Let's cut to the chase: Is John Edwards practicing what Al Gore preaches?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Let's cut to the chase: Is John Edwards practicing what Al Gore preaches?

[saltpoint]

1. Whoa. Talk about your bullshit poll questions.

This one's a doozy.

[Clarkie1]

2. bullshit poll...please explain. I think it's a very good question. nt

[chimpymustgo]

3. Reaching new LOWS in this madness. Calling BULLSHIT!

And may the Edwards bashers get in line and kiss his square feet.

[saltpoint]

4. Edwards and Gore are two separate people. One is an announced

candidate; one is a possible candidate.

Neither is beholden to the other's ideological bent on any issue.

Your poll question is complete bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

6. Of course they are not beholden, but you still have not explained your accusation.

Why is it a bad question when it clarifies the difference in the values between a presidential candidate and a former VP and Democratic leader?

[saltpoint]

9. Because that isn't your goal.

And you know it.

The question is bullshit. Piled to the sky.

[mzmolly]

12. Can you demonstrate how Clark meets the Gore "preach" criteria?

:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

22. Clark lives in a regular house, like most people. nt

[mzmolly]

26. So is he carbon neutral?

And, I want proof of that "regular house" claim, got any? Pics? Anything?

[Clarkie1]

73. I think those are great questions to ask!

Both of our candidates and ourselves. We all need to set higher standards.

[mzmolly]

80. Indeed, got an answer?

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

82. Not yet, but I'll look!

I want to know!

Look, nobody is going to be perfect, but if we are ever going to move forward and save this planet we have to start getting serious about our lifestyles!

We ought to be asking these questions of all our leaders (and indeed, ourselves) if these are our values.

[mzmolly]

86. And, we ought to ask these questions of those who critique others on this issue as well?

Are you carbon neutral?

[Clarkie1]

92. That's a good question!

I don't know, but I know I would never live in a house that size...even if I could afford it.

I'd feel guilty about the size and the clearing away of so much land for just one or few people. But that's just me...that's my values.

[mzmolly]

95. Well, as liberals we allow for differences no?

Al Gore "preaches" - carbon neutrality he does not preach the size of home one should live in.

http://www.carbonneutral.com/shop

[saltpoint]

5. Let me be more clear. I don't mean partial bullshit. I mean total

bullshit.

Bullshit from the rim to the bottom.

All of it.

Bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

7. See my post above. You have some explaining to do. nt

[saltpoint]

10. If you're defending a bullshit question, then it's bullshit you're defending.

One calls it as one sees it.

[Clarkie1]

14. Still no coherent reply...nt

[saltpoint]

16. Still no valid question.

I call on you to retract this thread.

It's disgraceful. You are trying to graft your limitations and biases onto two other Democratic candidates.

That is no sale, buddy.

Your poll question is bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

19. I ask you, is there not value in clarifying the values of our candidates? nt

[saltpoint]

25. You're smart and solid enough to begin a poll with that intent if

you wish, but this poll question most certainly is not it.

You are dividing other Democrats by casting aspersion onto one.

That's bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

30. No...I am not casting aspersion. I merely asked a question.

If you don't like the answer to the question, then you've learned you don't like the answer to the question.

[saltpoint]

34. Correction. You asked a bullshit question.

A total bullshit question.

[Clarkie1]

38. O.K., I give up. You are not going to carry on a conversation, obviously. nt

[saltpoint]

40. I call on you to retract your poll and this thread.

I call on you to disown it.

It violates the spirit of the rules of the board and it's bullshit to start with.

And you know it.

[Clarkie1]

64. I know no such thing. LOL. nt

[roguevalley]

130. for some people, global warming is for others. Global warming isn't

lapping at their ass like it is with some of us. entire islands of the pacific going underwater doesn't register. they can be outraged its happening but when it comes down to the behaviors that make it possible, if it gores their guy, they cry bullshit. Consider this: In my hometown, right now, the river and glacier ice is breaking up and damming the river. when it breaks again, it will flood us out. think about it. the ice is melting in alaska in january. it isn't an abstraction. its caused BY YOU AND ME AND JOHN EDWARDS AND BUSH AND CHENEY AND EVERYONE! No one is exempt but the starving people in darfur who live in hovels and eat dirt.

How hard is it to put two and two together and see that a mcmansion is not good, for edwards, for bush, for anyone? How hard is it to be open minded that your guy might fuck up once in a while? it isn't treason, it isn't freeping, its reason. we either HAVE to get our shit together or the world we live in, the cultures and accomplishments and all the rest are history. when will people put together that even something as small as throwing paper wrappers on the ground in Boston in the end contributes to Venice, Italy going under water and disappearing some day, sooner rather than later? What will it take? Manhattan flooding? Miami disappearing? What?

Read this and weep: http://ap.peninsulaclarion.com/pstories/state/ak/20070127/142501349.shtml

[JNelson6563]

21. I think you're way off here Old Crusoe

It's actually flaming bullshit.

[saltpoint]

23. Perhaps it is. The smell distracted me from seeing the flames.

Good catch.

[Clarkie1]

27. Still, no explanation from those crying "bullshit" why it is not valuable

to clarify the values of our Democratic candidates.

[saltpoint]

35. Retract your poll question while there's still time.

You're better than this, Clarkie1.

[Clarkie1]

51. Retract the question? Not a chance. I'm proud of posting this. nt

[saltpoint]

53. Increasingly, I'm willing to believe it.

It is, after all, quite a huge pile of bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

58. Well, you may say that.

Wish you had something more meaningful to say in this thread. You're a bright guy. You can do better.

[mzmolly]

Perhaps this will be a bit more clear:

;)

[Clarkie1]

52. There's just a box with an x. nt

[mzmolly]

69. Well, I see it.

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

75. I don't. I can imagine what it probably is but honestly it's not there. nt

[Little Wing]

121. Because Gore doesn't practice it either

That's why it's bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

128. Prove that. nt

[citizen snips]

87. No it is...

Polarization flaming bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

98. I already know you aren't going to elaborate on that with any reasoned argument.

So I won't even ask.

[xultar]

116. Agree 100%

[MrSlayer]

8. Maybe not. But who says he has to?

Al Gore's word isn't law you know. And how do we know that Edwards isn't having his stupid house built within green standards? I have a lot of concerns about Edwards but none of them are about where he lives.

[Clarkie1]

15. I'm not saying he has to, but I think it's an excellent question to ask.

The only way to save the planet is if everyone makes sacrifices, and changes their lifestyle.

Gore understands that; does Edwards?

[MrSlayer]

119. I don't think the planet is in any danger.

Our ability to continue living here might be but the planet is fine.

[Clarkie1]

126. Well, it depends what you define as planet.

Are you including rain forests, ocean life, etc., or just rocks and minerals?

[MrSlayer]

132. Everything.

The danger of global warming is that we will change the climate so much that humans will no longer be able to exist here. No matter if we cut down all the rain forests and pollute the oceans to the point that one could walk upon them, the planet itself will be here until Sol goes supernova. It has survived for billions of years through all kinds of climate changes, humans are but a single eyeblink over a lifetime to it. It is kind of arrogant to think that we can kill the planet. We'll kill ourselves but the planet will go on and life in another form will come up eventually as it has many times before.

[mzmolly]

11. Let's cut to the chase, are Clark supporters helping their candidate with BS polls like this one?

:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

17. Explain why it is a bullshit poll when it is clarifying the values of a candidate. nt

[mzmolly]

28. The poll is bullshit because it lacks value.

I suspect Gore would agree.

[Clarkie1]

32. Explain why clarifying a candidates values based on their actions lacks value. nt

[mzmolly]

39. Because your intent was to start "shit" and you have succeeded.

I'd say that lacks value.

[Clarkie1]

49. No, my intent was to promote thinking. Are you thinking, or are you just going to hurl insults? nt

[saltpoint]

56. You're for Clark. Bully for you. Why not begin a Clark thread that

discusses his stands on the issues? He's a smart man. Talk about your candidate.

Don't go around slinging bullshit like this.

[Clarkie1]

70. Indeed I will do that.

However, that does not limit me from asking questions of other candidates.

I want our next president to be a true environmentalist...WHOEVER they are. It's an important issue to me. Actually, it's my #1 issue.

[mzmolly]

68. I am thinking, - I "think" this thread is flame bait.

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

71. It's not flame bait unless you make it flame bait.

No flames here.

[mzmolly]

77. I think we're all smart enough to recognize flame bait when we see it?

The flames are in the OP, and you know it.

[Clarkie1]

83. I know no such thing. nt

[mzmolly]

103. Well, take some time to learn from this thread then huh?

:hi:

[saltpoint]

72. You don't suppose?! I wonder why someone in one candidate's camp

would instigate menace to be visited upon other candidates' camps?

[mzmolly]

81. Fear of a worthy opponent perhaps?

;)

[Clarkie1]

85. I think the poll question is an important question to ask of all candidates.

At the moment, Edwards is in the spotlight of the discussion, so the question is being asked of him.

Don't worry, everybody will get their turn under the glaring lights. That's the way it should be.

[mzmolly]

89. Ok.

I'll await this question (posted by you) of the good General. ;)

[Clarkie1]

96. I will, once I get some more info.

I do know he doesn't live in a house that size, and has called global warming one of his top 3 priorities.

As for his preferred mode of transportation, the last time I saw him at a campaign event in 04' he was in a jeep (please do not ask me if it was a hybrid jeep, I do not know)...don't know if that's his usual mode of vehicular transportation or not.

I doubt he owns a hummer, though.

[mzmolly]

97. There are smaller older homes which have a far greater impact on global warming

than newer energy efficient ones. I think we all need to take time to educate ourselves before casting stones?

[Clarkie1]

99. The size of his house does not reflect my values.

Irregardless of it's age.

[mzmolly]

102. I thought your values were "green" - at least in this thread.

"Green values" is the subject matter you raised. And, what I am pointing out is that newer "energy efficient" homes with greater square footage often have LESS of an impact on global warming than smaller older/less efficient homes. I would think you'd appreciate knowing that, given how concerned you are?

[Clarkie1]

108. I already knew that, but I do appreciate you posting the information. nt

[saltpoint]

33. Your intent is to denigrate other Democrats. One in particular.

You're using this bullshit house meme as your prop.

It's a strategy intended to divide and create distrust and unhappiness.

You aren't remotely interested in clarifying issues.

If you were, you'd post a Clark thread on his stand on this or that issue.

Instead you sling bullshit at another Democrat.

Shame on you.

[Clarkie1]

42. I merely asked a question.

And I appreciate IndyOP for coming to the defense of Edwards. I believe in the more information we have about candidates the better.

The question seems to have brought forth defenders of Edwards, which is a good thing. It's questions like this that force supporters of a candidate to defend their candidate with whatever facts they have at their disposal, and then it's up to the voters to decide.

[saltpoint]

44. There's no "merely" to what your poll aims for.

It's mean-spirited and low. It denigrates with purpose and deliberation.

You're using it solely as a means of putting one Democrat -- an announced candidate for elective office -- in a bad light while using another unannounced but possible candidate as a prop.

That's low.

That's bullshit.

Retract the thread.

[Clarkie1]

46. The question is a valuable one.

Many progressive cherish Gore's envirnomental values, and it is right are reasonable that those who do should ask if a candidate is living those values.

The question is a good one, because it provokes thought.

It is obvious though you will keep calling it bullshit, no matter what, so really I have nothing more to say. Let the voters decide.

[saltpoint]

48. Just as a point of reference, the huge photo of Wes Clark underneath

a bullshit poll question that denigrates other Democrats is unbecoming.

[Clarkie1]

55. I disagree. I don't think there are any bad questions. nt

[saltpoint]

59. O there are indeed bad questions.

One of which is in your poll in this thread.

[Clarkie1]

62. Give me an example of a bad question. nt

[saltpoint]

66. Already provided. Re-read your own poll question.

[Clarkie1]

76. Cop-out! nt

[vikegirl]

47. Leave Clark and his supporters out of this.

You seem to neglect that a *lot* of Clark supporters are DEFENDING Edwards. Attack the OP's positions, and leave whomever they may support out of it; it gives the impression that you're much more vindictive and lacking creatively in your arguments.

[saltpoint]

50. Individual merits acknowledged from this observer. Now how about

that Clark photo from the OP?

[vikegirl]

61. Tsk, tsk....

God, didn't you read my post? You brought up Clark AGAIN! And WTF do you mean by Clark photo? :shrug:

[saltpoint]

65. Chill out. Read my post #56 in this thread.

I read just fine. Thanks.

[vikegirl]

78. okay

"You're for Clark. Bully for you. Why not begin a Clark thread that discusses his stands on the issues? He's a smart man. Talk about your candidate. Don't go around slinging bullshit like this."

But what does that have to do with a photo?

Oh wait, you want me to start a thread about Clarkie1's most handsome photo....I would, but I've never started my own thread before EVER! *gets giddy* Wait, wouldn't that be slinging superficial, trivial bullshit? :silly: :)

[saltpoint]

91. Clark's stints on CNN demonstrated his profound ability to

eclipse Republicans on all matters military.

That's just my opinion. If you like someone else's view of Clark better, that's cool.

But I thought he did a splendid job.

[Clarkie1]

54. Certainly I am not representative of all Clark supporters.

And certainly I have strong opinions.

:-)

[vikegirl]

63. ....

:hi:

[mzmolly]

74. I'm speaking to THIS supporter, I think that's obvious to most.

But, I do think "Clark supporters" need to step in HERE and defend Edwards. So far I see a number of votes supporting the BS premise of the OP, and I don't think that speaks well for you "Clarkies" call that vindictive and "lacking creativity" if you like.

[Clarkie1]

79. What if they don't think Edwards house can be defended

based on thier own values?

There will be some Clark supporters who agree with me and some who don't. We don't just think as one big block!

And by the way, I'm trying to educate myself as well on Edwards values. I'm glad to see as IndyOp posted that in the past he has used green technologies, yet that is countered by the fact that I don't believe anyone who has truly green values would live in a house that size, and clear that much land for it.

That's my values.

[mzmolly]

84. I still am lacking that photo/proof of Clark's abode?

What is your house size "green value" limitation, since we're on the subject?

Also, I don't recall Edwards championing "green values" per-se' as much as he champions "people values."
Gore gets criticized for not riding a donkey on his excursions to educate others on global warming as well, it's ALL bullshit.

[Clarkie1]

90. Well if Edwards isn't championing green values we must be certain he is never elected POTUS.

Look, Edwards house is excessive by any standard. I'm not going to give you a number.

[mzmolly]

100. I didn't say the matter was not important. But, I don't consider him or CLARK

to be champions of "green values." In fact, what is the impact of WAR on our globe? I think you'd do best to chill out on this Clarkie1. You're getting in over your head. And, I say that with all sincerity.

Again, unless you can tell ME the square footage of the Clark residence, and the carbon footprint he is responsible for, you're not in a position to critique.

[Clarkie1]

101. Asking the impact of war on our globe is a great question!

I wish Edwards didn't seem so ready to go to war with Iran.

[mzmolly]

105. I don't think he does seem "so ready."

Why does Edwards scare you so much? Don't you think he and Clark would be a good team? We'd have foreign and domestic policy experience on the ticket.

[Clarkie1]

112. Clark/Edwards would be O.K.

I presume if something were to happen to Clark, Edwards would have a deeper understanding of the world and America's place in the world after having been by Clark's side for awhile.

I'm certain Clark would make sure of that.

[mzmolly]

114. LOL

You are funny. ;)

[Adelante]

136. Here, mzmolly, not for the first time

I'll post it again in the next thread in which you decide to ask for it multiple times. Once again, the house is 4000 square feet. It was worth about $350,000 in 2004 and is probably worth more now, although I don't know the market in Little Rock. The Clarks bought it after his retirement from the Army. They also own a small cabin in the woods of Arkansas someplace.

As for any presidential candidate's "green value" I think it is a good question. If Clark becomes a presidential candidate, I expect he will be asked.

[vikegirl]

93. I just logged on a half an hour ago

and am digesting all this craziness. I didn't even indicate that I'm a "Clarkie" (in quotes, as you typed), which incidently I am.

I *will* defend Edwards, where I think he needs defending. So, as you threw my own words back as "quotes" to me, *ALL* Clark supporters are "vindictive and lacking creativity"?

Now do I "deserve" to be put "in quotes"?

[mzmolly]

106. I think I'll continue to discuss matters with you when you demonstrate basic comprehension skills.

Cheerio. :hi:

[vikegirl]

111. Likewise, I'm sure.

Buh-bye.

[citizen snips]

13. WTF?

:wtf:

[Clarkie1]

18. Please elaborate....nt

[citizen snips]

20. what the fuck?

[Clarkie1]

24. Are your conversational skills that of a typical Edwards supporter?

I think not, I will give Edwards supporters more credit than that.

[citizen snips]

29. *cough cough*

I am allergic to BS.

[IndyOp]

31. We sold the conventional fuel SUV... and we bought a hybrid

We sold the conventional fuel SUV...and we bought a hybrid, a Ford Escape.

Since we were building a home in Orange County, we decided to take advantage of some of the technology that President Carter had encouraged.

All the water (all of which comes from wells) in our home and some of the flooring is heated with solar energy.

We built a highly energy efficient house. In fact, our home is Energy-Star rated. Energy Star is an EPA regulated designation for homes that are at least 30 percent more efficient than the national Model Energy Code. In building we made sure we had effective insulation in floors, walls, and attics. We chose efficient heating and cooling equipment and high-performance windows. Our builder paid close attention to making sure the construction was tight to seal out drafts and moisture. The day the independent inspector came to evaluate the house, we were on pins and needles while he tested our home's energy performance. As he packed his equipment, he gave us the good news: we are an Energy-Star home!

We recycle, of course, although just yesterday we got our Orange County recycle bin. Until then we used the recycle facility just down the road. (The trash compactor I debated putting in is really useful for compacting cans and plastic, it turns out.)

And as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs. If you are thinking that we are living now in harsh light, with buzzing sounds and constant flickers, you are thinking of your grandmother's fluorescent bulbs. There are a wide range of shapes and fittings available now; there are even dimmable fluorescents, and honestly I cannot tell without checking which of our bulbs are still incandescent and which are now - and will continue to be -- fluorescent. Switching is a little bit of a bite, because the bulbs are more expensive (although Costco and eBay have some good prices), but replacing a single 60 watt incandescent with a 15 watt fluorescent you use just six hours a day could see an energy savings of more than $40 over the 4 year (4 year!) life of the bulb. And it is not just energy. A single fluorescent bulb "can prevent more than 450 pounds of emissions from a power plant over its lifetime" according to the Energy-Star website. That same site has these incredible statistics: "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR, we would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars." One bulb.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358

[Clarkie1]

37. Thanks for posting that. I hope people take it into consideration when voting in the poll. nt

[IndyOp]

41. I am conflicted. I don't approve of the excess -

A family of 5 doesn't need that much space. Period. I am disappointed in them as I am disappointed in ALL people who live similarly. We are sick with greed and materialism. And -- life is not black and white. They are making some positive choices re: green building.

[Clarkie1]

43. I agree with you! Thank you for posting facts and thinking reasonably!

My thoughts were the same as yours, but I didn't feel the need to post them, as I prefer to let people weigh all the facts and draw their own conclusions.

[jpgray]

36. Most politicians have luxurious, wasteful houses

Tell me: how many master bedrooms makes you unfit to fight for the environment or the poor? How many square feet makes you a hypocrite? Buying a house doesn't directly affect millions of people. Enacting progressive legislation to help the poor -does-. I wish DU would give each their proper importance.

[Pastiche423]

45. No, he isn't

After watching An Inconvient Truth last night for the 1st time, his: Edwards: Iran Threat Serious sadly says to me, that he is not mindful of the state of our planet.

On edit: spellin'

[rhombus]

67. True

The message should mesh with the messenger. I don't see that in Edwards case.

[Nutmegger]

57. For all of you who answered no, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x51019

[Clarkie1]

60. IndyOp already posted this upthread. nt

[Quixote1818]

94. It sounds like she is trying to battle her guilty feelings about

cutting down 50,000 trees. Nice try on Elizabeth's part but why not live in a 3,000 sf green house and use 1/10 the energy and resources? Their is NO way that house fits in with Gores green values but at least they tried.

[Pastiche423]

104. They cut down 50,000 trees?

Please tell me that isn't so!

[Quixote1818]

107. It's true, they cut down 48,853 trees. See photo

[mzmolly]

110. Do you know if they planted any?

:hi:

[Quixote1818]

113. Looking at the photo it looks like they wanted it cleared for a big lawn

[mzmolly]

115. Who knows? We don't know if he replaced trees in another area?

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

117. That's a lot of carbon. nt

[mzmolly]

118. Indeed, and he may have made up for it buy purchasing carbon credits,

like Al Gore "preaches."

[Quixote1818]

120. From what I read on another thread, Edwards pulled all kinds of strings

to be able to cut down all those trees. Most people in the "other" America don't have that kind of pull.

[mzmolly]

122. I would imagine his law backround was helpful?

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

125. Probably an exaggeration. One thing there is no shortage of in

this part of the country is trees. 48000 trees in Nebraska would cover about a hundred square miles - 48000 trees in North Carolina is maybe a couple acres. It wouldn't take a lot of strings to clear a couple acres - if it did, nothing would ever get built around here.

[Pastiche423]

123. OMFG!

Can anyone be more elitist and arrogant?

People, this is serious! We are in global warning NOW!

If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth yet, please do. Or go to: www.climatecrisis.com

At the end of the film, it gives ways to help. One of those ways is to plant trees. LOTS of TREES!

Edwards is absolutely NOT doing what Al Gore is preaching. Instead of planting trees, he cut down almost fifty thousand trees!

[mzmolly]

124. I OWN the movie. And what Gore states is that we should strive for carbon NEUTRALITY.

He does not suggest that people live in grass huts.

[Clarkie1]

127. Oh, please!

No one is saying Edwards should live in a grass hut!

Talk about setting up a straw man argument!

[mzmolly]

129. What specifically do you suggest?

Don't let the word "specifically" fail you in answering that question.

[mzmolly]

109. Please tell me you say anything to support Democrats, ever.

:eyes:

[Quixote1818]

88. Man, this poll is brilliant! Thanks for pointing out the obvious! nt

[Inspired]

131. Al Gore is NOT my PREACHER. n/t

[Quixote1818]

134. Al Gore is not a PREACHER! He is a scientist with 650 peer reviewed

articles on his side. Their is a BIG difference between preaching fairy tails and TEACHING science.

[Inspired]

135. Al Gore is talking about important issues.

I'm just saying that I don't agree with the basis of this thread.

[mondo joe]

133. The funniest thing about this asinine poll is that Gore used to be considered the DIRTY

candidate, and not progressive enough.

Remember Nader?