidate. But, I refuse to NOT vote and be one of those people who don't vote, but feel they have the right to ***** and complain about those in office...

Kit

BTW Joe, I'm surprised you're censoring the word b*tch...

[highjeeps]

You can count on invading Iran if he's re-elected.

I too don't want to vote for either candidate. But, I refuse to NOT vote and be one of those people who don't vote, but feel they have the right to ***** and complain about those in office...

Kit

BTW Joe, I'm surprised you're censoring the word b*tch...

Invading Iran? I don't think so. At the outside, we could bomb their nuke development plants (or let Israel do it), which IMO is what we should rightly do if it means keeping them from becoming a nuclear power.

[Joe West]

I'd tend to believe that George W learned his lesson in Iraq... and that he won't go over-extending our military forces by engaging in another hostile action of any magnitude (at least overtly, covertly is another story).

I suspect that for a great many Americans, George's credibility was diminsihed because of the Weapons Of Mass Destruction issue... and buying into another war is not likely.

Like you said Scott... we can only hope that a strong, intelligent leader arises from the ranks of the Republican party in 2008. Powell, McCain, someone else?

There is something incredibly disconcerting about voting for someone I despise just to keep out someone else who may (key is *may*) be worse.

So far... I'm leaning towards throwing my vote to Nader just to make a statement, and to clear my conscience should George W do yet another stupid thing.

The good news is... what a great country we live in to be able to debate such things openly and have a choice. While things are not perfect here... they are the best in the world :)

Joe

[Joe West]

Hmmm..... *****.... since we aren't a dog forum... B*tch is probably a word which isn't particularly useful. My honest hope is that this forum will always be a place where people are not afraid to let their children participate. I'm probably overly sensitive.

You can count on invading Iran if he's re-elected.

I too don't want to vote for either candidate. But, I refuse to NOT vote and be one of those people who don't vote, but feel they have the right to ***** and complain about those in office...

Kit

BTW Joe, I'm surprised you're censoring the word b*tch...

[rolled1]

Like you said Scott... we can only hope that a strong, intelligent leader arises from the ranks of the Republican party in 2008. Powell, McCain, someone else?

..........

The good news is... what a great country we live in to be able to debate such things openly and have a choice. While things are not perfect here... they are the best in the world :)

Joe
Why does it have to be a republican? Wouldn't you vote for the best person no matter what party they are in ? I would hope that straight ticket voters are a thing of the past. and thats all I have to say about that. Back to jeeps
:o

[Joe West]

You are quite right... it doesn't have to be a republican. It was a freudian slip based on my past experiences.
I would definitely vote for the woman/man and not the party.

Thanks for pointing that out...

Joe

Why does it have to be a republican? Wouldn't you vote for the best person no matter what party they are in ? I would hope that straight ticket voters are a thing of the past. and thats all I have to say about that. Back to jeeps
:o

[Antman]

Why does it have to be a republican? Wouldn't you vote for the best person no matter what party they are in ? I would hope that straight ticket voters are a thing of the past. and thats all I have to say about that. Back to jeeps
:o

I have nothing but "Blue Dog Democrats" living around me! I don't like politics, but am a registered Republician only because of my gun rights, belief in a strong military, hate the far left, Hollywood, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Bill & Hillary ET AL. I usually end up voting for the lessor of 2 evils, but vote in every election so I am able to get my 2 cents into the discussion.
I think we out to pull out of the UN, put troops on the border, tell france and germany to stick it, and make every 18 year old boy or girl serve their country in some capacity whether in the military, social programs, like hospitals, or in a job corp working in the Nations Parks. We need these wimpy kids to build some character.

If the Democrats want to get a serious candidate, why can't they run Lieberman?

BTW a "blue Dog Democrat" is a person who will vote for a democrat even if there's a Blue Dog running for office, rather than a Republician. :D

I have voted for Democrats in the past who were worthy of my vote.

I think I am more of a Constitutionalist than a Republican. If it aint in the constitution, you can't do it.

I could go off on the judges, but won't. ;)

Antman jumps off the far top of the soapbox


:eek:

[rolled1]

BTW a "blue Dog Democrat" is a person who will vote for a democrat even if there's a Blue Dog running for office, rather than a Republician. :D




:eek:
Blue dog Republicans too? naa couldn't be
:cool:

[skruize]

Joe,

Here is a good joke for you:

George W. Bush begins his speech to open the Olympic Games. "Ooooooo! Ooooooo! Ooooooo! Ooooooo! Ooooooo!"

An aide comes over and whispers: "Mr President, those are the Olympic rings, your speech is below!"

:D

Scott

[Bumpy]

If the Democrats want to get a serious candidate, why can't they run Lieberman?

Because (unfortunately) there are people in this country that will NEVER allow a Jewish president & will do ANYTHING to keep it that way.

On that note...I've been reading all the post that have been on lately about this comming election. I am an Independent & feel the same way as some of you, I will vote for the best person no matter what party. That also entales not voting for one candidate because of 1 issue. What I mean is, as just one example, the pro-life/pro-choice issue...I'm sorry if I don't understand how you could vote for someone because of just one issue & not look at the whole picture. I understand that people have their strong beliefs about this issue, but if one candidate will support right to life, but turn around & cause such a poor economy...I'm sorry I don't see the point!

I LOVE to go off-roading & hate that there are environmental groups that are trying to close down every place available to go off-roading. But I am also for a cleaner environment, so I am willing to sacrifice a little to get there. You guys see the gray sky over phoenix...it ain't rain clouds...it's smog. As an engineer, I know there ARE future technologies that will be developed that can propel us into a new age & type of fuel system to not rid us of the automobile, but just the means in which it is propelled. To me it's not a democratic or republican choice...it's a choice to move ahead technologically & better our country & the world.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that IMO, I really don't see how Gorge W has made this country a better place than it was before. If he was, I would definetly vote for him to be re-elected (I voted for GW in '00), but this time I have to vote for Kerry. As some know I'm origionally from the Northeast (that's not the reason I'm voting for Kerry) and being here in AZ has really opened my eyes to other political points of views as well as see first hand what sector runs the economy here in AZ. It suprised me to find out that the rich 10-20% basically support the economy here & the rest of the 80% just get by or have to subject themselves to retail/service type jobs to have a decent lifestyle. I remember my fiance telling me that she read a letter to the Arizona Republic complaining that Phoenix had no skyline like in other cities. It's not too hard to know why, because major corporations & banking/investment companies aren't located here. There majority of companies here don't pay higher than $10-$12/hr wages for college educated people just getting out into the real world. All around our neighborhood, new buildings & developements are going up insanely, but all the stores are retail or banking type jobs. I'm sorry, but most people can't survive on just $7-$9/hr & raise a family, have saving & a financially secure future.

Sorry, to me it's the big picture...JMO

[Hackle]

The Big picture you descibed to me at least, would be a great discussion on AZ jobs for an AZ Governor. It falls some what short for me to pick a President. I do not expect or want the Federal officials getting involved in local issues. To me at least it is part of the governors job to help bring in higher paying industry.

[Bumpy]

The Big picture you descibed to me at least, would be a great discussion on AZ jobs for an AZ Governor. It falls some what short for me to pick a President. I do not expect or want the Federal officials getting involved in local issues. To me at least it is part of the governors job to help bring in higher paying industry.

I completely agree with you, but the job market is bad all over the US. I do understand some of the blame comes from the free trade bills (can't remember it's name) that the Democrates (but Congress & the House of Representatives jointly agreed to) brought up. But the question should be then is, Why is our unemployment it's lowest since (can't remember when, but read it in the Arizona Republic :rolleyes: ) Also the new jobs created rate is also at an all time low.

Then of course, there is the WHOLE issue of health care! We currently have independent health insurance for self employed for my fiance'. I wonder why the heck we do when we still have to pay major bills for this not being coverd & that not being covered. It scares the heck out of me that I don't have any healthcare coverage & knock on wood that nothing major has happened, even though I can afford to pay for some things if an emergency happens.

[Hackle]

Yeah Government sponsored Health care works so well! Just ask Canada and England. Wait months to get in to get anything done. All their Doctors are in the US.
Getting the government involved is the last thing I want in anything other then national defense. They spend 5 times the money and get nothing done but create more crap we have to pay for. I would rather keep a larger part of my money and pay for the services I need thank you.

I remember a joke someone sent me and I will try to make it quick.
They needed a night watchman at a government junkyard and hired one. Then decided they needed a supervisor and the super needed a secretary to watch the watchman. They then needed a payroll department to pay them all. The end of it was it was over budget so the government let the watchman go. Meanwhile all the people that job created stay on the government payroll.
Jim F.