Surprised me. Call Randy Gans to verify. I haven't seen George in a Marina Center sweater yet, but I have been assured by local labor that he is indeed for the project! And for port development with rail. More than Frank Jager! Wow.
The Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (AWPPW) local 49 does not normally endorse candidates and does not have an active Political Action Committee to disperse money, but our affiliate senior, the United Brotherhood of Carpenter's local 751, has also endorsed Mr. Clark. Nobody asked me by the way. But, yes, my union dues will go to their chosen candidate. So financially I am supporting George.
I just want to know what Humboldt Baykeeper, EPIC, ECONEWS and Surfrider Foundation's have on their agenda concerning the Marina project and a Port Terminal. And maybe that largest manufacturing plant on the northcoast, Evergreen Pulp.
1 hour ago
23 comments:
George is lying thru his teath and labor is sucking in this line of crap if they really think George supports the marina center, but no surprise because George just makes totally unsubstantiated statments about varrious subjects and says what needs to be said to get ellected. IN LISTENING TO GEORGE, ITS CLEAR THAT HE IS A PATHALOGICAL LIER. AS FOR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT BAYKEEPERS AND THE REST OF THE MONNEY DRUMMING ENVIRO GROUPS HAVE IN MIND FOR YOUR PAYCHECK, AS IN EVERGREEN, HOW ABOUT A GREAT BIG BULLSEYE. WAKE UP RICHARD.
George is lying thru his teath and labor is sucking in this line of crap if they really think George supports the marina center, but no surprise because George just makes totally unsubstantiated statments about varrious subjects and says what needs to be said to get ellected. IN LISTENING TO GEORGE, ITS CLEAR THAT HE IS A PATHALOGICAL LIER. AS FOR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT BAYKEEPERS AND THE REST OF THE MONNEY DRUMMING ENVIRO GROUPS HAVE IN MIND FOR YOUR PAYCHECK, AS IN EVERGREEN, HOW ABOUT A GREAT BIG BULLSEYE. WAKE UP RICHARD.
Knowing George for many years,I'll have to agree with 10:37.
This is completely UNTRUE. Randy Ganns is playing you, Richard.
You should have gotten confirmation from George Clark, not Randy Ganns.
He is the liar, and he used you Richard to spread these lies.
Richard stop being a puppet. Don't let the Arkleys pull your strings so easily.
I did not talk to Randy Gans. (Yes, he is a friend of mine for many years.) I talked with a "labor leader" who verified George's stance. I am sure Randy will be shocked and surprised to hear this. I am not making this up.
If true - It's another case of the "progressives" putting on conservative clothing in order to get elected - they claim to be for labor, against grow houses, for law enforcement - and then when they get elected they claim a mandate for "progressive" views which are anything but. If it was a madate for "progressive" views they wouldn't have to put on the disguise, pretend to be something they are not to get elected.
Heraldo is saying that Clark has denied this.
Hilarious
That George Clark would pander to the Unions about the rail, port and marina center.
Even funnier that Heraldo would chime in and contact the Clark campaign and get a completely different answer.
Funnier still is the strange silence emanating from Heraldo and Eric, when confronted with NAMES of Union Reps, like Sid Berg, who heard Clark speak...
Funniest of all is the silence from H-Pup (and Eric) when asked to do the SAME THING Heraldo did for verification from the CLARK CAMP - that is, email or contact the Unions and or their reps and see what they say.
Could it be that they do NOT want to hear the answer.
The fact is, George Clark has been a Loon, a gadfly, a flake, and now the progressives have hitched their wagon to him for this council run, and they know what a flake he is.
Good scoop, Richard.
I have been singled out as pandering to the left. Not true. I just want the facts.
Let's not forget to pin this on Atkins too as they are one cyborg, not two. George says and Linda nods and vice versa. Watch Linda try to distance herself from George as she tries to avoid getting sucked down in his whirlpool of deception. Too late to change costumes guys- ClarkAtkins must take ownership this and wear it..
None of this is true, Richard. You should have confirmed this with George Clark. You have no credibility and you are a tool for the right-wing. They played you again. Just like Virginia Bass Jackson did when suckered you into supporting her.
This blog is slander. You are deliberately misleading your readers.
I heard from three Labor union reps, one of which was Sid, that they a) grilled the candidates b) that they george etc support the projects.
How is it "slander" if somebody told Richard Marks this? Richard says this is true.
As I posted on Heraldo's blog, it seems that it would be relatively easy to get verification from Sid Berg or Richard Marshall:
sid@ua290.org
Richard Marshall: 443-7328
How exactly is it twisting words to ask that Heraldo do what he did with George Clark, and send an email to the Union reps to confirm what George did or did not say regarding the Marina Center?
If Sid Berg or Richard Marshall echo what Clark told Heraldo, then I am sure Heraldo will let us know, and will be spoon feeding crow to many here.
If, on the other hand, Berg or Marshall say, that yes, Clark said he supports the Marina Center, then it will be eating the crow, the only question being whether or not Heraldo posts his finding here or not.
Richard - if the Unions are being hornswaggled, how hard is it for them to pull their endorsement?
We all know the press monitors these blogs - what say ye, Hank? A simple phone call to the various union reps can confirm or quash this.
George supports it,minus the big box and retail chain elements.You can ask him ya know.
Mark Konkler,
You are completely missing the fact that Richard, who HAS NO REASON TO LIE has been told by union officials that Clark told them that he was IN FAVOR of the Marina Center.
The problem is that it is quite possible that George Clark is saying different things to different groups.
Asking him "ya know" won't clear this up, unless he cops to telling the Unions that he was in favor of the Marina Center.
The relevant question is: Is George Clark saying different things to different groups???
YES to the Marina Center when talking to the Unions.
NO to the Marina Center when talking to the Greens.
See the problem Mark?
Is it George's fault if two different groups misinterpret or interpret to their own advantage?George's stance has been the same since day one,supports development of the balloon tract in a sustainable and economically viable way while protecting local businesses.I'm sure the greens probably did interpret he was against it,as greens are against big box and retail development for a myriad of reasons,and the project in it's current state is full of all of that.And I'm sure the unions intrerpret that he is for the Marina Center,because,well he favors development of the property,and they may have convieniently ignored his criticisms about the current proposal and instead just hung on to the theory that he simply supports the Marina Center.
It IS George's fault, if, as according to Richard Marks,
" I have been assured by local labor that he is indeed for the project! And for port development with rail."
Spin the port development with Rail Mark, but you'll get awfully dizzy; FACT is, Clark came out AGAINST port development with rail when speaking to the Greens.
Admit it Mark, it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that Clark told the unions what they wanted to hear, in order to secure their endorsement.
Thing is Mark is that the Unions were able to ASK GEORGE CLARK POINT BLANK. Spin away, Konkler.
Your so called union leaders are cowards if they are afraid to come out and publically verify what they are asserting regarding Clark's stance on port development, the marina center and rail development.
My source was Sid Berg. I waited for his permission before I outed him out of respect.
Urteter nuytre: http://intimlit.001webs.com
Post a Comment