This Edwards "House" Debate Is Disgusting

[ruggerson]

It's his money. He earned it in our capitalistic, free market economy.

Would you rather have him living in a big house and NOT trying to change the world for the better?

Sometimes, certain DU'ers act like South Park caricatures of liberals.

Being wealthy is not a crime.

Being wealthy and trying to give back to the society that provided you the means to your wealth is both noble and heartening.

Good for John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Nutmegger]

1. I stand with the Edwards, not smear them.

:wtf: is going on here?

[NanceGreggs]

2. And good for you for saying so.

:toast:

[ChenZhen]

32. Its a wonderful and valid debate

Being progressive, should we categorize any debate as "disgusting"?

Undoubtedly, this issue remains a very intriguing debate on many levels, and it is a debate which should – and must – progress at this time in our country. But to even begin examining the issues, I assert that we must first deconstruct the “Truths” we know about our societies by defining and examining common terms and concepts before we can even hope to initiate a fair and constructive exchange. Otherwise, we will all be caught hiding behind a curtain of relativism that will obscure our views. That being, our arguments will hinge upon premises (capitalism, property, rights, earnings) one must first believe and mindlessly accept before it can make any coherent sense at all (much like religion).

But first, we should ask, did he “Earn” it, and more importantly, what is “Earning”? I find it permissible to initially define earning as ‘the acquisition of property or capital by one's efforts or actions’. Well, we can most certainly agree that, besides any inherited property, he most certainly exchanged his ability to work for a monetary reward, which would meet this definition sufficiently by tautology. But this in itself does not necessarily place any inherent value on the concept of “Earning” (and such entitlement that may implicitly be derived from it).

To probe further, I must ask: could he have “earned” such money if there was no electrical power in the courtroom, if there were no workers to have built that courtroom, if there was not workers’ taxes used to pay for the courtroom’s construction and operation, if there were not police to ensure the order and security of the courtroom were in place, if there were not roads leading to that courtroom to allow him to get there, and importantly, if the companies he tried were not wealthy enough to pay damages he enjoyed a percentage of (and they were in fact wealthy from the labor of their employees). The conditions for Edwards to “earn” this money were sustained by the labor of ordinary, hard working Americans, who may have put in as many hours as he did, but earned significantly less than he did during this time period.

So how exactly can you universally quantify the value of labor, and justify how just two men who are working just as hard and who may be just as smart and in charge of the same amount of responsibilities can have a disparity in their income that may commonly be a difference by as much as a factor of 400 (especially when he who is earning so much more depends directly on the other’s labor to earn such)? Universally, from a rudimentary human context, you cannot. There is no universal equation to prove to anyone why John Edwards has “earned” a home that is at least 20 times as expensive and large as the average American’s.

It is only within a capitalistic system that you can create concepts to justify such a disparity. Edwards may have been gifted with a talent that was in high demand, but in short supply. Therefore, the market would bare a heavy load for his labor, and via capitalism, this may partially work to explain why he has “earned” such amount and may keep and enjoy such amount as he sees fit (but I guess if we recognize genetic gifts and opportunity as influences in life, this all begins to look more like a lottery). Further, we must also ignore the fact that many untalented people may find legacy pushing them into such high paying jobs, and many untalented people are also blessed with rather large trust funds. These two exceptions put a wrinkle into our idea of “earning” among the rich and their natural entitlement to spend it as they may.

But alas, we must agree that it is only within this not-so-shiny and not-so-perfect (from a philosophical standpoint) system of capitalism that John Edward’s has definitely “earned” this money (never mind the quantification of labor issue). And it is in the beauty of capitalism that such great people like Edwards can rise and flourish. You see, here we have system of labor controlled by the owners and supported by the labor of the ownerless—two classes of people who are separated by a long dark chasm. On one side, you see people live luxuriously, constantly profiting and ensuring their posterity a firm position in their class. On the other, you see people laboring from paycheck to paycheck, working just as hard and entrenching themselves further into their mundane and sometimes depraved position. It is quite an amazing system, isn’t it?

The problem with this approach is that we can really only live in a capitalistic system if most everyone agrees to do so and believes in it. But why would this poor working class agree to be taken advantage of, to be stomped on, abused, and to never be rewarded proportionally to their labor? Perhaps fear, perhaps security, maybe ignorance of their position, or maybe it simply gives them an opportunity to, if they can at least live comfortably, a chance to focus on what they enjoy (family, friends, recreation). And why would an upper class that seems to be obsessed with “more” be so generous as to grant the lower class enough to be comfortable? Well, firstly, they need them for productive labor, and secondly, they need them to be lawful and respect the concept of “property rights”. This is a symbiotic relationship between the two classes, where they are cooperatively extorting each other for what they both need (the rich need labor and order, and the poor need security and enough to be comfortable). Some people refer to this as a “social contract”.

So only if both parties are bound to this “social contract” can anyone “earn” and “possess” anything. Otherwise, for example, if I was not bound by such, I could take my neighbor’s car, despite the labor that he expressed to purchase such. So again, it is only by the workers’ consent that John Edwards could earn or retain any of the money or property that he has thus far. If the workers were to disagree, an army of them could storm his gates and take everything, including the doorknobs on his new large playhouse.

But nonetheless, these workers are not in arms, and they are not storming any property of the owners. Rather, they are respecting the “social contract” and respecting “property rights”. That is their end of the bargain, isn’t it? But what is John Edwards’ end?

I see so many people state, “He earned it” and “It’s his ‘right’ to spend it as he sees fit”. I assert that it is not his right to spend all of it as he sees fit at all, according to this very contract that he is grossly benefiting from. John Edwards must, in order to honor his end of the social contract, provide some tiny percentage of his earnings to the workers so that they may maintain the comfortable, secure living standard that they sacrificed “fairness” to make. In other words, he must sufficiently pacify the masses and meet their implicit threat of force with the minimal necessary. Otherwise, there is no “social contract” (it is in breach), there is no order, there is no respect of property rights, there is no security, and John Edwards would own nothing again (because the masses would take it with a vengeance).

Of course, Edwards can not specifically calculate and distribute accordingly on his own. It is an overall movement that his class must participate in to avoid anarchy. They must provide services, education, security, employment, health care, etc. In other words, they must provide “liberalism” in proportion to their excessive wealth or they face the threat of revolt from the labor class.

Suffice to say, I do not find that the upper-class, whether they “earn” it or inherit it, has an entitlement to spend as much as they want as they want, period. They may certainly spend a massive amount of this money, but must do so only in a way that there is a percentage left over to provide the basic services required and demanded by the workers. A failure to do so is clearly a breach of contract and a dissolution of their right to possess property.

In conclusion, John Edwards may have worked, and been given money in exchange for that (“earning”), but his job depending upon the labor of thousands of people who worked as hard and were not awarded proportionally for (outside of a capitalistic calculation). Further, he is not entitled to recklessly throw it all away on luxuries without breaching the very agreements that enabled him to profit in such a manner. Many would suggest we are already in a basic breach of our overall “social contract”, so spending such as this is just a further slap in the face of the laboring class that continues to loyally uphold their end.

The only reason I am bringing up these points, rather than if it is “right” or “wrong” is simply to inspire some of those who feel he has made no violation of capitalism to think beyond what is merely socially acceptable, and rather, focus on the very fabric those societies are built upon to see how such actions and thinking impacts everyone and the order.

Now in terms of this particular example being “right” or “wrong”, in my opinion, it does not matter because I have no answer. I cannot even define “excess” universally whatsoever or attempt to construct an argument based on such (you all need to decide individually if 20 times the cost and size of an average home is excessive). I do believe that “excess” is relative and somewhat personal. Further, I can guarantee you that to me, in my tiny worldview, this is absolutely “excessive”. With that said, in terms of politics, voting, etc…wouldn’t it be hard for me to support a man who makes a choice I judge too “excessive” to be able to relate to my people, my class and our problems?

Of course, I doubt I am swaying any opinion of the “Go Edwards” or the “Go Capitalism” crowd, but that is how things go…

[crispini]

36. Welcome to DU!

Oh, and good post, by the way. You should add it to your journal. I can tell you're going to be quite a writer.

We are now seeing a disparity in American society, a gap between rich and poor--- the last time it was this large was back in the guilded age.

[noamnety]

74. Thank you

Excellent post. Entitlement might they key word there, given the opinion of some here that people are entitled to "earn" as much wealth as they can, and entitled to use that money to consume whatever they can. Everyone is entitled to have an SUV if they can afford it, entitled to control as big a share of resources as they can while others do without basic needs.

[saltpoint]

3. It does NOT surprise me to log onto DU and find ruggerson

making good sense, as always.

But it does delight me.

Good post.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. Nice house

Good for them. It's not my style. If I had his bucks, I'd be more the "deluxe apartment in the sky" type. But whatever floats his boat. If Edwards has David Bonior working for him, he can't be all bad.

[LiberalFighter]

68. If I had the money I would be finding a home with a little bit more room

With a bit more space around me too.

[Erika]

5. I'd say DU trolls had a field night tonight

The Edwards are beautiful people who have endured much tragedy. May the moderators keep track.

[LuckyTheDog]

9. Elizabeth Edwards seems very cool

My heart is still with Barack Obama. But I sure do like John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Erika]

10. Obama is great also.

He's really gotten a rock star quality about him. He's like Edwards, they represent the American spirit and sense of optimism, regardless of the hurdles put before them.

[Reterr]

12. Rock star quality?

Is that all you want in a president :shrug:?

[Erika]

28. He's a class act with rock star quality like JFK

You have a problem with that?

[Clark2008]

48. I do.

He doesn't have the foreign policy sense that JFK had, as evidenced by his position on Iran, and, therefore, to compare him to JFK is to degrade JFK's legacy.

[otohara]

6. Debate is Disgusting

might as well close down this website.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Debate is good ...

This nonsense isn't debate.

[Reterr]

11. Why is discussing the actual environmental potential of a possible

future president disgusting? Is it only "debate" if everyone is sitting at a round table agreeing that Bush sucks?

[RoyGBiv]

13. Do you read this site?

Have you seen the number of nonsense threads on this?

How many of them are actually focused on the environmental impact of this house. Does the word "ostentatious" fit in that discussion in any way? Be specific, please. And while you're at it, how many of those threads actually examine the environmental impact of a house as compared to, oh, cows and the fact that pasture land consumes almost as much of the earth's surface as glaciers? Finally, how many of these threads focus on the actual problem of the environmental impact of housing as opposed to trying to tear down a single individual?

You want to have that discussion, fine, have that discussion. What we have here tonight is not that discussion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. You forgot all the airconditioning in Texas.

We'll all have to move out.

[Radio_Lady]

38. How about the heating in Washington, DC? It must cost a fortune to heat

the leaky old White House.

Incredible! :sarcasm:

[BlackVelvet04]

65. Most of the nonsense threads I have seen

are the ones tearing down the people who think a house this size is an environmental issue.

[Lost-in-FL]

14. We have a present President destroying the environment

by being lenient on how corporations are managing waste. Edwards home won't DESTROY the environment! I think all this argument is ridiculous and it is only dividing liberals. My guess is that the same people who allowed 2000 to happen are those screaming for Edwards' head.

[PVnRT]

41. I'm sure Gore leaves no footprint whatsoever

:eyes:

[NYCGirl]

73. Yes, the Gores are carbon neutral.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/ait_carbon_neutral.php

[jannyk]

19. No, it's pure envy n/t

[RiverStone]

26. And quit so easily? Alas I'm far more optimistic...

Yea, folks are sure all over the place on this one.

But way beyond the merits (or stupidity) of the debate - I remind myself of one over riding and compelling point:

That with all the divisiveness we sometimes see on DU, when the rubber met the road last November, not ONE DEM incumbent lost anywhere from sea to shining sea. We totally ROCKED and unified and WON big!

So I'm very grateful we do not march in lock step at DU; and I'll tolerate the BS we sometime have to wade through - cause we are much more alike in values then apart.

Thats a very good thing indeed :) Why ever shut down such a good thing?


peace~

[RoyGBiv]

7. It's worse than disgusting ...

What word to use, I have no idea, but whatever it is, that's it.

I had an idiot trap me today (a customer, so I couldn't go off on him) talking about Nancy "Pelowski" and how she was a draft dodger. Yes, he said "draft dodger." He hates her for what she and her "Demo-Communist" party has done to the economy. (This man is on food stamps and medical disability, btw, yet another imbecile who has somehow come to the conclusion that the political party responsible for his ability to live is evil ... hell, maybe he's right if this is what it produces ... but I digress.)

So, I listen to this as long as I had to, finally got the dumbass ushered out the door, left work, came here to vent/releax, and I found this idiotic "debate."

Geezus, I just want to give up some days.

[Turn CO Blue]

24. The word to use? Sour grapes or self-righteous priggishness

This place has its strange days, I'll tell you.

[RoyGBiv]

25. Indeed ...

This is one of the strangest I have encountered.

I really should go do something else ... anything else.

[petronius]

72. Is there any possible way that a woman could be a "draft dodger"?

:shrug:

[Kukesa]

86. Please don't give up, Roy.

There are some here on DU who read your posts and find them intelligent, insightful, well thought-out and often inspirational. We need you.

[skipos]

15. And Bill Clinton can get blowjobs from whoever he wants

and Bill Richardson can weigh as much as he wants.

The bottom line is that unfortunately, our candidates are always going to have their private lives scrutinized, and it is going to effect how many people end up supporting them.

However, I think any candidate who wants to sell the idea that they are a champion of the poor and a friend of the environment would have an easier time doing it if they live simply. I don't expect most, if any, of our candidates to do this though.

Edwards in in my top three right now, btw.

[xchrom]

35. two really good advocates for the poor in the last century

and one into this century were/are fdr and jimmy carter.

neither were/are poor.

[phylny]

40. Ted Kennedy ain't hurting for cash, either, and it was HIS voice on the Senate floor

lambasting the Republics and supporting the working man.

I'm with you, being rich doesn't mean that you don't care about and won't help others.

[Clark2008]

50. Yeah, but I would argue that Jimmy Carter worked harder

than Edwards or FDR.

He was a farmer, for Chrissake!

[xchrom]

55. what matters is having an effective advocate.

i'm not measuring sizes here -- i'm with the person who is on the side of what's right and acting on that.

[Truthiness Inspector]

16. The Edwards Family are great

and even with all the jokes/jabs the point is well-taken.

It causes us to evaluate things, which is a good thing.

[oasis]

17. John's special gift to Elizabeth after all they've been through. That's how I

see it. John probably knew that such an immense dwelling place would cause an uproar, but he chose to build a sanctuary for his beloved wife.

[RoyGBiv]

20. Possibly ...

But what strikes me about this is the suggestion he may have known such an uproar would have occurred. Oh, sure, maybe if he'd been sitting around thinking of every absurd possibility for what the attack machine might possibly use against him, he might have thought about it, but in the grand scheme of things and the number of possibilities available, I doubt this was high on his list.

I don't mean that as a challenge to you. I'm just making an observation.

As a part of that observation, when, ever, has this ever been an issue for a Presidential candidate? Hell, the news media fawn approvingly over the Bush's various homes. Has anyone all up in arms about this ever seen the "seaside cottage" at Kennebunkport? I guess Dems haven't been on the ball with criticism of Bush the younger for his ownership of a friggin' ranch that isn't a ranch. We've made fun of it, sure, but we never seemed to focus on the environmental impact of the thing, which some people are now trying to say is the real issue here.

Makes one wonder why all those voices that are so concerned over the Edwards home haven't spoken up about this in, oh, the last 6 years.

I firmly believe this was a seed planted so that a lot of us would react in precisely the way we have. Get us bitching about nonsense and tear it all down, ignoring what's going on over the wall, so to speak. We've been played ... well.

[oasis]

21. This is a case of Edwards putting his family's needs over his presidential ambitions.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here because there is a very short list of reasonable explanations.

Btw, I'm primarily a Hillary supporter, but I hate to see any of our guys get a hatchet job done on them.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Reasonable explanations?

If Edwards has to come up with a "reasonable explanation" for that home, then so does pretty much every other candidate, past and present, for a lot of offices, including Hillary. I'm not saying this so-called "environmental" issue isn't valid, just not in this context and not directed at a single individual. Hell, look at pictures of Gore's home.

Some perspective would be nice.

FWIW, I'm not a "supporter" of anyone at the moment. Nothing I've said has anything to do with my preferences. I'm commenting on the relevance of this issue to anything. I wouldn't care who this is. As you note, it's a "hatchet job." Fluff and nonsense.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. What, exactly, are we debating?

I see the threads but can't imagine opening them.

Americans don't hold material success or wealth against anyone. Certainly not in a presidential nominee. Anyone who thinks this will work against Edwards during a campaign is a rank fool.

He can smile and he can talk. That's called likability and teflon and an edge. Put him on Jay Leno and I guarantee Edwards will not only willingly talk about his excess, he'll bring more pictures in his back pocket. Brag about the place. Say he couldn't be happier with it. Talk about the process of picking out the property and designing the house. Anecdotes about his children on the property. By the end of the segment he'll be in better shape than going in.

[earth mom]

22. I can't believe people are buying into and feeding this kind of rethuglican meme.

It's disgusting. What is this-freeperville or what?! :wtf:

Big deal. Edwards is well off. And so is the rest of the people in Congress. Not only that but * & Co are OBSCENELY rich-a lot more than Edwards no doubt! Frankly, I'd rather have a well off man like Edwards or Gore in charge of the money. At least they will do some good for the middle class and the poor and for our earth instead of robbing us all blind like the rethugs have.

[Erika]

29. I think some red trolls are being seen

for the first time.

[Duppers]

30. KERRY'S HOUSES?

How many political figures have "estates" and they're not being bashed!

I bet Kennedy doesn't live in small digs either.

This is NOT an issue, UNLIKE Edwards' statement of "leave all options on the table."
For that one, I've withdrawn my support of John Edwards.

[Mass]

61. Kerry and Kennedy are not telling us they live like us!!

Though I agree I am more concerned by the various foreign policy statements.

[Riddler]

87. None of them "live like us"

We were all outraged at famine when it struck other parts of the world, but how many of us stopped eating?

We are all outraged by genocide when it happens in other parts of the world, but how many of us actually let it interfere with our daily lives?

We all have compassion for the poor, but how many of us have given up their cars, their homes, etc. to validate their compassion?

The Kennedy's and the Kerry's may not say outright that they "live like us", but neither have they earned the massive fortunes they now have like Edwards has.

I don't give a flip if John Edwards lives in a one-room apartment above the post-office or a 30,000 square foot mansion in the country. I'll take his compassion, vision, intelligence, and caring for the people any day to the travesty we have now.

[Digit]

31. My Republican boss showed me the Drudge report on JE's home

So what? Big whoop.

[hfojvt]

33. that's npt a satisfying answer to me

I'm gonna start my own thread.

[Old and In the Way]

34. I agree.

Obviously, we are seeing the start of the primary implosion. I'm sure each candidate will be critiqued as not being Democratic enough to suit some here. Oh well, comrade, carry on.

[salin]

37. absurd is a good description of the discussions, imo. n/t

[MadHound]

39. Yeah, but many of us find such ostentacious displays of wealth, and waste of energy

In a time of increasing global climate change and looming Peak Oil just a bit off-putting. I mean really now, what is the purpose of having a 10,000 sq foot house? A quarter acre worth of floor space. Wasting all that energy to heat and cool what, air.

Sorry, but it kinda shoots any conservation, alternative energy plan that he comes up with in the foot. How can he look Americans in the face and ask them to conserve when he's wasting energy himself? How can he ask for Americans to create less greenhouse gases when he's making more than his own fair share?

It is the double standard that is galling.

[Dover]

42. Here's what I find interesting about the Edward's house picture

It seems to me an indication that he's anticipating BIG changes for himself...a very bright future indeed. It looks like a compound, not unlike Bush's Crawford ranch. And Bush began plans for his 'southern white house' while still governor, also seeming to anticipate big changes for himself.
I know several N. Carolinians who are very disappointed about all this. I think we all need to pay attention to someone's actions as well as their words to see if they match up. I don't think Edwards will be able to sell himself as a Wendy's kinda guy after this. Nor an environmentalist.
If that seems strange to some people, well sorry. But there is a dissonance that is created when people say one thing and do another. People make note of it, and these things change perceptions.
To what degree it changes them is variable.

And the real irony, from an environmentalist point of view, is that Bush's ranch was built much more sustainably than Edward's, as far as I can tell. But that may have been a ploy by Bush to co-opt the strong environmentalist lobby, or at least ease their minds. I think there may have been some rumors flying at about the same time (which were quickly squashed) that Bush had been entertaining proponents of privatization of national parks which had sent up big alarms in the environmental community. But nothing a little rain catchment system couldn't quell.

[mmonk]

43. I was thinking more in the lines of silly.

[stewert]

44. I Totally Agree

Why should it matter how big of a house he has, who gives a shit. I suspect the people who post about it are trolls, if they are Democrats, they are idiots for caring how big his house is.

Why would anyone care how big of a house he is building, wealthy people can still be good Democrats, and campaign on issues that relate to the poor.

[Dinger]

45. I Don't Have A Problem With It

Their family is wealthy, they have earned it, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they change/convert their home so that it is energy efficient, and they would probably use alternative energy to do it.

[Unvanguard]

46. The problem with your argument

is in the very first sentence - the implication that "it's his money" (as in: we cannot object to what he does with it) follows from "he earned it in our capitalistic, free market economy."

The fact that he acquired the money in our economy does not mean that he has no obligation to use it for the welfare of others, instead of for his personal exclusive benefit. If anything, the fact that he acquired the money in an economy as inequitable and unjust as ours would lead to the conclusion that he has a GREATER obligation to use it for the welfare of others.

For what it's worth, I think it's fairly pointless to attack Edwards for being obscenely rich when most of the alternatives are obscenely rich as well. Better to attack the system for always selecting from the rich ruling class in the first place.

[Clark2008]

47. Why aren't we debating what he said about Iran?

It's much more important and speaks volumes more about his inabilities to understand foreign policy than whether he bought a mansion or a hovel.

[The Count]

49. Or what he didn't say about the 2004 theft? Or sponsoring IWR?(not explained)

I am bewildered about the lack of interest in actions who would actually be relevant to his judgements, actions as POTUS.

[Clark2008]

51. Thank you.

His house is of no concern of mine. I don't care where lives.

What I do care about is his chameleon-like positions (plural) on issues of diplomacy, national security and foreign policy. It's one thing to change with the changing positions that world events dictate, it's quite another to change for each and every group you're hoping to make points with.

[Mass]

63. I agree, but this is also the chameleon aspect of the Edwards.

A few weeks ago, they were going around telling us they were like us, were eating at Wendy's and shopping at Target.

I guess the only reason the house has that type of an impact is because of that.

[Riddler]

52. People who are complaining about Edward's house are now following the right wing, i.e. Karl Rove

playbook......find absolutely nothing to complain about and make it an earth-shattering ordeal. If WE are complaining about it when it has no merit whatsoever, what in the hell do you think the right wing gas bags will be saying about it and how big of a deal will THEY make it? It's stupid and it's a non-issue, but I suppose some people have nothing to say but want everybody hear them say it.

[Seabiscuit]

53. If I were running for President and someone here bitched about my house

being bigger than theirs, my response would be: FU2 Very Much.

[Zorra]

54. Being wealthy is not a crime. But using up enormous amounts of

natural resources on a daily basis is extremely selfish, irresponsible, thoughtless, and inconsiderate.

If wealthy folks can't restrain themselves from using up so much of those things that are necessary for all of us to live, then we need to tax them in order to keep them from greedily and selfishly destroying our planet - at about 80% of their yearly income.

This is not directed at John Edwards as an individual, but at all the wealthy people that need to understand that our resources are finite, and that they cannot continue to live like greedy hogs if we are going to maintain life on OUR planet.

[Seabiscuit]

59. Until you've walked 10,000 miles in Edwards' shoes, don't expect

him or anyone else to pay 80% of his annual income in taxes, or to subsidize your lifestyle so that you can afford a bigger house.

Put yourself through college, then through another 3 grueling years of law school, study your ass off for a bar exam, practice law under the thumbs of some slave-driving partnership, hang up your own shingle, learn the hard way how to make your sole proprietorship survive, then take all your earnings to cover the costs of expensive litigation while working your butt to the bone to win over half a dozen major product liability and medical malpractice cases, and then listen to yourself whine about how you think you should pay 80% of your earnings in taxes.

Your phony moral condemnation of Edwards or anyone who has earned more than you for that matter is disgusting beyond the pale.

[Zorra]

66. Well, I hope that made you feel better.

I'd like you to know that your post is full of false assumptions about me.

I don't want, or need, a bigger house.

Have a wonderful day.
:hi:

[Seabiscuit]

76. You missed my point -

Your original post was full of penis envy - thus the reference to a bigger house for you.

You may resent Edwards for being a successful lawyer, but your original post came off as a jealous rant - as if he's not entitled to keep the money he's earned - claiming he should only be allowed to keep 20% of it after taxes - while you, John Q. Public, benefit from all that $$ of his going into the public coffers - as if you had some right to it.

He earned it legitimately (unlike many of the Repukes we are all so fond of) by helping others, and he's earned the right to build whatever kind of home he wants and can afford.

Live with it.

Go take your jealousies out on guys like Donald Trump and Bill Gates.

[Zorra]

82. May I suggest that you go to see "An Inconvenient Truth", narrated

by Al Gore? It is a very informative film about global warming, a by-product of wanton environmental destruction.

It seems that you missed the point of my post entirely, and it does not appear that my further explaining the post to you, logically and rationally, will have any productive outcome.

[Seabiscuit]

84. I've seen the movie. Don't assume I 'm ignorant about global warming.

And don't insult my intelligence pretending I'm irrational and illogical.

Edwards' house will NOT send the earth into an environmental cataclism. To equate his house with "wanton environmental destruction" and to use the ugly labels you have on him IS irrational and illogical.

And demanding that he pay 80% of his income in taxes is irrational and illogical, and can only be the result of misguided jealousy.

All this stupid (and yes, it is S.T.U.P.I.D.) whining about Edwards' house is a ridiculous distraction from the important issues we should all be focusing on in the upcoming election campaigns. It's Rovian in the extreme.

I personally have walked 9,999 miles in Edwards' shoes. I just didn't make as much money at it as he has. My house is about 1/9 the size of his new one. I would venture a guess that someone like you would post the same drivel about me that you did about him, because although not as wealthy as Edwards, I'm still a multi-millionaire. You'd probably like to see me pay at least 70% of my income in taxes, and tear down my house as well, eh?

GMAFB.

When reading your posts about Edwards' house I find the OP's words particularly poignant: "certain DU'ers act like South Park caricatures of liberals."

[Zorra]

88. When reading your posts, it seems certain DUers act like caricatures

of Bush republicans.

The fact is, wealthy people, in general, use up grossly inordinate amounts of our natural resources every day. I don't give a flying shit how wealthy you are. Whoop-dee-doo. Good for you. I'm comfortable enough to not have to work myself. But the fact that you worked hard and made a lot of money, or inherited a lot of money, or won the fucking lottery, does not, as you apparently believe it does, automatically give you God ordained license to use up as many of our natural resources in a single day as a small town does.

And if you do use grossly inordinate amounts of our natural resources every day, then yes, you absolutely need to be heavily taxed, or otherwise restrained, in order to prevent you from further using up enormous amounts of the natural resources that are critical to everyone's survival, in your lust for excess.

My post was not directed at all wealthy people, and as I mentioned, was "not directed at John Edwards as an individual". (FYI, I think John Edwards would make a fantastic President).

My post was directed at those wealthy people that live like greedy hogs without any regard for what they do to the planet in their extravagance.

[Seabiscuit]

89. Why don't you just call me a freeper, already?

Your original post wasn't just "directed at those wealthy people that live like greedy hogs without any regard for what they do to the planet in their extravagance." It was SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT JOHN EDWARDS! In a thread about the vapidness of such idiotic attacks on John Edwards' for his new house.

This kind of "I'm more liberal than you" assholery has gotten out of control on DU.

[Blackhatjack]

56. Many attacks on Edwards, Clinton and Obama are originating from Competing DEM Campaigns

It is clear that with this many contenders for the Democratic Nomination for President, that the poll numbers placing Edwards/Clinton/Obama have brought on attacks from competitors within their own party.

You will recall that the Clinton campaign 'bought' the domain name that should have belonged to Edwards, then set it up to re-direct visitors to Hillary's site.

Makes you wonder about the ethics of that particular action.

Likewise comments Edwards made which put Hillary on the spot without naming her by name brought a swift attack on Edwards 'by name' by one of Hillary's top campaign officials.

The bottom line is they read the polls, and know who is a legitimate threat to their campaign.

Unfortunately we are in for more in-party infighting until 2008, and the worst damage inflicted against the eventual Democratic nominee will likely come from fellow Democrats.

[Neshanic]

57. One question. Is that home LEED certified? Yes or no?

If no, then he's not helping.

[Cascadian]

58. I am more concerned whether Edwards supports war with Iran or not.

Not how big his house is!


John

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Exactly. Iran is an important issue. This house isn't. n/t

[Mass]

60. Why? John and Elizabeth Edwards are the ones who go around and tell us they live like us.

If they did not, it would be a non issue!

And, as I said, I do not care about the cost, I care about the environmental impact of such a house.

[Neshanic]

62. Thank you for stating that so well and clearly.

[mondo joe]

67. Wait - when did they say they "live like us"?

[etherealtruth]

70. They didn't ...

They talk about how they came from working people "like us" ... on that same line of thought ... I wish Ted Kennedy would quit defending "working" middle Americans ... he's never been there and done that. How dare he promote "our" cause:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Nouveau riche ostentation is nothing new.

"If you got it, flaunt it." is an American ideal that's been around since before the founding of the Republic.

[krabigirl]

69. I totally agree.

[depakid]

71. When you live in a mansion and take a job at a Wall Street hedge firm

then promptly go out on a "two Americas" tour, you're going to raise some questions and lose some credibility.

Given his actions (like voting FOR the bankruptcy bill when it came around in 2001) and his message- I think the house is fair game.

[barb162]

75. ditto that

[mzmolly]

77. "certain DU'ers act like South Park caricatures of liberals."

Goodness yes! Sheesh, it's embarrassing - and, it makes me question their legitimacy at times.

[mondo joe]

78. The right hates the poor, too much of the left hates the rich, and at times both seem to hate

the middle class.

Sometimes I wonder if there's a place for me.

[MzNov]

79. Thank you for this post. I totally agree.

Look at the Kennedy family. Money, power, homes, but every one of them was brought up to be a PUBLIC SERVANT. Ted Kennedy could retire and walk on the beach, but does he???? He has lots of money and probably a huge house, but he follows in the footsteps of his murdered brothers. !

There are many more democrats who are very wealthy, have great homes, and live their lives in PUBLIC SERVICE.

These posts are juvenile and un-Democratic. We have waited HOW MANY YEARS to have the majority and to join to get rid of the criminals in the WH and congress. We did that.

If you must attack other Democrats, some very good candidates at that, then you aren't too much better than the Talking Head Gas Bags on TV, and you know who I'm talking about.

I'm sure the Edwards' have many charities.

Grow the hell up. And stop attacking other Democrats, you're playing right into the hands of the Wingers. They love it.

Peace. :patriot:

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. As they say, all publicity, is good publicity. Edwards' critics are too

dumb to realise that people can see through their cretinous criticisms of him - too cretinous to be disgusting - and are polarised in precisely the opposite way to the one they'd intended. They'll be with John more than ever!

[Madspirit]

81. Initial response

My initial response, from my gut, is that a 30,000 sq. ft. house is rather obscene in a world where many are homeless and hungry. Something from the gut is just a feeling. Feelings have nothing to do with Right or Wrong. They are just feelings.

What is Right is that we live in a capitalist society and if I had that kind of bucks, I would have a lot of fun too. I wouldn't buy a house the size of a football field. It's not my cup of tea. My entertainment system, computer, etc. would be absofuckinglutely incredible. I would have so many high-tech gadgets I would have to buy an extra house just to keep them all.

I am unemployed, have an un-medicated mental illness because I can't afford a doctor and I live in Texas, the state that is last in funds for mental health. I am uninsured, have been homeless, (for years at a time, in my youth). Thanks to my girlfriend of 15 years, who works two jobs, we do own a home now...ummm...1,200 sq. ft. but I still don't have medical care because the likes of us...lesbians...can't get married so I can't even be on her insurance. My parents were dirt poor. I KNOW poverty.

I'm just not a hypocrite. If someone laid a bunch of bucks on me, I would have a blast. That DOES NOT preclude helping others...a lot and I would. Just sayin'...it's his money, earned or not. He can do with it whatever he wants. As long as he cares about others and helps others and has a Moral and Ethical and Compassionate agenda, I support him. What's he supposed to do with it? Pass it out on the street? I hope he enjoys his house.
Madspirit

[kdpeters]

83. I care about the house, but just not very much.

It'd sure be nice to have a politician that walked the walk -- but come on -- WHO??? If you're looking for heros and role models among presidential candidates, you're not really looking for very much are you? I'm sick of the 'character' issue. None of them ever have any. I just want a good cheif executive -- I don't expect to like her.