John Edwards can do what he wants. But I think it's inexcusable. WARNING graphic.

[bling bling]

I think it's inexcusable for people to have a 20,000 recreation facility attached to their houses. And I say the same thing about celebrities and if you don't believe me you can do a search because I've said it right here on DU before about the stars.

Here's what I think about when I think about the EXCESSIVE waste of money and other resources by the filthy rich:



There are children on this earth that are so hungry, so weak, they have to take breaks while taking a few steps across a field.

And people like the stars and John Edwards could spend $5,000,000 less on their houses and STILL have a excessive mansion and feed these dying children.

Could they feed them all? No. But it's like that little story about the boy throwing starfish that washed up on the beach back into the ocean. His father tells him that there's just too many starfish that washed up for him to possibly make a difference. The boy looked at his father, then at the starfish in his hand and said "well, it will make a difference for this one..."

And I know all about how Edwards gives so much money to the povery cause. But is he really sacrificing anything? And even still there's a disconnect there somewhere. It seems like someone who was truly fighting for the poor would understand better how much more value the dollar would have in the mouths of starving chidren then for a squash court and 2 garages.

That tells me something about Edwards. It tells me that he's not truly willing to sacrifice anything himself for his cause.

Kerry might be rich too, but poverty wasn't his cause. Kerry placed a great deal of emphasis on supporting the military and veterans issues. And for his cause, he risked his own life back in Viet Nam. That's the difference.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. ....

:cry: :-( :cry: :-( :cry: :-( :cry: :-( :cry: :-( :cry:

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I've missed this argument. What about Edward's House?????

[Lost-in-FL]

5. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=48026&mesg_id=48026

[Digit]

3. There aren't too many out there who do as much as he DOES do for disadvantaged youth

I completely admire the man and his dedication.

[JohnLocke]

So, what have YOU done for the poor?

I know Edwards has been an advocate for the poor for years. What have YOU done?

[msongs]

12. looks like the OP is not gonna answer this question - but his/her basic premise is valid,

then again the jesus character allegedly said the poor will always be with us, but that is the jesus christ superstar version.

IMO it comes down to having babies you cannot afford or care for.

free condoms and birth control pills for everyone...

AND care for those who are already born.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[femrap]

31. so in other words.....

ejaculate responsibly!

[bling bling]

13. I've put my money where my mouth is.

If you are truly interested in what I've done for the poor, I'll list it out for you. Being that I think you're just trying to make me feel bad for my post I'm not going to voluntarily just waste my time.

[mondo joe]

15. Please DO list it out. Thank you.

I'd also like to know what you've spent money and time on that wasn't in service to the poor.

Thank you.

[bling bling]

25. Thanks for your input on this thread. It was invaluable. n/t

[mondo joe]

50. You offered to list it out. Please do.

[bling bling]

66. Your request was sarcastic .

And really I don't understand why I have to list out what I do to help people. I don't live in a 6,000,000 home so what I am able to do in comparison will look pretty piddly.

****
I just started typing out some of the things I've done to help poor people and I had to delete it because it was embarrassing me to list it out in any sort of detail. But overall I've personally helped people pay their bills, given away cars instead of getting the trade-in value, and helped people buy presents for their kids for christmas. I've adopted families for Christmas and my family and I sacrificed our own presents and gave every cent that we would have spent on each other to the family we adopted. We literally had nothing under the tree to open for ourselves. That's changed now that I have a child and we bought presents for her this year. I've helped charitable organizations, etc.

So there it is. That's what I've done. I can barely wait for you or someone else to pounce on this response with a sarcastic remark.

[mondo joe]

106. No, I'm sincere. I want to know what you do to help the poor, and I want

to know what resources you use on other things that could be used to help the poor instead.

How much did you spend on Christmas gifts for your own family this year?

Do you have a car, and could you get by on a cheaper one?

Could you pay less in rent or mortgage?

John Edwards has done a lot more for the poor than you have - does he get credit for that?

[bling bling]

117. I'm sorry, but this is just stoopid.

I don't know where you got the inclination that I expect John Edwards to check every dime he spends on anything. You and a lot of others are totally missing the point about EXCESS.

I'm not going to defend my grocery bill or the presents I buy for my daughter just because I criticized John Edwards having 30,000 square feet of personal living and play space when he's touted as the champion of poverty.

If you don't get that then so be it. Good night.

[mondo joe]

120. EXCESS is relative. Otherwise, tell us the square footage at which point it

becomes excessive, and how you determined that point.

Also please tell me if someone has a significantly smaller, but MORE expensive residence, are they excessive too?

Did you work out a formula to balance size and expense?

[Freeusfromthechurch]

214. I totally agree with bling bling.

[TankLV]

250. bling bling is nuts...

shouldn't you two spend ALL your time feeding the poor or something?...

[dogday]

273. bwa-hahahahahahaha

:rofl:

[Fla Dem]

263. Excess is relative.....damn right.

At what point should the Edwards give all their wealth to support the world. They've earned the wealth they have. It wasn't given to them. Why can't they live in the style they so please to do so. Since when is it a crime for people to accumulate wealth and spend it on themselves. Now if they earned it dishonestly, or on the backs of others, or by ruining the environment, or other nefarious means of accumulating wealth, then you might have a gripe. But, the bulk of their wealth was from helping ordinary citizens win law suits from big corporations.

I applaud you for the work and sacrifices you have done and made for the well being of others. It is truly commendable.

The fact that John Edwards speaks out for the less fortunate of the world, does not then require him to wear sack cloth and live in a hut. HE should be applauded for what he does, what he stands for and the lives that are better for that. He should not be condemned because he enjoys the fruits of his wealth.

Besides, I see the land he has encompassed in the property to be land saved from further development.

[Klukie]

314. on its face......

30,000 square feet is excessive. Come on now!

[LynneSin]

181. No we're not - this is nothing more than an anti-Edwards thread

or perhaps an anti 'people who have been successful in life and made some money' thread. But John Edwards building a home extension has nothing to do with Darfur whatsoever - and I'm sure he's done plenty for people in that area.

Perhaps your thread would have been better taken if you asked what our government is doing to alleviate the situation in Darfur

[ChazII]

209. Thank you for your voice of reason

on this thread.

[seashorelady]

188. Maybe you have not considered that Edwards'

has provided ample living quarters for the Secret Service detail, cabinet members etc. The squash court will certainly keep them in good shape, the 2 garages, they do have vehicles. Enough acerage for perhaps a Presidental Library one day. It is a beautiful Souther White House. I for one have enjoyed seeing the pictures, and continue to wish them continued success.

[seashorelady]

190. Sorry should be acreage

[Clark2008]

222. I HOPE that was sarcasm.

Because if John Edwards becomes president, we're all in trouble.

His record isn't that far removed from most right-wingers. Check it out.

[seashorelady]

243. No it's the truth.

I so believe in this family.

[blossomstar]

310. I'm with you!

John Edwards has taken his wealth seriously and responsibly... he could just retreat to his riches like most millionairs do! No, he is a man with concern for others that thinks he can make a difference... It's no wonder that people are not willing to run for president of the United States. Is it worth the personal attacks, especially coming from your own people? Think about it everyone. I think he is totally sincere in wanting to make our country better... he certainly doesn't need the money.

[Edith Ann]

311. Edwards

This is kinda what I thought. He's getting ready to provide a Southern Whitehouse. If he doesn't get elected he will have a heck of a lot of overhead in that place regardless of how "green" it is. An energy saving light bulb will only go so far. I have a 2500 sq foot house and my gas bill was 250.00 this month, multiply that by 28,000 sq. feet. If he does get elected the overhead will be on the tax payers for years. Remember he can live a long time. Maybe another 40 or so years. At any rate he earned his money and he and his family have a right to enjoy it. Question? When they go to bed at night, how do they know that only the four of them are in the house. I'd never get all the doors locked myself. I have a little Monk in me.

[TankLV]

248. maybe YOU'RE finally getting it - YOURS is a STUPID POST...

but we doubt it...

[Retired AF Dem]

271. Why should bling bling list anything?

I dont have anything but contempt for the Hollyweird types. They preach Socialism but not a one of them would ever give up at least 50% of thier fortune to help out the poor.

[mondo joe]

277. Because bling bling offered to do so. Why offer to provide a list and then bitch about

being asked to do so?

BTW, which hollyweird type preached socialism? And when was socialism defined as surrendering half your personal estate?

[Stephanie]

38. that's a valid question

I wonder if it will be answered...

[TankLV]

251. yes - they should answer the question - we want to know so we can decide...

and we're being fucking serious...

[roguevalley]

125. and you too. list it. this isn't a purity contest, its a conscience contest.

we all know that little baby is out there, waiting for us. to have a house like his, while living in the public eye and building a contest on poverty is stupid. I am totally astonished about this. I can hardly stand how many trees they killed to put that house down and the resulting lawns.

[mondo joe]

131. You want a list?

First off, you should read the fucking thread so you can see I asked someone for a list after he OFFERED to post it.

Secondly, he was asked to post his list because he's judging others spending - I wasn't.

But if you want my list, here you go:

I've spent my entire adult life working with non profits that serve impoverished and marginalized people. Living in Seattle during it's boom I had many opportunities to make more money in for-profits, but I continued to work in mission driven human services. Beyond that I have my own volunteer work, and my own charitable contributions. I own a small house (less than 1,000 sq feet) that I bought at age 37. My partner and I have one car between us, but I try to use the bus or my own feet whenever possible.

And here's the last thing to note: I think how people choose to spend their own money is their own fucking business, and there's not a person criticizing others who doesn't have their own waste or excess in their OWN lives.

[Morereason]

152. I agree with the OP. Our hypocrisy hurts us. We have to expect

more from our leaders, including living like the rest of us. Let me give an example:

If our representatives were only given the same health care as the rest of us would it make a difference in the health care bills that came before congress?

Someone who lives in a huge mansion with personal staff (um servants), is NEVER going to be able to completely understand the life of the rest of us. And that is setting aside the fact that we cannot sustain all of the huge lifestyles of the rich that and upper middle class forever that we already do.

I would be willing to bet if he drove a hummer you would have a real hard time with it. What exactly is the difference? None. In fact that large house has the equivilent ecological effects of 20 hummers to one car (his mansion to one moderate house).

[mondo joe]

206. STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOLAID

Look at the houses of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys and the Clintons.

I care about his POLICIES not the size of his house.

[Morereason]

225. Why is it "Kool Aid" to have a different opinion and experience?

My experience in life is that the way a man or women lives *does* have an effect on their ability to understand others. Why are my observations less valid than yours?

I am not having an emotional response. I prefer and would accept John Edwards over some others. But that does not mean I will not push for more responsible and representative leadership. Some of the points here are valid. And I have listened. I am just not convinced that, in the long run, most with servants and mansions can really, ultimately, make a just society.

There is something just a little bit sick about having such a large house... empty rooms that you do not need. And ecologically, it is abusive and irresponsible.

Now that is an intellectual, and non-emotional response. I think you are attached emotionally to this candidate. Which is fine. But don't try to emotionally frame other points of view. Open your perspective just a bit more please.

[mondo joe]

227. Do you understand Iraqis?

Do you understand 3rd world hunger?

Do you understand people living with AIDS in Africa?

Do you understand the homeless?


Do you live like royalty compared to those people?

[Morereason]

236. Your argument is a strawman

The planet can sustain a moderate lifestyle. It cannot sustain everyone in mansions with servants.

You still have not answered my question? Why?
Do you feel it is ok for all of us to own Humvee's? I would imagine you are probably a conservationist or understand the need for tempered use of energy. How is this different? Please respond instead of using emotional arguments that try to label others.

[mondo joe]

267. Not at all - I'm using your precise argument.

You wrote "Someone who lives in a huge mansion with personal staff (um servants), is NEVER going to be able to completely understand the life of the rest of us."

How can you understand the life of an Iraqi, or a homeless family, or a little girl with AIDS in Africa?

[femrap]

34. You're aren't running for President....

John Edwards is. And I agree with you....I find his actions hypocritical.

I find that HUGE house and recreational facility obscene...especially for someone who is running on the platform of caring for the poor.

[bling bling]

35. Thank you.

I appreciate your post.

[femrap]

102. My pleasure....

Remember what James Webb was discussing after the SOTU: the Robber Barons. Their time is soon coming to an end.

People must be very careful as to who they give their allegiance and vote to...

It takes more than calling yourself a Dem and having a pretty smile to get my vote. Actions speak louder than words.

[mondo joe]

53. Edwards is running for president, not Chief Philanhropist.

His platform is about OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.

[Clark2008]

223. See my post below.

No. 219.

He hasn't DONE anything about opportunity for everyone and he HAD the OPPORTUNITY when he was in the senate for six years.

That's more valid a point that what house he buys. His platform is based on lies and political opportunity.

[mondo joe]

289. BS - you simply didn't try to find anything. Another poster did the work you should have

done. See below.

[bpeale]

276. why don't you list out your monthly expenses

and i'll tell you where you can cut corners to donate to the poor. how's that? since you're willing to draw the lines for others then you won't mind me drawing the line for you. i think that's fair. and just remember, you OFFERED to delineate it out for us. no fair backpedaling later.

[Clark2008]

219. I'd like to know what HE did, thank you.

Can you point to the specific pieces of legislation he sponsored when he was a senator that would have helped the disadvantaged?

I seem to recall his sponsoring legislation to go to war in Iraq and supporting the Patriot Act, but a quick Google search for "John Edwards legislation for the poor" doesn't really met much. In fact, I get more hits about his "poor" attendance and his legislation aiding big banking than I did anything.

Hmmm...

[JohnLocke]

265. Better research helps

A sampling of bills relating to social welfare that Edwards sponsored:

24. S.3228 : A bill to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for low-income households.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 10/24/2000) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2000 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

25. S.AMDT.473 to S.1059 To express the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed Forces who receive special pay should receive the same tax treatment as members serving in combat zones.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/27/1999) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/27/1999 Proposed amendment SP 473 withdrawn in Senate.

39. S.AMDT.3402 to S.2549 To express the sense of the Senate that members of the Armed Forces who receive special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger should receive the same tax treatment as members serving in combat zones.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/14/2000) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/14/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3402 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

40. S.AMDT.3421 to S.2549 Expressing the sense of the Senate that long-term economic development aid should be immediately provided to assist communities rebuilding from Hurricane Floyd.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/14/2000) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/14/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3421 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

58. S.AMDT.3589 to S.2522 To provide emergency funding to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture to assist communities affected by Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Dennis, or Hurricane Irene.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/21/2000) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3589 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

68. S.AMDT.3974 to H.R.4461 To provide emergency funding to the Department of Agriculture's Rural Community Facilities program.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 7/20/2000) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3974 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

6. S.652 : A bill to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for low-income households.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 3/29/2001) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2002 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. Hearings held.

8. S.1180 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the International Civil Rights Center and Museum in the State of North Carolina as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 7/16/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 7/16/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

16. S.2202 : A bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to increase professional and public awareness of the link between periodontal disease in pregnant women and pre-term, low-birth weight babies and the maternal transmission of caries.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/18/2002) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/18/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

17. S.2203 : A bill to provide grants for mental health and substance abuse services for women and children who have been victims of domestic or sexual violence.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/18/2002) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/18/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

18. S.2204 : To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve treatment for the mental health and substance abuse needs of women with histories of trauma, including domestic and sexual violence.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/18/2002) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/18/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

19. S.2219 : A bill to provide for compassionate payments with regard to individuals who contracted the human immunodeficiency virus due to provision of a contaminated blood transfusion, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/22/2002) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/22/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

20. S.2392 : A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 1990 to establish a Community Corps, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/29/2002) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/29/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

21. S.2559 : A bill to expand research for women in trauma.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/23/2002) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

22. S.2671 : A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to provide for child care quality improvements for children with disabilities or other special needs, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/24/2002) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 6/24/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

23. S.2846 : A bill to establish a commission to evaluate investigative and surveillance technologies to meet law enforcement and national security needs in the manner that best preserves the personal dignity, liberty, and privacy of individuals within the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 8/1/2002) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 8/1/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

28. S.AMDT.3417 to H.R.3009 To authorize the Secretary of Labor to award grants to community colleges to establish job training programs for adversely affected workers.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/15/2002) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 5/15/2002 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3417 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 66 - 33. Record Vote Number: 111.

14. S.863 : A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow soldiers to serve their country without being disadvantaged financially by Federal student aid programs.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/10/2003) Cosponsors (9)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/10/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

15. S.864 : A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to provide for grants to parents and guardians of certain military dependents, in order to assist the parent and guardians in paying for the cost of child care services provided to the dependents, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/10/2003) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/10/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

17. S.1186 : A bill to provide for a reduction in the backlog of claims for benefits pending with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/4/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/4/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

18. S.1219 : A bill to amend the national and Community Service Act of 1990 to establish a Community Corps, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/10/2003) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 6/10/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

19. S.1235 : A bill to increase the capabilities of the United States to provide reconstruction assistance to countries or regions impacted by armed conflict, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/11/2003) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

22. S.1536 : A bill to provide for compassionate payments with regard to individuals who contracted human immunodeficiency virus due to the provision of a contaminated blood transfusion, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 7/31/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 7/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

23. S.1541 : A bill to aid dislocated workers and rebuild communities devastated by international trade, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 7/31/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 7/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

24. S.1809 : A bill to provide grants for mental health and substance abuse services for women and children who have been victims of domestic or sexual violence.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 10/31/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 10/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

25. S.1810 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve treatment for the mental health abuse and substance abuse needs of women with histories of trauma, including domestic and sexual violence.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 10/31/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 10/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

26. S.1811 : A bill to expand research for women in trauma.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 10/31/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 10/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

27. S.1988 : A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to establish minimum requirements for nurse staffing in nursing facilities receiving payments under the Medicare or Medicaid Program.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 12/9/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 12/9/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

30. S.2303 : A bill to help American families save, invest, and build a better future, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/8/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 4/8/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

31. S.2325 : A bill to strengthen telehealth programs.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 4/21/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

32. S.2445 : A bill to amend the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act relating to direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/19/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 5/19/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

34. S.AMDT.67 to H.J.RES.2 To require a study of the final rule relating to prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment new source review to determine the effects of the final rule on air pollution and human health.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 1/21/2003) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2003 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 67 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 50. Record Vote Number: 12.

37. S.AMDT.243 to H.J.RES.2 To broaden the purpose for which certain funds for rural housing may be used.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 1/21/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/23/2003 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 243 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
47. S.AMDT.985 to S.1 To strengthen protections for consumers against misleading direct-to-consumer drug advertising.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/23/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 985 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 26 - 69. Record Vote Number: 243.

48. S.AMDT.1052 to S.1 To strengthen protections for consumers against misleading direct-to-consumer drug advertising.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 6/25/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/26/2003 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1052 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 39 - 59. Record Vote Number: 248.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[huskerlaw]

305. What the hell are you doing??

Facts don't belong here!

Eating our own and ridiculous hypocrisy are SO MUCH MORE FUN.

[flvegan]

4. So, what's in your fridge?

Seems that if we altered our diets away from being meat-based, we could end famine and starvation.

Nobody likes to think about that though.

I don't care how much his house costs. Are those throwing stones living in glass ones?

[flashlighter]

11. Really? If I stop eating burgers, warlords will stop using food

shipments as weapons? And corrupt governments will stop murdering thier own people if I eat more tofu??

wow.

:sarcasm:

[flvegan]

19. Is that it?

Your smilie aside, is that it?

Bring it if you got it.

Mark.

[flashlighter]

29. Don't be a preachy vegetarian. That sucks

Ok. People are dying in darfur because we lack the political will to stop a genocide, not the money to feed these people. The janjaweed (I am not spelling that correctly) keep food and aid away from people of a different political/religious persuasion.


There are certainly arguments about the environmental impact of meat eaters v non-meat eaters that are quite valid. This is not one of them.

[flvegan]

39. Prejudiced, much?

I wasn't being preachy. I stated a well researched fact.

If you don't like the response, then don't enter the forum.

What really sucks is a knee-jerk reaction based in personal opinion.

Look in on that.

[flashlighter]

45. Prejudiced? Wha... How..?

You said: "if we altered our diets away from being meat-based, we could end famine and starvation."

No. We couldn't. Because political starvation isn't because there isn't enough food to go around, it's because one group of people won't let another group of people have any food.

[flvegan]

61. Yes we could.

And "preachy vegetarian" smacks of exactly what I stated.

[PVnRT]

194. Well-researched fact?

Post your evidence if you are going to make such a claim.

[Leopolds Ghost]

137. Flashlighter -- learn about globalization. Rent the movie DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE.

Warlords are warlords because the resources they are guarding
are being protected for foreign consumption. We spend good
money to guarantee the flow of those resources. Countries like
Tanzania (the site of DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE) are not poor because
of corruption, as the director points out: both the corruption
and the poverty and overpopulation stem from an economy that is
entirely dependent upon providing cheap food (in this case Nile
Perch) to the West. The Nile Perch ate all the domestic food
stocks, leaving the fishermen themselves to stave, because the
Perch is too expensive for domestic consumption. The fishermen
and their families eat the heads and offal that is distributed
from the backs of the vast, Western-owned packaging plants.

[rman]

207. I think it does matter how much wealth gets stuck at the top of the ladder

Don't you?

[Guaranteed]

293. That's unreasonably invasive. You're talking about a person's health,

what they put into their body to sustain themselves. You don't get to play nanny with that. Totally different than the above, more generalized topic of simple wealth.

[Texasgal]

6. Goodness gracious...

This is ridiculous...

What about people like Oprah or Angelina that are RICH beyond belief and help others in need?

The whole house thing with Edwards is silly!!!

[femrap]

51. Not when his platform for running for the

Presidency of the US of A is POVERTY. It's hypocritical...don't you think? Remember....the "two Americas?"

I was really surprised to see such a monstrous house for the Edwards' family, weren't you? It seemed really out of character....but maybe it isn't? Disappointing to me.

[mondo joe]

60. Did you think the Two Americas was about making everyone poor?

[Raydawg1234]

77. Usually, sucsessful people get involved into politics. What do you have against

self made people? This smells of pure jealousy.


p.s. (the other side of the coin arethe ass hole boss's son types like Bush who are born into money and get involved in politics)

[femrap]

112. Believe me, I am a very successful

person. But I don't tie my self-worth or self-esteem to my material belongings.

I just think it's wise to know about our Dem candidates...if you see nothing wrong with a man who is running for the Presidency of the US of A on a platform of POVERTY AND THE TWO AMERICAS who is now living in a 'house' that resembles a country club, then fine. I find it hypocritical.

(Hey, if the poor kid grows up and adopts and values of the silver-spooned assholes, what makes the difference?) Clinton, another poor boy, did a very nice job of selling out to the Multinational Corporations. And Edwards spoke at Bilderberg.

I wonder if all those trees were cut down for a polo pony course...or is it for golf?

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. Since when did Democrats believe that "successful people go on to politics"

and "not economically viable" people don't belong in politics?

Every rich person you vote for means you voted against a non-wealthy
person, or did not even question why the media did not take them
seriously because they were non-wealthy and therefore obviously not
"serious".

To be "serious" in America you must either be in the ruling class
economically (able to go to expensive nightclubs, wear expensive
suits, mingle with important people who are wealthy and therefore
essential constituents) or else have a resume that gives you a
ticket to the aristocracy, like Scottish sea captains who got
promoted to commodore in order to become honorary Britons.

[krispos42]

296. I made this post last night in (yet) another John Edwards thread

The thread is here, and it is in response to this post. I suggest you click on the Fairfield, CT link just to get an idea of where it ranks.

The question is "is this pretentious?".

I certainly don't care about his house size. If he wants to buy a six million dollar estate in the middle of a housing slump, that's his business. But it makes me shake my head and sigh.

I lived in Fairfield, CT for several years as a teen. There were an awful lot of well-off professionals who bought large houses in wooded areas for large amounts of money. They drove late-model SUVs and imported luxury sedans, had expensive furnishings, skied and golfed and went on expensive vacations, sent their kids to all sorts of educational camps, had expensive hobbies, ate expensive food, etc.

Not all of them are like that. The eastern and southeastern part of town is more middle-class and has a higher population density. My parents live in that section, and it is approprate for their income.

I wasn't a big fan of those types of people. Maybe it was just me, but I never felt as comfortable as I wanted to among them. Probably just my own feelings of inadequecy.

But the feeling was there.

It's not my lifestyle. I'm not comfortable in that setting. I'd be a lot more comfortable with, say, John Tester than John Edwards.

But the issue is (or should be) this person's ability to run the country effectively.

One of Bush's alleged appeals was that 'you could have a beer with him'. People didn't ask "If Bush was a brain surgeon, would you want him operating on your kid?" THAT is the standard for running a country, not sucking down a MGD! And damn the people who didn't ask themselves that question!

If you ask that about Kerry, Edwards, Obama, or Clinton, you get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Tester, too. Bush, eh, not so much.

The size of Edwards' house only matters if it points to some sort of possibly unhealthy obsession with aquiring wealth and power for the sake of show. Pretensiousness.

I don't know if it does with Edwards. I don't think so, but I have not studied him closely. You seem to have, and you seem intelligent and informed, so I'll accept your informed opinion on the matter and leave it at that.

I KNOW that the Bush Administration has that obsession, damn them!

Basically, there are few people in Congress I would feel comfortable being with just in general. I'm not big at all on fancy events. To me, hitting up Chili's or Applebee's is about as fancy as I'm comfortable with. I would not feel comfortable being invited to visit the homes of Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Kennedy, or most other people on the Hill. So the fact that Edwards is doing this doesn't bother me.

I am, however, a little surprised that a) he'd spend huge quantities of money on a house in the middle of the housing slump, and b) he'd spend huge quantities of money as he's about to enter Presidential campaign season. He could have bought a nice half-million dollar house and spent the other $5.5 on campaign commercials.

[mondo joe]

7. His campaign is about changing the system - not about him being personally

responsible for feeding everyone.

He could use his entire fortune on the poor, and they would be followed by more of the same because the systems would remain in place.

Edwards isn't about making EVERYONE poor but about giving everyone OPPORTUNITY.

[Lex]

20. Some people aren't able to think it through that well.

Trust me on that.

[seashorelady]

191. Good point Lex

[kikiek]

32. I think you're right. It isn't that cut and dried or simple. To disparage someone like him because

of how he can afford to live is unfair. We are all just as guilty whenever we spend a dime that isn't absolutely necessary for us to survive. Unless you live like you're Mother Theresa there isn't any room to talk.

[cynatnite]

8. Oh, please...

During the summer and fall of 2005, he toured the country, promoting various progressive causes. He visited homeless shelters and job training centers and spoke at events organized by such groups as ACORN, the NAACP, and the SEIU. He spoke out in favor of an expansion of the earned income tax credit, a crackdown on predatory lending, an increase in the capital gains tax rate, housing vouchers for minorities to integrate upper-income neighborhoods, and a program modeled on the Works Progress Administration to rehabilitate the Gulf Coast following the effects of Hurricane Katrina. In low-income Greene County, North Carolina he unveiled the pilot program for College for Everyone, an educational measure he promised during his presidential campaign, in which prospective college students will receive a scholarship for their first year in exchange for ten hours of work a week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Edwards can spend his money any damn way he wants. Who in the hell made you judge of how a person lives their life. It's none of your damn business if he wants to own a 50,000 square foot house or whatever. The man has done a hell of a lot for those less fortunate.

Rather than tearing down a decent man why not go after people like bush, murdock and others who could care less about the rest of us.

[Raydawg1234]

72. note that the Edwards bashers here won't respond because you're right

[bpeale]

216. they're not satisfied

to only draw the lines for themselves, they have to draw the lines for everyone else too. and then judge them for falling short on something even they fall short on. edwards is about the fairness of the OPPORTUNITY to get/become something more, not about providing it all for everyone. no one truly appreciates something that is just given to them. they appreciate it more if they are given the opportunity to complete fairly for it.

[noamnety]

247. You must feel awful for his daughter

poor thing, having a house built for her by her parents.

Seems just the poor like having the opportunity to compete for food and shelter.

[bpeale]

268. I DON'T CARE

he has the right to spend his wealth, which he accumulated thru his talents and drive, in any manner he pleases. just because he made it does not mean he should redistributed it to others. if you feel otherwise then you are living on the wrong planet. life is what it is. you sound jealous that he has so much. i on the other hand congratulate him on his hard work. everyone should have such a work ethic that they don't have time to crow about how much they don't have. if he wants to share his wealth with his daughter, more power to him. i don't happen to have the same drive to succeed that he has. i am content to make ends meet. if you want to give yours away be my guest. but you don't have the right to expect everyone else will do the same. and you don't have the right to judge how others spend their "excess". if you deal with you excess, then you will be doing good. stop trying to draw the lines for everyone.

[bling bling]

80. Thanks for your response.

I read it and it sounds like Edwards did a lot of talking about things. I didn't click on the link because it looked like you bolded what you thought was the important part.

And the fact of the matter is that Edwards is living in excess. And it's not just him that I go after. A member of my own family pretty recently spent a million dollars on a house and their kids are all grown up now so it's just the two of them. And I think about all the time about how they could have better spent their money so that they could use their resources which they are fortunate to have to make a difference in people's lives. So I'm not judging Edwards on anything that I don't judge my own family about or anyone else. I brought it up on him specifically though as opposed to anyone else because Edwards is so tied into the whole poverty cause.

And I know Edwards can spend his money how he wants. I doubt my opinion will change Edwards spending habits. Though I wish it would.

[cynatnite]

99. Actually, there is a lot more than that just as important...

I had the stupid assumption that a DUer would be interested in checking out the link and reading more. Silly me.

I wonder how many people you could feed for what your computer cost. How many people could you feed for your extra spending? Do you want to post pictures of your house, your car, your clothes and everything else? Then we here at DU can pick apart what you own and determine for ourselves what is excessive and tear you down for it.

That's called hypocrisy, my friend.

[bling bling]

104. I'm sincerely sorry you don't get the difference between excess and and me using a pc.

I never said John Edwards should give every dollar he has to the poor. A lot of people are really stretching this out. I'm talking about the excessive exessiveness.

To equivocate me using a pc for recreation and John Edwards having a 20,000 square foot heated swimming pool, 2 movie theatres, squash court, etc. as though they are apples to apples is all I need to hear.

Thanks for your input.

[mondo joe]

107. Excess is relative. You spend what you can afford, he spends what he can.

When you decide to live like a monk, let us know.

[cynatnite]

113. Everyone's definition of excess is different...

You'll never get quite the same from one person to the next. No matter the good you or anyone else has done in the world it's very easy to point to what we percieve as excesses and tear you or whoever we're talking about down. It's hypocrisy, IMO. We can make judgments on that and say 'I wouldn't do it', but tearing down someone no matter what they've done, is wrong.

[Raydawg1234]

199. who determines what "excess" is

[bpeale]

217. you just come off

as sounding mean spirited, jealous and whiny...about how someone got a bigger piece of the pie than you did. its not what you say that leads me to think this but how you said it.

[Morereason]

153. I asked a question too. If he had a hummer would it be ok??

What if Al Gore went out and bought a hummer? Would that be ok because over all he is changing the environment? Wouldn't that effect his reputation and effectiveness?

What is the difference, really, in terms of ecology, that we all stand for, that would make it ok to buy a mansion yet putrid to by a gas guzzling suv? A mansion has far more effect. Why is it ok then?

[Morereason]

226. Nobody wants to answer? Because they do not want to admit there is a problem here?

That there is an inconsistancy?

[mondo joe]

269. I'm not worried about what he drives either. I care about policy. NT

[Clark2008]

224. But what did he do when he was a senator?

Nothing.

He can give money. I'm glad. We all can give money - even $5 would help.

But he had the opportunity as a senator to introduce legislation that would aid the poor on much more of a larger scale than any of us and he didn't do it.

This is more of his political expediency, if you ask me. The remaking of a "populist." My ass.

[flashlighter]

9. John Edwards: Killing Babies in Darfur since 1996

You can give all of your disposable income to charity and walk around wearing a hair shirt and a GIANT F'NG HALO over your head, but the rest of the country will spend their disposable income however they want.

When Republican's trot out the "Democrats hate successful people" meme, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! Most people STRIVE to have nice things, and they work for them. That IS the American dream.

John Edwards could live in a tent, and there would still be people starving to death in this world. Those children are dying for a host of reasons, but the size of Edwards' house is NOT one of them.

This has got to be the most ridiculous argument. I've held my tonge all day but COME ON!!!

[bling bling]

17. I don't think the argument is ridiculous. n/t

[flashlighter]

24. You think that if Edwards sold his house and lived in a yurt

people would stop dying in Africa? You need to take a look at WHY people are starving- because men with guns keep them from getting food for political reasons. NOT because there isn't enough wealth in the world to buy them food.


People who make a nice living often do so because they work very hard. This doesn't make them bad people, it makes them the embodiment of what this country is all about.

[TankLV]

253. but that doesn't make it any less so - it IS a ridiculuous straw man argument...

you just refuse to see it...

[Guaranteed]

302. It's not a straw man from the OP's side.

Straw man arguments occur when one side distorts the other's argument in order to make it seem ridiculous. For example, by saying that the OP is saying that John Edwards is killing children in Darfur. That would be a straw man.

[LynneSin]

180. 'This has got to be the most ridiculous argument'

That's the understatement of the year!

Great post!

[terisan]

10. Kerry reportedly owns brownstone worth 6.6 million + spouse owns houses

I think this a an important issue, but I would like to look at all the candidates and the incumbents.

Is it worse to own real estate than to make other less visible investments. is it better for them to keep their money in stocks?

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. He should rent it out as affordable apartment building.

To paraphrase Dr. Zhivago, I'm not a leftist but it would be a more
equitable arrangement, albeit for reasons that are subtle and difficult
for people who actually VALUE that brownstone over 2.2 million meals,
which includes most New Yorkers but not most Americans, to understand.

You don't have to tear down the collective artisanal output of
civilization, which is mostly generated at the expense of the
wealthy, you simply have to stop reserving the output of the
artisanal class FOR the wealthy.

For instance, before Carnegie gave billions and billions away
for public libraries, it was assumed that a wealthy person who
funds a library is funding it for the use of high society.

SImilarly, when Edwards builds a 30,000 square-foot building,
it is asssumed that (a) he will consume most of the available
land around it for asphalt, i.e. the automobile, as mandated
by law because he has a 20 car garage; and (b) the resulting
building will be for private, not public use.

Rich people in the "old days" were considered anti-republican
(i.e. anti-democratic) if they lived in a house that was more
than three times the size of an ordinary person's house.

This was true in Republican Rome and in early America.

Then came the Empire.

[Fierce]

14. Shame on you.

Shame on you for using a photo that represents the death of at least two people to make your pathetic argument.

[Lex]

18. Edwards personally sent that vulture there I guess.

Sickening rhetoric is what it is. I agree.

[Fierce]

21. Then shot the photog in the head, too.

And THEN built his big house.

[bling bling]

22. Sorry you feel that way.

That picture impacted me deeply the first time I saw it. In fact, I think it changed my life. It made me realize what matters. Or it at least made me realize some of the things that don't matter, at least in my life.

[Fierce]

26. A lot of people criticized the photographer

for not helping the little girl. So I actually find it kind of fitting that you ripped the photo off to make your cheap point.

[bling bling]

30. I have no idea what you're doing here. It's obviously not to read or discuss.

I explained the impact that photo had on me.

If you think my point about excess and world hunger is a cheap point, then I have nothing else to say to you. I don't care if you think it's propaganda or rheteric. Go on thinking that. I don't care what you think.

[Fierce]

33. I'm objecting to your use of a child's death...

...the very public, degrading death of a person you don't even know, and the death of the man who took the photograph, to make your point. It's not propaganda or rhetoric. It's a cheap shot at Edwards with a self-described WARNING GRAPHIC to get people to read your post.

[bling bling]

44. Well that proves you don't know what you're talking about.

I swear on everything that matters to me that I didn't put the warning graphic up as a lure. I did it because it's the rules. As a matter of fact, I thought to myself that it would probably scare people away from reading my thread because often I don't click on the graphic warning posts.

I think that everyone should see that picture. I think that because of the impact it had on me personally.

And that picture isn't of a dead girl. The photographer said that she was stopping to take a break because she was too weak. He went on to say that she stood up and finished walking across the field. I even said that in my OP.

Obviously you and I have different ways of thinking and discussing things. My motives are simply not as awful as you'd like to think. That's the way it is and you can take my word for it or not but I've defended myself enough against your accusations.

[Fierce]

48. I know she's not dead. But she's obviously dying.

I don't think your motives are awful. And I've already voiced my objections.

John Edwards building a smaller house is not going to make pictures like that go away. You know that.

What destroyed that little girl's life was not poverty. It was complete and utter breakdown of what it means to be a society, a community, a group of human beings.

Ending poverty creates more people who can work to end the devastation in Somalia and Sudan.

[Leopolds Ghost]

111. No you don't. You said she was dead. You assumed that nobody did anything to help her

And that she subsequently died shortly after the photo was taken.

Because it's our job to bitch and moan about poverty, but not do
anything about it that would affect our lifestyle (such as importing
Lake Victoria trout that have eaten all the local food supply, and
setting "free trade" rules that put farmers in other countries
out of business so we can have an endless supply of cheap grain
in YOUR supermarket, or endless timber and asphalt consumption
so YOUR next home can be bigger than what you would consider an
unacceptably small house, which would be a standard size house in
ANY other country, including the America of 35 years ago.)

[Fierce]

189. I do know the photog did nothing to help her.

She did make it to the feeding station, but no one knows how long she lived after she got there. In the photo, she's at a state where a bowl of gruel isn't going to help her.

Nice flailing in the second graph, though.

[TankLV]

254. No - HE knows what he is talking about - it's readily aparent that

YOU

STILL

DON'T

GET

IT.

You use the exact same tactics that you criticize others for...

shamefull...

[femrap]

47. Bling bling....there are people that just

don't care to see that Edwards' actions are hypocritical. The biggest mistake anyone can make in the US of A is to attack a 'man's castle.' Seriously...even many Dems believe: Those who die with the most toys win.

It's a materialistic society. I commend you for pointing out Edwards' excess of consumerism.

Don't let the piggies bug you, OK?

I wonder if they read his speech given in Israel about attacking Iran....or that he spoke at Bildenberg. These are some red flags on the man. People should know what candidates are up to...then they can make up their minds.

I am disappointed in what Edwards has done lately. If these actions are OK with others, that is their business.

[bling bling]

57. Again, thanks.

From my perspective, from the way I'm looking at this -- it's difficult for me to understand how others can not at least acknowledge the hypocracy. They really don't see it.

Thank you for taking the time to tell me that it's not just me. Otherwise I'd be feeling very frustrated right now.

[mondo joe]

59. There's nothing hypocritical about standing for opportunity and the American

Dream for others AND yourself.

[KoKo]

69. Yes..it's the "red flags" of "warning." And this is a Discussion Forum

where we are free to discuss politics. And, the candidates who are putting themselves forth to be our President.

Thanks.

[MsKandice01]

37. He later killed himself because of it too...

[Fierce]

43. That was my reference to "two deaths".

nt

[bpeale]

220. and THAT was sure a big help to his cause, eh?

[Leopolds Ghost]

175. If the photographer felt powerless to help, then that underscores the point of the OP

With great power and wealth comes great responsibility. Certainly if a WEALTHY tourist had taken that photo you would have expected them to try and help. That would traditionally be the "Christian" thing to do. The wealthy in earlier eras were certainly pressured to think that way. In many cases, the continued existence of their heads on top of their necks helped to focus their mind on the value of sharing the wealth and helping the less fortunate. Usually they only did it for show, but the principle remains.

On edit: I am sure the photographer felt bad about it, too. I don't think he should have been criticized too harshly, especially enough to make him commit suicide. After all, it was really the inaction of All Americans, knowing that this child probably lived in a country that exported raw materials to the US to make consumer goods and had to import everything this child needed to survive. And there were probably hundreds of dying children in or around this village. I don't know where this was taken but YOU KNOW that if it were anywhere in the US, you would feel responsible for trying to stop it. But just because it is in a war-torn or famine-stricken country on the other side of an imaginary line, people say "there is nothing I can do." It is right to feel bad about not being able to help every starving person. It is also more right to at least try and help those you CAN help.

Building a mansion in the US doesn't even help US working class people.
It just furthers the trickle-down, service based economy. He could have invested that money in one of those factories that is always closing down in North Carolina, or in a "Main Street" to bring jobs back. That would be a traditional form of (horrors) CAPITALISM of the old American entrepreneurial sort.

Not the post-capitalist mercantile corporatism that has existed in this country for the past 100 years, where the rich invest all their money in estates and flee the problems of the city, the way the ancient Roman emperors did.

[sammythecat]

132. I saw that picture some time ago

and I see it the same as you. I remember that story about the starfish too. I read it a long time ago and always remembered it because it made perfect sense.

I thought both were very relevant to your point.

Just as defining when a fetus becomes a child, defining the dollar amount that is just "too much" is gray and filled with variables. It can be very subjective. Nevertheless, I do believe there is such a thing as "too much".

Aside from the moral issue, I also think this was dumb for Edwards to build a multi-million dollar mansion at the same time he's going to run for President on a platform appealing to blue collar workers.

[bling bling]

150. I'm so happy that you posted this.

It's very neat to me to hear about other people who are impacted by the same things as me. I too heard that story a long time ago and it struck me because it made perfect sense to me too.

Your analogy about the fetus was perfect. Even though people keep (sarcastically) asking me for it, there really isn't a set formula or a mathematical equation I can use to tabulate what is and isn't an an excessive amount of money or square footage.

[Califooyah Operative]

168. I agree.

It's sad this has so many recommendations but I guess anything to take a shot at a rival candidate...

Can we get a similar analysis for each of the candidates running? I'm sure Edwards isn't the only one with a big house.

[XemaSab]

16. I agree

I think the value of modesty has been lost.

"Live simply, so that others can simply live."

[venable]

23. the discussion of the house is absurd

Where did Jefferson, FDR, Kennedy, and on and on live?

by the way, the OPs insinuation of the cost of the house is way, way off.

it is a very large ranch house, with top energy rating.

it cost a lot of money, but nowhere anything like is suggested in the OP.

why am I discussing this?

[femrap]

55. The property taxes alone

$6m. Looks like a country club to me. Wonder when they'll start on the golf course.

edited to add: Guess they'll have to cut down some more trees for that.

[Raydawg1234]

67. sounds like somone's jealous

[femrap]

116. Jealous? Of what?

Having a country club for a house. Been there, done that. It doesn't give you one ounce of happiness...just something to insure, maintain, and worry about.

I actually feel sorry for folks who think they need that stuff to feel good about themselves. Just like the asshole who needs to drive a Hummer.

The American Culture...Greed is Good. The Robber Baron Part II is about over....enjoy it while you can.

[Clark2008]

229. Edwards fans ALWAYS accuse people who favor other

candidates of being "jealous."

They don't answer questions like why Edwards never sponsored a stitch of legislation helping the poor or why he changes his position, after sponsoring the Iraq War, after the war is less popular than an STD or why he felt the need to ignore his constituents in North Carolina.

But, boy, they'll haul off and call you jealous - even when you have no jealous bone in your body because, maybe your candidate actually did BETTER than Edwards in 2004 or because maybe your candidate actually proposes legislation that would end the war or help stop poverty.

Ignore it femrap, it's a constant hue and cry of theirs.

[benny05]

282. Some supporters of JRE

would love to lend you some eyeglasses. Twice you have asked this question on this thread, but you didn't read the first response. Is it because you need eyeglasses or do you need an open mind? Which one is it? See post by John Locke above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=51712&mesg_id=58654

I might add he voted to supported the raise of the minimum wage bill in 2000, which went back to the House for Conferencing. The Rethugs wanted a ton of tax cuts that they knew Bill Clinton would veto, so they allowed the bill to die and await Bush's arrival.

Double Finger Wag by Colbert.

[venable]

70. that figure is wrong

and anyway, what in the world is the point of this?

Really? A family buys some land, and builds a dream house for their kids, themselves, their extended family

they also shop at costco. and thrift stores. and strive for carbon neutrality.

You can't seriously have a problem with this.

[femrap]

118. If you don't see the hypocrisy, then

you just aren't keeping up. You do know what Edwards' platform is...something about the 'two Americas.'

You're just jealous of his smile, aren't ya?

[Raydawg1234]

140. Then what do you suggest.....He stop talking about helping the poor? Does that do

the poor any good?

[femrap]

143. No, I would actually like to see him

walk the talk.

[seashorelady]

192. He already has.

He did come from a humble background. The thing that has always stuck in my mind, is that at age 11 he told his family that he wanted to become a lawyer so that he could help people. This is a good man that has achieved success. Isn't that the american dream?

[bpeale]

284. so when are you two heading off to help in africa?

or is it just bullshit to pass the day?

[femrap]

326. If Edwards would provide my airfare, I'm ready to go.

Until then, I'll continue to supply the local food bank. My cousin is in Africa working at an orphanage for 6 weeks. Arrived last week.

And btw, I am not the one running on a Poverty Platform while living in a McMansion.

And wtf have you done lately to follow in the example of your candidate...on the charity, not constructing, front?

[bpeale]

328. i don't give what i don't have

[bpeale]

331. on second thought...

if you do not fix the underlying cause of the starvation etc. then throwing money (or food) at the problem will not help. the underlying cause is other tribes withholding food from people just because they belong to another tribe, in other words, one group using food as a method of power over another group BECAUSE THEY CAN.

given the number of starving right here in our own country, why do you feel you have to go halfway around the world to feed those starving ones, when there are starving right here you can help. why not give up ALL your possessions & travel to appalachia to help the starving there? or do you think the fact that they are starving is somehow their own fault?

how about giving up ALL and sending it to habitat for humanity or going to build houses for those in NOLA who no longer have homes? how about helping those homeless vets living on the streets? what are you doing for them? or the homeless mentally ill who are starving on the streets? or is it somehow more noble to travel around the world to do it because that way you can deceive people about how much you're doing? hmmm.

lots of issues here & lots of opportunity for you to give ALL you have to help. have you done it? i would be more inclined to be touched by the plight of those right here in the USA who are homeless or starving than someone halfway around the world. but then i never claimed to be altruistic. i'm basically selfish as we all are. and if you do not think you are selfish, please. don't lie to youself.

and without access to his tax returns every year, how do you KNOW what percentage of his income he gives to charity or donates to help the homeless? he may be giving more percentagewise than you are. you don't have a clue about his giving habits. you're just whistling in the wind. and i don't think he is obligated in any way to justify his lifestyle to you or anyone else, or prove anything to you. what arrogance you have!

and there is absolutely no reason why edwards should have to pay your way to wherever. you should be willing to give up EVERYTHING for a cause you believe in. otherwise you are just as big a hyprocrite as those you decry.

[Name removed]

333. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpeale]

283. actually yes

i wish i could afford to have his smile. but if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

[wundermaus]

27. I think your post is spot on...

And as an Edwards supporter... I am deeply disturbed and troubled by the double standards made evident by Edwards opulent mansion and estate in juxtapose to his philanthropic deeds and compassionate rhetoric. Something there just doesn't add up.

[Lex]

28. Hey didja hear that Thomas Jefferson lived at Montecello?

What a total shithead that guy was too, eh?

[Digit]

42. Good one!

:applause:

[femrap]

58. And Thomas was constantly in debt....he

died in debt. It drove John Adams insane..he was the frugal New Englander. They travelled to Europe together and Jefferson's spending drove Adams nuts.

Jefferson had a real 'problem' with Monticello...he would build something then knock it down and rebuild..over and over and over.

But he was a man who spent way more than he earned....

[TankLV]

255. because that was his PASSION - architecture - just like mine

only I cann't afford to do what TJ did...

[noamnety]

78. Yes, he lived at Monticello

And his lifestyle came at the expense of the slaves he owned. That pretty much does make him a racist colonialist shit-head.

Not sure if you were actually trying to make Edwards look better by equating him to a slave-owner ... it's a curious post you've made.

[Leopolds Ghost]

173. Thomas Jefferson was a genius and a revolutionary. He was also a bit of a hypocrite

As his friends and admirers (and himself) were quick to admit.

[seashorelady]

193. You should see the Hermitage in Tenn.

The home of Andrew Jackson. Slave quarters and all.

[JVS]

244. He owned people too. Also raped women. But I guess that's okey dokey because he..

wrote some nice stuff about freedom.

[mondo joe]

52. Where do you think Ted Kennedy lives?

What do you think his estate is worth?

[Raydawg1234]

65. yeah if you hate the rich and successful.

[rhombus]

319. My brother is an Edwards fan

Real social activist guy. When he heard about the "mansion", all he said was - "They're all the same. They have no shame now or sense of modesty. What a pity."

Now he's pretty much closed the door on Edwards.


I like Edwards, he's a good guy, but really from a PR standpoint, it hurts his Two America's message.

[venable]

325. the house is not opulent in the normal sense

it is a really sprawling ranch house.

they are not an opulent couple.

the house is for their children,their freinds, and their family.

I always read that their home in Raleigh was the gathering place for the whole neighborhood. As I understand it, so is this. a home as community center.

[Stephanie]

36. What is the value of the Crawford Pig Ranch & Kennebunkport?

Michael Bloomberg is worth $4 billion. Shut up.

[ariellyn]

64. B-I-N-G-O n/t

[Guaranteed]

300. I suppose we would never hold that against them, either.

Wait- no, I certainly would. In fact, I do.

[nam78_two]

40. K&R.nt

[napi21]

41. If your point is that you can't or won't support any candidate with

millions of $$, then I guess you better forget voting PERIOD!!

No one isn't very wealthy can run for President anymore!

Your jealousy of the rich is showing my friend. Concentrate on what each candidate believes and will fight to do for America, or just ignore the whole process. Concerning yourself with the size of value of someone's house isn't relevant.

[TankLV]

256. YES!

Thank you...

but I doubt the OP will see it...

[The Traveler]

46. Good grief

Look, I am probably NOT going to support Edwards in the primary season. But your argument is totally specious. You acknowledge his works and contributions on behalf of the poor. Apparently, according to you, if a person claims to be concerned for the poor and does not give away as much as YOU think they should, they are then false in YOUR eyes.

This post tells me more of your perspectives than it does about the quality of John Edwards. Don't mean to sound harsh, but this line of argument is crap.

[femrap]

68. You don't see the hypocrisy of a man

who is running for the highest public office on the platform of POVERTY AND THE TWO AMERICAS building an estate that has property taxes of $6m?

Can you at least admit at least the hint of hypocrisy? Remember the family has a total of 5 people...and I believe the oldest daughter is leaving for college...so 4 people...oh, and the 'help.' Maybe that's why it's so big...they need lots of room for the live-in help.

America has turned into a very greedy, materialistic culture. Just as James Webb said during his rebuttal of the SOTU speech: ROBBER BARONS. We have returned to the Robber Baron age. You remember what followed it, don't you?

[The Traveler]

75. Oh, I get your point

Which basically to hold everyone to a standard of conduct which you yourself have never demonstrated (to my knowledge) a capacity to achieve yourself. Hypothetical question: If you had that kind of money, really, how much of it would you give to the poor?

What score card determines how much is enough to be morally correct? Whose score card is correct? What constitutes a sincere effort to address the problem of poverty? Does that effort require weaing of hairshirts? You seem to imply some form of self-denial is necessary, a position I could adopt were the same standard being equally applied to all past and current candidates ... which so far does not appear to be the case.

I can dissect Edwards' positions on a number of subjects, but the man has actually tried to make a difference on this issue, which is more than can be said for a LOT of people.

Advocacy of the poor by the affluent ... there was a time when that was not such a rare thing. Frankly, I find it it kind of refreshing.

We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Raydawg1234]

79. Hello, it's called FREEDOM and in America, you can do whatever the fuck you want

with your money.

[femrap]

123. So I guess the FREEDOM

to talk about what a candidate for president does with his money. How a person utilizes money says a lot about her/him. I think Edwards' has made a faux pas...you don't.

Why people are so easily impressed with money....I'll never understand. Here I thought we were to admire qualities as honesty, integrity, simplicity, justice, equality....

Am I at Freeper ville?

[mondo joe]

126. I'm more impressed with respecting freedom than I am with being a scold.

Just saying.

[noamnety]

136. That's the position of the current EPA, isn't it? (nt)

[mondo joe]

138. I'm not the EPA - I'm a citizen.

Congratulations on making even less sense!

[noamnety]

141. You're a citizen who believes in the "freedom" to contribute to global warming.

The thing is, the globe doesn't really care if you are a citizen or a corporation, does it?

Damage is damage.

[mondo joe]

144. You don't need quotation marks on freedom.

Or in your case, maybe you do.

[noamnety]

151. I'll keep it in quotes here, thanks.

Freedom from poverty, hunger, violence, disease, oppression.

"Freedom" to destroy, wage wars, oppress, pollute.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. And John Edwards's house is destroying, waging wars, oppressing and polluting.

Whereas you, I'm sure, live in a burlap yurt, ride a human powered tuk-tuk to work, and subside on a diet of cruelty-free mung beans, logging on to a computer powered by your own personal solar panels and wind turbine.

[Morereason]

234. Freedom is the freedome to spend???? Isn't that the repub meme?

This is a false American Ideology mostly propagaded by the republicans. There is a responsability inherant in the American Ideal. I can't believe anyone would buy the hogwash that spending money is what freedom is about. The pursuit of money just for massive material sake enslaves. It enslaves the owner and enslaves society. If the owner wants to enslave themselves to mammon that is their business. But when they force greedy values down my throat and make life difficult for those with other values, and destroy the overburdon the ecosystem, they go further than a just society should tolerate.

[mondo joe]

272. Freedom is freedom. There are moralist authoritarians on both sides of the political

spectrum. Neither respects personal autonomy.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. What's a reasonable square-footage for a candidate ...

and which ones live within that limit?

Is Bush the president because Kerry has a number of mansions, or was there some other factors at work?

Edwards estate might be fodder for Jeff Foxworthy - you might be a redneck if your garage is twice as big as your house.

[Octafish]

54. That's your opinion. Mine: Edwards has a record of battling poverty.

It's also a good bet that John Edwards has done more to help the nation and world's poor than most people -- rich, poor or in-between.

Edwards also believes in Justice and puts his thoughts into action there, too.

That's more than most, as well.

?size=l

He's also one tough hombre.

[FrenchieCat]

109. Excessive praise, I do believe......

John Edwards HAS NOT done more to help the nation and world's poor than most people.

The house issue may be an exaggeration, but your statement is one as well.

Edwards' record while serving his six years in the senate shows that he supported the minimum wage. That's six years in the senate and championing nada issues dealing specifically with poverty beyond the very safe issue of the minimum wage....which most if not all Democrats support. :eyes:

So he got the passion while he was running for President to start "talking" and "researching" the issue of poverty. I'm glad of his focus on this issue....but one could legitably question whether the quest to the Presidency and the reactions that he received from his one initial speech in November of 2003 may not have been what prompted him to grab that mantle.

In other words, John Edwards ain't all that when it comes to really having been concerned about poverty in terms of his track record. Point to something prior to 2004, and we'll talk about proposing sainthood for the man.

[GreenArrow]

327. it's a good bet

that the people who work in our local soup kitchens have done more to help the poor than John Edwards ever has...or will. And they don't try to turn their work into a PR issue and toot their own horns over it.

[2bfree]

56. I have a problem with some of your thinking and the use of that picture....

However like you I find it hard to imagine why anyone needs that sort of excess.

[DaveinMD]

62. Edwards

has been doing a ton to combat poverty. He's rich, like the Kennedy's. Yet, his politics are progressive. He's the only Democratic candidate in the last 20 years to talk about the poor. He doesn't have to give all his money away.

[KoKo]

73. Edwards is the only Candidate in Last 20 Years to talk about the Poor?

You are kidding me? Every Democrat who runs talks about helping the poor and emphasizes education and health care and rights for the disenfranchised. It's what Democrats are about.

[DaveinMD]

76. nope

Since Dukakis, we've been talking about the middle class. Reagan demonized the poor. Saying it was their fault they were poor. Clinton talked about the middle class. Gore talked about the middle class. If Kerry talked about the economy, it was about the middle class.

[Clarkie1]

90. No one, including the OP, is suggeting Edwards give all his money away.

But if he is demanding sacrifice from Americans, he would do well to start sacrificing some things himself...it's not that hard to do, especially for someone of Edwards' means.

Edwards is no leader in the war against poverty. Great leaders lead by example.

[mondo joe]

122. What % doees hee have to sacrifice to be acceptable to you?

[Guaranteed]

291. Well, it doesn't have to be up to the level of thousands of kids dying in Darfur.

But it's pretty clear that he- and a whole lot of other people- would have plenty (more) to give, if they chose to.

[fujiyama]

127. *Cough*

Hey, the general is living a pretty nice lifestyle as well. I'm sure he has a nice large home in Arkansas.

Personally, I don't find that particularly relevant, but when you have money you will spend it to lead a comfortable lifestyle. Now, I do hope that Edwards' house is energy efficient though.

I don't find Edwards to be a perfect candidate by any means and there are certain issues where his judgment must be questioned (like voting for the war), but this is just a cheap shot. I agree the home is in excess, but it's all relative.

[Raydawg1234]

133. Nonsense, what you ask is for people to give up the American dream.

[mondo joe]

148. And then we wonder why more people don't vote Democratic.

:shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

174. The American Dream is not to live in a mansion. That's not what the Minutemen fought for in 1776

That may be the dream of most peons who live in an Empire, like ancient Babylon where the purpose of great mansions was to induce awe and fawning in an envious public who worshiped anyone who lived in such a place, because they knew they would never get the chance to do so.

It's called deriving vicarious pleasure from the happiness of others.

In ancient times it was fairy tales and elaborate mansions. Today it is "lifestyles of the rich and famous."

Either way, it is antithetical to the republican ideal (much less the democratic ideal).

[Raydawg1234]

197. like it or not, the American dream for many young people today is MTV cribs

[TankLV]

257. maybe not to you or me, but to many persons it IS the GOAL.

that's why there are lots of pshchologists and books on the subject...

If anybody had a simple answer to someone elses neuroses, then they'd all be out of a job...

WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST SOCIETY.

That is the only way to "insure" that we all live "equall, without excess" according to some artifical definition.

That's NOT the country I want to live in.

So, to the OP, I echo MONDO's excellent challenge - tell us YOUR stats and let US judge what you consider "excessive".

We know you won't...

What people DO with their time and assets is more important than what they OWN.

Bush compared to Kennedy.

Cheney compared to Kerry.

Condi compared to Edwards.

BIG differences...

One thing I'm certain, Edwards has DONE more effort in ONE WEEK that you do in a lifetime to make this a better world...

Same with Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry and many others...

[Morereason]

230. A mansion and servants is not my "American Dream"

Before the 80's it was not the American Dream. That is a republic(an) subversion and what is killing our country. Greed and hoarding money is not what America is about, and in fact kills the American Dream. The Middle class is the American Dream. Being able to have a decent life for you labors.

[mondo joe]

275. You're kidding yourself. It has always been the American Dream to be a

financial success.

[Guaranteed]

292. That's a serious cultural problem we have, if that's the case. nt

[w4rma]

63. By your logic you can only support monks who have taken vows of poverty. (nt)

[upi402]

71. oh christ

fecking jayziz I need the go to my special place already!

sandals in a tree or nothing at all now? so Kerry is absolved because he didn't want to bother with it at all?? Nor did he confront the thugs that blasphemed his honorable service to our nation and her people???
I'm just not swayed by the duality/phoniness claim to value argument against Edwards.

Who will have the balls or ovaries to elbow the Republican jerkoffs in the choppers.
THAT'S who I vote for the nomination.
Who has a track record of knocking the snot bubbles out of the corporate giants?

If it's Jerry Brown or Dennis Kucinich again... all the better.

[fujiyama]

74. WTF is your point?

Would it be better for Edwards not to talk about poverty? Would it be "less hypocritical" if he did not address the issue or find ways to combat it?

Edwards isn't claiming to be a saint. He wants to however give people the opportunity to do something with their lives. You have people like Edwards and Kerry that voted AGAINST giving themselves a tax cut, when they could have saved millions of dollars a year. That's more sacrifice than most people would be willing to make. Why the hell else do people try to get out of every dime they have to during tax season?

Your use of that photograph to take a cheap shot at Edwards is pretty low. Would the odds of that person dying be any less likely is Edwards lived in a more "modest" home? As another poster asked, is Edwards responsible for the political and economic turmoil those poor people are faced with? No, it's due to ethnic hatred and evil sick fucks using weapons to terrorize local populations and block their access to food.

Give an idea of what you do with your money and we'll decide how righteous you really are. It's all relative. John Edwards has EARNED millions of dollars and has the right to spend it however he sees fit.

[noamnety]

81. People DON'T have an inherent right to use up whatever they can afford.

That's the same logic corporations use - they have the right to pollute, waste resources, etc, because they can afford to.

It's not socially responsible to decide if you are rich, you have more right to natural resources than other people. I'm sure that's not a message I've heard from Edwards, but I guess there's always a difference between what one preaches and what one practices. If you are in the "global warming doesn't exist" camp, it makes sense to say rich people have earned the right to buy whatever they want, but that's not a philosophy I'm ready to embrace.

The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism
Claire Gaudiani (New York, NY : Times Books, 2003)

Claire Gaudiani claims that individual philanthropists have generated economic growth throughout American history by investing in people, property, and innovative ideas. According to the author, these partnerships have created a balance between capitalism and democracy by injecting wealth into poorer communities and promoting upward mobility. In her examination, Gaudiani, a senior research scholar from Yale Law School and former president of Connecticut College, asserts that joint philanthropic ventures initiated by individuals have promoted innovative ideas long before corporations or government entities supported them. However, she cautions that our history of prosperity and social mobility is jeopardized by an increasing concentration of wealth within the highest income bracket and the dwindling of civic involvement in our community over the past thirty years.

Gaudiani, as former volunteer president of the New London Development Corporation, has organized efforts to revitalize New London, an economically depressed port city in Connecticut, through business, community and government partnerships. She has seen first-hand the impact of committed donors and volunteers working together to improve a community and builds a strong case for investing in human, social and physical capital in The Greater Good. The book, divided into 11 chapters, analyzes the role of philanthropy in the United States as an economic force and illustrates the author's points by using inspiring examples. "

Gosh, that all sounds great, eh?

Claire Gaudiani is married to the Pfizer exec responsible for the big eminent domain case in New London that went to the Supreme Court - the one where it was determined corporations had the right to whatever land they could afford and wanted (even when it means kicking senior citizens out of their privately owned homes). But hey, she's a philanthropist. Meaning she helps others (so long as it doesn't interfere with her own lifestyle, or her ability to accrue more wealth).

[nam78_two]

85. Very well said-you should post that separately

I am dismayed by posts like this:
"In American you can do what the fuck ever you want with your own money"...
You can, but aren't there other considerations, like environmental connsequences to be taken into account here.

I wish it was possible to have a conversation about such things on DU without it becoming a flame-fest/attack. We all consume-no one can claim to leave no footprint on the planet without current lifestyles, but on a progressive web-site it should be possible to discuss how we can work together towards using less, making sure the precious resources of this planet and trying to preserve it for future generations and other living things.

The resources of our planet are finite and the American life-style is stretching the limits. It isn't any one person's fault but things are only going to change once we all show we care about this. If all we are going to do is say "Its my right to what the fuckever I want" this planet is in a lot of trouble....

[5X]

95. Now that was well said. I agree and am wondering how many

progressives there really are around here.

[noamnety]

98. Edwards talks about the need for us all to sacrifice

"Stephanopoulos: And you also said that Americans have to be patriotic about something other than war. What kinds of sacrifices will Americans have to make to make us energy independent, to combat global warming?

Edwards: They're going to have to be willing to give up some of the vehicles that they drive and I, myself, have driven. They're going to have to be willing to conserve in the use of energy in their homes."

http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2006/12/update_on_john_.html

I guess the other America is supposed to be making those sacrifices.

[fujiyama]

119. Can't really argue with your points

and I agree that unless Edwards is doing his best to make his house as energy efficient as possible, he is being hypocritical in SOME respects.

However, I find it ridiculous to fault him as somehow being less sincere in his efforts to combat poverty by being enjoying his wealth.

There are a lot of offenders out there with regards to leading a wasteful lifestyle, and I find it unfair to target John Edwards in particular to make this point.

[noamnety]

134. it's wasteful even if it is energy efficient.

Just having the thing built is a shameful use of energy, including the energy that went into manufacturing the materials and shipping them.

I agree it's not a problem unique to him, but it does emphasize the divide between the two Americas, which he has made himself the mascot for, and it highlights the frequent liberal position that we pay lip service to the idea that we don't think a small percentage of people should control a large percentage of the land and wealth - so long as evening the scales doesn't substantially affect our own privilege.

[fujiyama]

142. I agree there is a disconnect

and it muddles his own message and weakens his argument. I'll admit, I originally didn't even read the square footage, but I'll agree that 10k+ square feet is beyond excessive.

But he is a self made person and he earned his money. Few people will not spend the money they have on material goods.

As irritated as I was originally by the OP, I think he/she has made a good point about American excess and the sustainability of the world, considering the rest of the world wants this as well.

And it's going to be tougher to support.

[Raydawg1234]

128. you have no right to tell people what they can do with their own money

[noamnety]

324. We have to.

We're fucking up the planet, and if we the people don't start telling people they need to leave within acceptable environmental limits, the consequences are going to be ugly.

We no longer have the luxury of pretending rich peoples' lifestyles don't have a permanent effect on the rest of us poor slobs.

[Quixote1818]

329. Sure people have that right. It's called free speech

They don't have to listen and can ignore those who are dying if they want to.

[Morereason]

231. Excellent and logical post!

[bling bling]

83. I believe all your points have already been addressed in my OP.

Not sure if you're not understanding my point because you didn't read it or because I didn't make it clear. I'm going to assume you didn't read it because that will save me a lot of work of explaining things that I feel I've already addressed.

[fujiyama]

161. I understand the point to some extent

The disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in the world is incredibly disturbing and disgusting.

I would even say it doesn't look good because it weakens his argument and in some ways makes him hypocritical (i.e. energy conservation and efficiency).

But we all know very well, that Edwards is living the American dream. Yes, the American dream in large part is about material wealth and success, and we can moan and bitch about that and how materialistic we are. But that's how it is. Most WANT that sort of wealth. Whether most of those would indulge in the excesses of a 10k+ square feet home, I do not know.

But ultimately it is all relative. I'll admit, I like electronic toys and have bought a few thousand dollars worth of it. It gives me value in the entertainment I receive from it. Could it be considered wasteful or excessive? Certainly. That money could have been spent on trying to ease poverty or helping someone in need. But I made a judgment call. It was disposable income and I never claimed to be a saint or an Ascetic. Others have done the same with cars, homes, jewelry, clothes, food/alcohol, etc.

Now, I should actually say that in some ways I appreciate this thread, because in the larger context this excess is a worldwide problem. I was born middle class, in a country where millions of people live in unthinkable poverty (now with a fast economic growth rate), and I've seen people want the American way of life (at least materially), but we all know that resources are not sustainable for that...

[bling bling]

176. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I appreciate thoughtful whether or not we agree on everything.

As a sidenote,
A lot of people have been commenting on the American Dream and tying it to the Edwards house. I guess I just don't think that's what the Dream really meant when that phrase was coined. Isolating yourself from the rest of the community in a 30,000 square foot monster-mansion seems more Neo-American to me.

Personally, I think Kucinich's house is more in line with what I would expect from the people who represent us. I know that he's actually rare among our reps who are very often rich. But his house represents more of what I wish the American Dream was again.



http://www.boston.com/realestate/galleries/pres_res/10.html

[fujiyama]

177. Can't argue at all with ya there

I loved Kucinich's quote in the article. He's not my candidate, but there is a sincerity I don't see with any other candidate.

Here are his words:

"This is a dream house — a house typical of one belonging to people who worked very hard — with their hands, on the steel mills or on the assembly line. They were sometimes first generation, or perhaps had little education. They loved America. They flew the flag and sent their sons to fight and sometimes die for the nation that gave them the opportunity to achieve their dream and that dream, always, was to own a little piece of America — their house."

This talk of homes is interesting, because my parents are selling the home we've lived in for nearly twenty years. They want to move into something larger. I'm staying with them to save money, but I know that for me this smaller ranch home will always be home. I think Kucinich's quote really embodies the spirit of the concept of the ownership society politicians speak of - and more generally the American Dream. My parents were also immigrants. I was born in a different country.
I had a great childhood in this community and many fond memories. Not once do I look back and wonder if it would have been better if the house I lived in was over 2,000 square feet (their new home will be about 2,800).

[Adelante]

201. I was just thinking about this

It was my favorite of the houses in 2004.

[TankLV]

259. Ugh - not me - I think it's downright UGLY.

not good architecture at all...

something to work to CHANGE...

[Raydawg1234]

82. Kind of Ironic, given that these kinds of arguments will end up fucking the poor over in the end

[Morereason]

159. These kind of arguments are what changes the world

If we would have been satisfied 4 years ago we would not be where we are. If we do not continue to push for a moral change then we just end up back where we are.

I will once again ask. What is the difference between this house and driving a hummer? Why would most here feel driving a gas guzzler is wrong, because of greenhouse/resources/etc, but this house is ok? What is the difference? That we favor the person who drives this hummer?

[Control-Z]

84. Oh. My. Fuck.

That is by far the most horrifying image I have ever seen in my life. (and I do not say this lightly)

FUCK, fuck, fuck, fuck fuck!

Go ahead, someone - just try and tell me about god now.

NO ONE. Not even * deserves the fate of that precious little child.

I think I'm going to vomit.

fuck.

[noamnety]

92. There's a movie about the photographer

It's a 2006 academy award nominee. I've been anxiously awaiting the DVD release for almost a year now.

http://kevincarterfilm.com/synopsis.html

[RevolutionStartsNow]

105. What a sad story

I went to the link and read about Kevin Carter. Tragic story of a talented and clearly suffering man.

As a sometime-photographer, I would hesitate to judge him for taking the photo rather than intervening. In context, he found that little girl after wandering into the field away from the crowds of other starving children. It must have been overwhelming for him.

Not many people are built for that sort of work.

[roody]

86. I agree about Edwards.

Is there any renewable energy at this complex?

[undergroundpanther]

87. Some people

Know when they have ENOUGH. The rest they give away with no strings.Others can never acquire too much. These people are treated better than everyone else. They are the wealthy the predator and parasite who like a tapeworm can never get too much of what should belong to all of us.

The time to take it back has long past, the worms have gotten too fat own too much, that we cannot make things right without a fight.

Before there were these "elite"wealthy want more than they deserve types around, before these pigs owned 40% or more of the net wealth and resources on this planet which they keep to themselves,there was enough, not obscene wealth in luxuries, but there was enough for all to survive maybe not as long but the quality of life did not lead to so much addiction consumerism shallowness, sickness, mental illness and stress.

We are confined by the bars of a belief and systematic hierarchical game of social domination by people we do not trust but pretend we do,and it is killing us and this planet.

The rich if they chose to say enough for me, time to share , with what they've stolen and hoarded they could turn this mess around but they'd have to give the colonialist pirate life up and share and not control, and frankly I don't think these obscene, vicious,clannish,frightened, petty, psychopath tapeworms are morally or emotionally mature or capable of doing anything really but making everything worse for everyone but themselves.

They haven't been forced by necessity or need to evolve into compassionate cooperative human beings. Their wealth has insulated them from how harsh reality is for others. In our sick culture this is called being"fortunate". And as long as we let the"fortunate" ones hide in their arrogant ownership of wealth which they love to think they created by themselves, and we let these shallow ignorant wealthy idiots dominate us they will never learn when enough is enough..and they will consume us for profit. Look when they ran out of lands "discover".. They found lands to conquer, than, they began starting wars for profits. Problem Reactiuon Solution.War reconstruction, war.. Soon water will be the next oil.And the Bushes are already banking on it they bought land in Paraguay which happens to sit upon one of the biggest fresh water aquifers in the world. The bushes have NO RIGHT to own that source of water.WE ALL need water to exist.Yet we may very well die of thirst for preserving this stupid self destructive belief..And the bushes will keep on taking and expect we keep on giving.And nothing will change willingly. Until we tell the rich YOU HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

218. WOW! and the truth will set you free... Good one undergroundpanther

[Telly Savalas]

88. Does he let people smoke in the house?

[Clarkie1]

89. Your post is an important message for us all. Thank you. nt

[NoodleyAppendage]

91. Sounds like a DU Kerry Corp member is a bit ticked that his boy dropped out of 2008.

Sour grapes. The difference is: your guy is a poor Presidential candidate and Edwards actually has a fighting chance and view favorably by more individuals.

J

[bling bling]

94. That's funny. Good guess. But no.

Not even close. There really is no ulterior motive. The point of the OP is what is stated in the OP. There's nothing hidden behind it.

[pnorman]

93. That photo really hit me,

and it will be a long time before it'll go away. I traced the URL back to here: http://digitalfilmmaker.net/Bang/bang_frame.html It was shot in 1993, but I hadn't seen it till now. I'm not going to pay much further attention to the thrust of this thread, but thanks for directing me to that photo.

pnorman

[bling bling]

96. Thank you for saying so.

I agree, the thread doesn't matter compared to that picture.

It totally hit me too when I first saw it. Like I said somewhere upthread, I think it even changed my life. It put the world and my place in this world into a different perspective. It made me realize a lot of things. Very powerful.

[ulysses]

195. iirc, the photographer who took it

killed himself not long ago.

[bpeale]

287. the implications

you are implying that he killed himself over a picture he took. and i don't think it says that anywhere. people kill themselves everyday over a myriad of reasons. yeah, and killing himself sure made this starvation situation better now didn't it? i don't believe that is why he killed himself. and no one will probably ever really know why he did it. it's speculation.

[ulysses]

297. I implied nothing of the kind.

Sorry you took it that way. I don't think the picture is why he killed himself either, although I do remember reading in the obit that he'd had a hard time from some folks who felt he should have done something for the child instead of stopping to take a picture.

[Zorra]

97. Using that criteria, Kucinich would be the only acceptable candidate

that is currently running for Prez.

[5X]

100. Maybe he is. n/t

[Codeblue]

115. Yay Kucinich!

But really...Edwards isn't advocating that there should be no rich people. He's not saying that we shouldn't allow people to get rich. What he IS saying is that we should allow ALL people the chance to get rich, something many people in this country currently lack.

So, being rich and building a big house while esposuing these ideas is not hypocritical in the least as far as I can see.

[LynneSin]

182. Using that criteria the homeless person outside my hotel would be the only acceptable candidate

And yes, I gave him a few dollars

[TankLV]

260. Good one. But logic and thinking thru things is not the OP's strong point, aparnetly...

[Jcrowley]

101. It's all connected

as you accurately point out.

[Hawkowl]

103. President not Sainthood

C'mon he's running for president not for the second coming of Christ.

[jen4clark]

108. Why should he be singled out?

People with money do lots worse things with it, and do nothing for those with less than. At least is is using his influence to open dialogue about the class division in this country, which is more than you can say for most wealthy people.

Leave him be.

[SaveElmer]

110. This is no different than anti-choice protestors showing graphic photos...

Of dead fetuses...

You are trying to play on the emotions of people using images that are irrelevant to the problem. The problem is not that there are rich people in the world...the problem is politics, war, exploitation, lack of education, corruption and graft, and an unwillingness on the part of governments in these regions to take responsibility for the welfare of their own populations...and the support of some of these governments on the part of the industrialized world for political reasons (including the U.S.)...but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of John Edwards house or the wealth that that implies...

It's an unfair criticism...and in my opinion a cheap shot!!!

[bling bling]

139. Well if that's how you feel, that's you.

As for me, that's the picture I think about when I think about excess. That's what I said in the OP and it's the truth. It wasn't a cheap shot. This is a very meaningful, important, and serious topic to me.

I don't start a lot of threads here at DU. I don't need attention. I don't "use" photos to manipulate my audience. I was sharing my opinion because this topic happens to be one of a few things I feel passionately about (thanks in part to that picture). And of course John Edwards isn't alone in terms of excessive use and waste of resources. I singled out John Edwards in the particular thread because to me he's being hypocritical. But as I stated in the OP, I have also criticized others for the same thing.

[SaveElmer]

147. I appreciate that you take this seriously...

But frankly...it is a cheap shot...whether you intended it to be or not...

You are attributing famine and poverty to the wrong cause...

[bling bling]

154. But the excess of Americans really does affect the whole world.

And I hear that on DU all the time. Our reckless waste of resources uses materials and pollutes the environment that affects everyone worldwide. And it's emphasized here all the time how our excess actually does contribute to keeping people in other countries in poverty.

The argument I'm hearing today boils down to "Americans can do whatever they want to if they can afford it. Poor people in other countries have nothing to do with us. They should blame themselves." (Granted that was simplistic, but I hope you understand my point).

It's almost surreal.

[SaveElmer]

162. You take the legitimate argument about natural resources...

And first, artificially conflate it with wealth...the accumulation of wealth in and of itself is not incompatible with conservation of resources....

And second, you single out one person unfairly as the representation of this...when in fact, on the balance sheet of contributions and cost, there is no doubt John Edwards has contributed far more than he has taken...

It was a cheap shot directed at John Edwards, using a photograph completely unrelated to him in any way...the clear implication is that John Edwards and people like him are to blame for the horror of that picture...why no criticism from you of the leaders of these countries, who engage in endless wars aimed at the accumulation of power and wealth at the expense of their own populations.

Your argument seems to be that any purchase of a non-essential item is contributing to world poverty...

[bling bling]

171. That's not the implication at all.

But you're attributing motives and implications and summing up my whole argument with assertions that simply aren't true.

My argument is an argument against excess. I've argued against the excessive houses of others right here on GD before so I'm not singling out John Edwards or using him to represent this. I said this in my OP. He's being discussed in this thread because it's relevant, it's in the news right now, and I hear a lot from people about him being a champion of the poor.

Sorry you think the photo was a cheap shot at Edwards. It wasn't. I've posted that photo here before and Edwards name wasn't anywhere in the post. Look it up if you don't believe me.

No, my argument is not that any purchase of a non-essential item is contributing to world poverty. And I'm very disappointed to read that you concluded that that was my argument. I have always respected your point of view and have enjoyed reading your posts. I would have expected you'd have understood my point wasn't that simplistic or black and white. We're talking about 30,000 square feet here. Oh, well. Good night.

[Raydawg1234]

200. just another Self-Righteous hypocrit

[TankLV]

261. You don't "use photos to manipulate my audience"?!?!

THAT'S exactly what you're doing!

And you still don't see it...

[noamnety]

149. You sound as if

you see no connection between rich people and politics, war, and exploitation.

Especially ironic since the rich person we're discussing is a politician who voted for the war. Poor refugees aren't the ones making those decisions.

[SaveElmer]

155. One does not automatically lead to the other....

Wealth in and of itself, is not the cause of war and exploitation...

[noamnety]

157. It's the result, if not the cause.

People get wealthy off the backs of others.

I don't have a problem with him being a lawyer, or with the cases he tried. But realistically, the money that filtered through the cases to him was earned through exploitation by the corporations. That's what the system does. You can't get rich in a vacuum without having someone lower down on the food chain who paid the price for it. The richer you are, the larger the price someone else paid.

Again, for emphasis, that's not a complaint about his previous career - it's not like less exploitation would have occurred if the money had stayed within the corporations that paid him. But we may as well admit he's reaping the benefits of that exploitation now.

[SaveElmer]

165. It's not a zero-sum game...

The accumulation of wealth does not necessarily come at someone elses expense...it can and does, but they are not organically linked...and in fact, the type of exploitation you talk about, is more accurately directed at the corrupt leaders of these countries, who unlike John Edwards, are more interested in the accumulation of wealth and power than in looking after their own populations...

In any case...the picture was a cheap shot...singling out Edwards for particular blame for something he had no part of...

[Raydawg1234]

198. Thats bullshit. Then end result of what you speak leads to socialism.

[Morereason]

221. European pseudo socialism is superior

I have no problem with that, and I think that is a feeling of most here on DU. European style socialism is superior to darwinian capitalism.
It sounds like you have been influenced by corporate dogma. As nice as it sounds it is unsustainable and inefficient. And it does not result in more freedom as can be seen in this period of history. More freedom to get rich

[LeftishBrit]

235. While I disagree with the attacks on Edwards...

what is wrong with socialism? Democratic socialism; not the authoritarian Soviet or Maoist variety.

I suppose that's another thread, though.

I suppose tha

[Raydawg1234]

237. Socialism places to much power in the hands of the government.

Governments are corrupt.

not to mention you have to pay tons in taxes, and it curbs innovation.

[Morereason]

245. So you do not believe in socialized medicine?

[TankLV]

262. not socialism - there's nothing wrong with that - you mean COMMUNISM...

I'd support a move towards socialism...that would be a GOOD thing.

You can be RICH in a socialist society, you know...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. I Would Wager That You Probably Have A Hundred Things Within Your Vicinity That You Could

sell tomorrow and have the cash to donate to help put food in the mouths of starving children. I would bet anything you have things like that around you right now, making you comfortable in ways others aren't. The fact you are on a computer right now is just the beginning in recognizing that.

It's all relative. Someone much further down the class ladder than you could look at you and say the exact same thing.

Are they not as right as you? Is it not relative? Do you think you wouldn't deserve that?

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. Well, Jesus said to sell all your posessions and give the money to the poor

And hold everything that you need to survive in common.

But most liberals who have money reply "well, I'm not
that religious, so I don't believe in that nonsense.
You only believe in it because you're some sort of
COMMUNIST! I maybe a liberal, but I'm still an AMERICAN!"

[mondo joe]

135. Jesus can kiss my ass.

I don't know what Jesus has to do with it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. Yet another postmodern, devoutly secular neoliberal who will probably vote for a rich person in 08

Because "everyone knows values are relative" and
"Bush is only immoral because *I* say he's immoral."

Therefore, if a Democrat, like HRC, acts like Bush,
you have no reason for not supporting her on principle,
because there are no universal, non-physical principles.

The notion of ethics, philosophy, morality, religion,
etc. are not accepted by logical positivism, the doctrine
that only that which is scientifically proven exists.

Therefore only postmodernism, the doctrine of believing
what you CHOOSE to believe in (and you CHOOSE to believe
in both liberalism and logical positivism) can be used
to reconcile liberalism with logical positivism. Because
the combination of liberalism with a modern or pre-modern
world-view requires a belief in the existence of absolutes.

Too bad postmodernism is MUCH easier to reconcile with
neoliberalism, which is why most crusading atheists and
crusading New Leftists become neoliberals later in life.

They start voting their pocketbooks when they realize
that they don't believe in all that garbage about their
own conspicuous consumption causing deprivation elsewhere.

(and you never believed in conspicuous consumption being
an ethical issue, because logically, if one WANTS or NEEDS
something, then it is ACCEPTABLE to have it so long as
you do not actively do harm in the process; ethics being
entirely relative to ones own wants and needs because
according to the atheist, there are no universal
non-physical absolutes.)

[mondo joe]

146. LOL! You're right - I will vote for a rich person. Just like when I voted for Kerry,

and Gore, and Clinton.

You're also full of shit on your other points.

And I'm not anti-religious, just anti-foisting-religion-on-others.

[liberal renegade]

266. Simply put

your a fucking asshole!

[mondo joe]

286. And you can get in line after Jesus.

:-)

[bling bling]

158. I'm not going to go there anymore.

That point has already been made and I've considered it and decided that I still feel the way I do. It's very true that my life is the lap of luxury compared to many. I won't deny that and I can honestly say I've done a great deal of thinking about and acknowleging that fact. And I do what I can financially and I will continue to tie the issue into the political realm of our elected leaders because I think it is relevant. And John Edwards isn't the only one I've had a problem with. I've posted on DU in the past the problem I have with how much our Congress people get paid and the problems I have with the lifelong 100% paid pensions they voted for themselves, etc.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

160. So Hypocrisy Is Ok With You Then. Ok.

I respect you a bit for at least being honest about it.

[Morereason]

163. No hypocrisy there. It is a fact that the world cannot sustain

everyone in a mansion. But it can sustain all of us living moderate and ecologically clean lifestyles.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

166. Blah Blah Blah. Sorry, Totally Irrelevant Argument. Still Hypocrisy.

[Morereason]

169. That is a well thought out argument with my point there....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

170. Damn Right It Is.

Logically and factually accurate too.

:hi:

[bling bling]

164. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Seriously. Your response doesn't make sense to me considering the context of what I posted.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

167. You Stated That You Do In Fact Have Many Relative Luxuries Yourself,

but that even acknowledging that you aren't going to give any of them up to save the same children you try and pull heart strings with in order to vilify Edwards, while stating that you still have no problem vilifying him.

I call that the epitome of hypocrisy, with all due respect.

Off to bed I go. Goodnight.

[bling bling]

172. WTF?!!

Where did I say I wasn't going to give anything up to save children? WTF? That's why I said I wasn't going there. It got wierd earlier too when someone else tried to get me to list out what I spent on my daughter for Christmas and what my mortgage is. As though there's no difference between me buying X-mas presents for my kid and a 30,000 square foot house.

I did state that I have luxuries compared to people in the rest of the world. But I don't know where you got your bizarre accusation about me not giving anything up or sacrifycing anything to help others from.

Goodnight to you too.

[mondo joe]

211. You live a life of decadent excess compared to the kid in the photo.

Why don't you do something about it?

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. American Neoliberals believe that making one person wealthy makes a second person less poor.

It is the "trickle down" economic theory known as "disparate impact".

The idea that the expenditure on luxury goods actually multiplies value.

They do this by double-counting dollars.

I.e. the dollar income of the wealthy person gets used to spend money
on luxury items, thereby creating a salary for someone else, who spends that money on something else, creating a salary for someone else, until the money finally "trickles down" to the poorest of the poor.

The problem with this theory is that they use calculus to add up the money total instead of recognizing that the TOTAL VALUE of money in an economy is VIRTUAL and SHARED by ALL citizens. When dollars "trickle down", it is like damming a stream or diverting a river to irrigate a field. The total money supply gets diverted through the hands of a few, who use up the lion's share of the resources, making some resources too expensive for the poor. Other resources are subsidized, putting farmers in other countries out of business and forced to import food, so we can have cheap, domestically produced grain. When one person is super-wealthy, that simply means they have been given access to more of the pie and the poorest of the poor have been given access to less of the pie. In a "State of Nature" resources would be distributed evenly. That was Marx's theory, but in reality, violence or the threat of violence is the trigger for the creation of aristocracies, which become self-sustaining as soon as the public can be made to accept usury as a non-violent means of keeping the rich rich and everyone else in debt, and shutting out starving people in other countries from their own natural resources by turning them into a neocolonial export-import market that exports all its raw materials and imports all its finished goods and is even forced to import cooked food to replace the fish that are harvested for "export only".

If you think I don't know what I'm talking about,
if you think people like Edwards do not have to sacrifice
in order to make the poor less-poor, or if you think that
it is just a coincidence that politicians happen to be rich:

See the movie DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE, a documentary about poverty, resource distribution, and globalization.

Come back and talk to us after you've seen it.

[Nutmegger]

156. What a disgusting thread. Read more about the man himself

instead of posting an emotionally charged photo to woo opinion.

[Raine]

178. Self-Deleted nt

[LynneSin]

179. This is a bullshit post - seriously!

John Edwards has done alot to help those who are less fortunate than him but personally what he does with his money is his own personal business. Edwards was NOT a 'Silver Spoon' kid but got to where he is today through hard work.

I'm more worried about what our current administration is doing not only to help those in Darfur but hell, those families still without homes from Katrina. Perhaps if someone like Edwards was in the White House he could do something to help this administration.

I don't have John Edwards money but I'm not going post some whiny thread about the fact that he added an extension on to his home. It's money to spend how he likes and I'm sure he's spent plenty to help the poor around the globe.

[BlueCollar]

183. I'm with you

I could not care less about Edwards' house...

I respect him for running to represent me in 04 and again in 08.

If he gets the nomination he'll get my vote in November 08 regardless of the size of his house...

[LynneSin]

184. Me too - I'd be honored to have somone like Edwards as my president

I still haven't figured out who I'm supporting in the primaries but I wouldn't have any problem voting for him at all.

[BlueCollar]

186. I can't either

But living in Texas really makes me want to plaster my Jeep with Hillary and Obama stickers...

:evilgrin:

[Morereason]

215. So many emotional responses....

This thread reminds me of a republican board I sometimes post on. Republicans get so emotionally attached to their ideas and candidates that they cannot admit when there may be an inconsistancy or hypocricy in their stance.
Granted the OP's pic is also emotional. But the points being argued are relevant and appropriate. Calling them bullshit is emotional and irrational.

[Guaranteed]

299. Totally agreed. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

187. Yes! Edwards' house is causing African kids to starve!

And every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.

[bpeale]

228. LOL!

that just shows how stupid this whole premise is. thanks for the laugh! i needed that today.

[Raydawg1234]

196. The "Swiftboating"of John Edwards

[Inspired]

258. As done by Democrats

This is all very shameful actually.

It is a lovely home and I hear it is very green. Not just the roof(!) but in its energy efficiency.

[benny05]

285. No, it's more houseboating

That the Re-thugs started and some closet re-thugs are repeating.

[Justpat]

202. You do not help cure poverty by impoverishing yourself.

I do not believe that to live a life of compassion for those
less fortunate means that I strive to emulate their circumstances.

I can work for social justice from a place of success much
better than one of chaos and deprivation.

I do not help anyone by being less successful that I am
capable of being.

[rman]

204. noone is asking anyone to impoverish him/her self

The rich and the filthy rich could give away millions and billions respectively, and still be rich.

[Guaranteed]

290. Sure, but one could merely choose to live modestly.

I don't see the OP calling for everyone to sell all their belongings and send the money eastward.

But modest living, by choice, is one of those things that is easily passed over where there are opportunities to do otherwise.

[Maraya1969]

203. Oh my God in Heaven I have never seen a picture like that. It should

be on billboards. Send it around in emails without the Edwards part. It is so motivating....I'm donating again to Darfur.

What Edward's does with his house is of no consequence right now. Right now what are we going to do to help?

[rman]

205. Not fair to single out Edwards

But the basics of the issue is entirely appropriate.

[Neshanic]

208. You are absolutely right. The Edwards supporters are stunned and in denial.

I would be. How can you explain this, but then attack republicans. At least the republicans are in your face about it.

I wonder when the golf holes go in? A person of the people, and the champion of two Americas cannot be seen with the riff raff of the local country club, let alone a public course.

The Big Dog would just play a public course.

[mondo joe]

210. BS. I'm not even an Edwards suppporter and I have no problem with it.

You're making shit up.

[sellitman]

212. I think what he did was politically stupid but.....

you mean to tell me only poor people can try to help their fellow man? From what I know Edwards got nothing handed to him on a silver platter and (Like jr) if wants to live in a huge house so be it. I'm sure he gives to more charities than most. Your post in disingenuous to the many people of wealth who do care.

[Wednesdays]

213. Well, so far I'm neutral on Edwards' candidacy...

but if he can make this country--and the world--a much better place, I'll allow him the freakin' Taj Mahal.

[The Rubicon]

232. Original Post

If you find images like this disturbing, you may just want to kill yourself sooner vs. later. The planet has overshot its carrying capacity by about 5,000,000,000 people. The only reason this was even possible was because of cheap and abundant energy. Once we begin our descent down the energy curve, well......
you get the picture.

[Neshanic]

233. Some of us can move in with the Edwardses hopefully. They have wells.

That would be quite a movie.

"The Edwards Farm"

"Some Democrats are more equal than others"

[ShaneGR]

238. So its bad that Edwards went from rags to riches??

I think your argument is that no one should enjoy the fruits of the labor because people are poor somewhere else. That's a communist principle.

[Raydawg1234]

239. Bingo. Noticed that a lot lately on DU.

[noamnety]

246. RED SCARE!!!!

Perhaps you should consult with McCarthy.

[ShaneGR]

322. Woh

Hold on a second. My intention was not to call anyone a communist. My intention was to point out that the OP is stating that because Mr. Edwards has money and bought a big house he's unsuitable for political office. Byproxy, anyone who has money and spends it on nice things isn't viable either because there are poor people out there who could use his money to buy better houses. That's communism.

[Raydawg1234]

240. What about Ned Lamon?? Everyone here supported him when he ran against

Lieberman. He was rich. The charges you raise against Edwards are just like the charges the RW'ers made against Lamont.

maybe these topics were started by infiltrators

[Raydawg1234]

241. What about Ned Lamon?? Everyone here supported him when he ran against

Lieberman. He was rich. The charges you raise against Edwards are just like the charges the RW'ers made against Lamont.

maybe these topics were started by infiltrators

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

242. Sacrifice the payment of your monthly internet bill plus your computer costs.

If you ask others to sacrifice, do the same thanks.

[TankLV]

249. I nominiate this for the most STUIPID and IGNORANT post ever...

now that Kerry's out, nobody else to bitch about?

just guessing...

[bpeale]

270. i agree

seems like you folks just don't have enough to do with yourselves

[huskerlaw]

306. Agreed.

All of these Edwards-is-screwing-the-poor posts are patently ridiculous.

If people with money should be giving it all to the poor/needy instead of building a large house, we should be attacking, well, pretty much everyone in government.

Bill Clinton? Big-ass house in New York.
John Kerry? Huge house in Massachusetts.

None, and I mean NONE of the presidential candidates are living in a 2 bedroom shack.

Only one of them has dedicated the vast majority of his time to people living in poverty though...and oddly, he's the one getting attacked.

By people who seemingly haven't done shit for the poor themselves.

Ridiculous.

[Bombtrack]

252. Unless you have MC Hammer-like real estate judgement, super-expensive houses usually aren't a waste

of money.

There are plenty of villifyable things that the rich spend their money on in this country (as well to a lesser degree a big percent of the middle class), but things that are genuinely investments shouldn't be where you start complaining. Things that stupid people look at as investments like cars and jewlery - there you go.

[TankLV]

264. Besides, you can affect the lives of other more from a position of wealth than of scarcity...

And Edwards has POSITIVELY affected the lives of MANY.

MORE than the OP can even DREAM of her doing...

[Justpat]

274. Thank you.

That is what I was trying to say in my post above, but you
said it better.

[Buzz Clik]

278. And we wonder why the knuckledraggers think we're a bunch of socialists.

[Hekate]

279. How big is the Kennedy compound? We throwing out those friends too?

Was Bobby Kennedy supposed to send his children to pick lettuce with Cesar Chavez instead of sending them to private school? Is Ted Kennedy supposed to -- do what to show his solidarity with the common man? Any ideas there?

The Kennedy clan inherited its fortune from a rum-runner with sharp business practices. And John D. Rockefeller Senior was one of the _real_ Robber Barons who built his fortune on the backs of the laboring poor. Should we spurn the good works of his descendents?

John and Elizabeth Edwards have themselves a compound, which they bought with money they earned themselves. Doing good. They did well by doing good. In the first generation of their wealth.

If they sell everything they own and follow Christ barefoot, how exactly is that going to help anyone else? They are not stealing from the poor with this bit of ostentation. If the rest of their lives follows the pattern of the first part, they will continue to act in ways that benefit the rest of mankind. And then Jesus can judge them when it's over.

Hekate

[Guaranteed]

280. Bling bling, you've forgotten that this argument only applies to Republicans.

God forbid we hold ourselves to rights.

That said, I think you were a little harsh on Edwards: "It tells me that he's not truly willing to sacrifice anything himself for his cause." You have to watch how you phrase these things- people probably reacted badly to one or two lines in your post, more than anything, and this is how the post turned out.

Anyway, I don't have much respect for Edwards, with the simplest reason being because of what he did with his talents. Good lawyers don't have to make tons of money as a matter of law. But he grew up poor. Perhaps his goals in life were different than people who had it better. And I'm betting that he probably has given a lot to charity.

In the end, though, seeing pictures like the ones from Darfur and knowing how well we live, and how unbelievably luxuriously a few of us live, really, does show a lack of truly righteous values in our society. If we were better people, we would do more, spread our wealth around. But it doesn't mean that we are horrible people just because we don't take such affirmative action. We're human. We're flawed: selfish, weak. We can't be held responsible as long as we're not God him/herself.

[bling bling]

303. Very nicely put.

I've been pretty much done with participating in this thread as it seems to have gone to the dogs now who just want to impress themselves by using one liners to insult me and then high five each other.

But I do appreciate your points, and I agree with them all.

[stevietheman]

281. I don't understand criticizing how somebody spends their own money.

It's not like he's a multi-billionaire.

[Guaranteed]

288. There are a lot of Bush/Cheney-esque talking points in this thread.

Republican economics have slowly seeped into our thinking.......

And they are quite useful sometimes.

[citizen snips]

312. Edwards earned it

Bush did absolutely nothing to earn his wealth.

[Quixote1818]

330. So now that he is wealthy he can do what ever he wants?

Cut down 50,000 trees, use extra energy and pollute the environment, hoard his wealth? Sure he can do those things but he is losing my respect.

[Guaranteed]

294. Possibly a good way of putting this may have been

"Which of the two Americas does Edwards live in?"

Listen to the arguments being made against his very ideas on this thread, in his defense.

[jpgray]

308. Which of the two did FDR live in?

He did more for the poor of this country than you ever can or will. Living in luxury doesn't preclude you from being able to help the poor. By your rationale, all rich people could just say they have no intention of ever doing anything for the poor, for fear of being called hypocrites. This black & white concept of "you must give all to the poor or shut up about trying to help them" is so idiotic I can't even believe DU came up with it.

[Guaranteed]

315. So, you're saying that people should just talk about helping the poor,

but not actually do it?

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.

If FDR could have done more to help the poor, he could have done more. That's all it is- and you just have to take it for what it's worth. It's not even a "should," necessarily. He made a helluva difference as it was, surely. And I'm not saying that that doesn't excuse him from doing more.

The question is merely whether more could have been done. Again, for whatever it's worth.

[jpgray]

316. It would be nice, but I'm troubled by people saying he shouldn't have done anything

As though being rich and doing x amount is almost worse than doing nothing at all. We all could do more to help the poor--with no exceptions.

[Guaranteed]

318. I think that's the crux of it-

We each have to determine what it is that we can afford to do to help others- if we want to do anything at all. I don't think that people should have to live miserably, or even below a certain level of reasonable comfort, so that others might live in the same way. People shouldn't feel compelled to sacrifice their own happiness for the sake of others. But I do think that being a good person *might* entail, in part, making a rough approximation of where that line is, and giving the excess to those who truly do need it.

[rhombus]

295. Bigger question: Has Edwards ever taken a truly risky position in his life?

Has he truly laid it down on the line - ie when its not personally beneficial to him (huge trial lawyer compensation) or politically expedient for him (voted for the Iraq war before he was against it), now talks about poverty when he's running for president again (not once did I ever hear him talk about poverty when he was in the senate - oh, he voted for the egregious bankruptcy bill by the way), on and on.



About the excessive mansion of his, I wouldn't have a problem with it if he hadn't made the two americas his campaign theme. It just reeks of being two-faced.

[WI_DEM]

298. and during the depression FDR often visited his Hyde Park mansion!

the shame of it.

[Herman74]

301. John Edwards proves there are 2 Americas. He talks of one...

...and lives the other.

Hey, Democrats can be selfish too.

[mondo joe]

309. You don't understand the Two Americas. His point isn't that everyone should be poor.

It's that everyone should have the opportunity to make good, as he has.

[rhombus]

317. Amen

Couldn't agree more.

[huskerlaw]

304. And he has the NERVE to want an even bigger house!

A big WHITE one.

Where he'll be carted around in gas-guzzling SUVs and limos.

And then there's the 3 airplanes, and the helicopter he'll get...

What a jackass.

:sarcasm:

Meanwhile, I am to assume that you have given every single spare cent you've made to the homeless?

Cuz if not, well, the word "hypocrite" springs to mind...

[jpgray]

307. By that rationale, FDR is a worthless shit who should have been shamed out of politics

Yet, for all his wealth and luxury, he did more for the poor than you ever can or will do. That's what political power can do in this country, and the fact that you're shitting all over the -one- mainstream politician who cares about poverty is almost as disgusting as your ghoulish misuse of the above photo.

[barb162]

332. and JFK and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson...

[WHAT]

313. SPAM

ignore

[and-justice-for-all]

320. In this day and age...

..With the Technologies and Medical advances we have, no one should have to be hungery, illness or be left to suffer for any reason.

All the money spent to wage senceless wars could have helped to feed over half of Africa or the entire Dafur region. Maony that could have been put to actual good use rather then spent on warmongering...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

321. Quite possibly the most idiotic post in DU history

I don't even know what to say in response. I can only assume that you're fourteen years old and haven't lived long enough to have a more mature opinion.

John Edwards is a millionaire many times over, and he could simply says "screw the poor" and live a comfortable life in a gated community. He's chosen to do otherwise -- dedicating his public life to making a difference in the lives of people far less fortunate than himself. I say this not because I support Edwards for President (which I do) but because any Democrat in the race has a similar story to tell. Hillary, Obama, Gore, Kerry -- all of them are talented and lucky and wealthy enough to ignore the suffering of others. But they don't.

It's the Democrat Way.

...yes, I left the "ic" off on purpose. Fuck 'em!

[Richardo]

323. Surpassed only by "Goodbye, Daddy"

Thanks, Jeff :patriot:

[Mick Knox]

334. So.. what has he done for us lately?

Especially in terms of Getting the fuck out of Iraq..

Besides possibly support attacking Iran, of course.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

335. I'm not sure if you noticed this or not...

BUT HE'S NOT IN THE FREAKING SENATE RIGHT NOW!!! So his list of things he can do to "get us the fuck out of Iraq" is only slightly longer than yours and mine.

[Robson]

336. Make The Swift Boaters Proud

Yep....the Democrats (and my Grandpa called himself a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T for 60 years). BTW Democrat doesn't need an "ic" on the end.

The democrats are going to swift boat each of the candidates until none of them look. That's my prediction.

I'd like to see a President come out of a log cabin and have a lifestyle that is totally without hypocrisy, but it ain't gonna happen when it takes half a billion to run for office.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

338. It's an adjective

"ic" comes from latin grammar, and it's the suffix "ic" used to make adjectives out of nouns (with the mean "of or pertaining to.")

Those who use the phrase "Democrat Party" are not only mouth-breathing conservative assholes, they're also sub-literate.

[Bridget Burke]

337. "Bling bling" means excess.

That's the term--not the OP.

Let's see where you live & let's see exactly what sacrifice for poverty. Don't be shy. Details, please!

Edwards was a bit young to risk his own life back in Vietnam.