Bill Maher Asks Edwards if he will ask people to give up C-O-W-S for the environment.

[Milo_Bloom]

This is a pretty good example of what I don't like about Edwards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/13/maher-asks-edwards-if-he_n_64315.html

He laughs at something that wasn't even remotely a joke, doesn't answer the question and offers rhetoric, instead of some type of answer.

Pretty embarrassing moment for Edwards. Maybe this will make Bill Maher reconsider thinking of him as someone who is actually electable.

[durrrty libby]

1. I haven't watched the video, but that seems like a pretty stupid

and laughable question. cows???

On Edit. I watched it. He did a very nice job answering.

I fail to understand your complaint

[Milo_Bloom]

2. The concept...

Is that Edwards asked people to give up SUV's for the environment. HOWEVER, the reality is that the meat industry does far more harm to the environment via deforestation and concentrated methane release than all the SUV's in the world combined.

So the question was, if you are willing to ask people to give up SUV's, would you be similarly willing to ask people to give up meat for the environment.

[robinlynne]

7. He answered perfectly. NO. That is not the way you do it. On a national level

that would be simply laughed off the charts. What you do is solar energy, methane energy, plant trees, a thousand toher things. But noone is stupid enough to try to get the american people to stop eating meat.
political suicide. Later, once you get people going on conservation it is a subject which can be brought up. Right now we need to stop coal mining, fossil fuels, protect the forets we have.
if you want to do that on a personal level, great!
Don't cross your fingers for a presidential candidate in this country to advocate not eating meat.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. I am a meat eater, so that wasn't the point.

It was the typical Edwards hypocrisy in action. He suggested people give up SUV's, but wouldn't DARE suggest people give up meat, which is the greater violator. SUV's are an easy enemy, but don't you dare ask people to sacrifice anything they might object to.

However, it would be interesting to see a candidate propose a plan to encourage less meat consumption, such as tax breaks on meatless alternatives, making them less expensive. I wonder how much would be saved if we (as a soeciety) gave up meat one day a week. A president could have fun with it and declare Thursday a vegetable day and anyone who wants to participate can. If 40% of the population gave up meat for one day, I bet it would reduce emissions a decent amount.

[robinlynne]

15. interesting in your opinion. Right now there is war going on, and we have to stop

fossil fuel consumption. It is in fact, a good idea. But not one that a campaigning candidate is going to try right now. They barely have the guts to stand up against Iraq, even with majority approval from Americans!

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Exactly the point.

Edwards is a political coward who will only say that which he thinks is popular at the time. It is vogue to beat up on SUV's, so he does so in the name of the "environment"; however, he wouldn't dare take on a bigger enemy to the same cause, because it would be a more difficult path.

Its the same reasoning that led him to vote for the war, the bankrupcy bill, limiting liability on nuclear power plans, the energy bill and all the other things he voted for that he is now completely against.

[durrrty libby]

8. Yes, I get the concept. However it doesn't have to be all or

nothing, does it? If everyone made a conscious effort, the environment would benefit.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Exactly the point.

Edwards talked about GIVING UP SUV's, but he won't even talk about reduction in meat consumtion for fear of consequences. It is political cowardess, not principles that guide his positions.

[bbinacan]

10. You must have seen

a different video then I did. He did not answer the question.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. What was his answer?

I've already converted one on the fence Edwards supporter with it so far tonight and no one I have shown it to can find his answer.. I am glad this video is out there, it really gives a great picture of who John Edwards is.

[penguin7]

105. This is actually a very important issue

Edwards clearly has not even thought about it.

[Adelante]

3. In New Hampshire over the summer

The Edwards were talking about people sacrificing tangerines. I think it was just something said in an unthinking moment, but it was funny.

[Milo_Bloom]

5. He seems to have a lot of those, doesn't he? (nt)

[Adelante]

9. It was actually something Elizabeth said

Edwards sort of covered for her okay afterward. I don't remember the details.

[Beaverhausen]

4. And the other candidates? What are they going to ask Americans to do to help the environment?

[Hieronymus]

18. Good question.

[robinlynne]

6. and you really think Bill Maher was suggesting vegetarianism as a anitonal concept?

of course he was joking when he said cow.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. Bill Maher joking about not eating meat?

Hardly. He is very serious about that particular issue.

[robinlynne]

12. He was joking. Do you want to take on the c o w s?

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Many a serious issue is delivered in the form of a joke.

Bill Maher is quite serious about the question and speaks on it quite often.

Just because a question is phrased in a funny way, doesn't mean it isn't serious.

[robinlynne]

16. ok.

[Inspired]

17. Good Lord, you must be joking.

Embarrassing for you to give a shit about this.

[durrrty libby]

21. It's obvious the OP has some kind of grudge against JE. This is silly

[Milo_Bloom]

23. Yes, his political cowardess is my grudge.

I want to vote for a Democratic candidate next fall, but I cannot do so if it is Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd.

I am thus pointing out to those who have bought the snake oil from this guy that he is, in fact, still the same political coward who voted for the war and defended his vote in 2004. The same political coward who attacked Howard Dean, the same political coward who voted for the bankrupcy bill and the same political coward who cannot be trusted with presidential level decisions in the future.

[robinlynne]

24. If you want to talk about political cowardess, maybe you should leave the cow part out.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Just like Edwards left it out of his answer? (nt)

[Moderate Dem]

53. That's funny

I told a friend of mine last night that the only way I wouldn't vote in 2008 was if Kucinich was the nominee. I guess it all balances out in the end, huh?

[Exultant Democracy]

26. It is embarrassing that people won't talk about this issue,

and it is even more embarrassing that someone on DU would ridicule someone for caring.

[Cameron27]

27. I thought it was a pretty good question,

I think Maher linked it to a scientific paper, and he didn't present it as a joke IMO.

[Exultant Democracy]

28. You could see the wheels spinning in his head during his extended laugh

if he could have I'm sure he would have just kept laughing and not said anything at all.

[Cameron27]

29. Who Bill Maher?

[Exultant Democracy]

31. No Edwards.

[Cameron27]

32. Ok, then I agree

he really did look like he wanted to laugh the whole thing off.

[Catchawave]

30. LOL....

The Edwards Must Die team strikes again!

I love Maher AND Edwards.....especially that they both ask AND answer the toughest questions.

How would any other candidate answer that question? Is Gore a vegetarian? Do we require him to be one to believe his concerns about global warming?

The LCV gave Obama their highest rating....is he a veg*an ? Where was Kucinich on their list?

Geesh....

[Cameron27]

34. Why not answer it?

He could have disputed the findings, or given any number of reasons why reducing meat consumption wouldn't work. (if it wouldn't)

I have a feeling Gore would have been able to answer the question.

[Catchawave]

35. Would Gore have given up cows ?

Yes or No. That was the question and Edwards answered it honestly.

[Cameron27]

36. No, but I think he'd have a reasonable reason why not.

Look, if someone throws a hypothetical question at you, then laugh it off, but when you're asked about the conclusions of an environmental study, even if the word cow is included, at least come up with a "well, weighing the difficulties of decreasing beef consumption... or, "this is how it will effect the economy..." kind of answer.

[renie408]

80. Them's some good eats. n/t

[renie408]

33. I get that you want to trash Edwards, but I am giving you an F for lack of effort.

Try harder next time.

Attacking Edwards for sidestepping a semi-ridiculous question with no good answer isn't going to sell anybody but those already on your team.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Nothing rediculous about the question.

Or are you saying the UN report is bogus?

[renie408]

75. Are you really this intentionally obtuse in real life? Or do you just save it for here?

Hey, you are the one who said that you don't buy the link between cows and global warming. Are you saying the UN report is bogus? How dare you!!

Look, hate Edwards. Hate him for voting for the IWR... Hate him for being a trial lawyer... Hate him for talking about two Americas while he gets $400 hair cuts and lives in a gigunda house...I don't really care if you hate him. But this is bullshit. You are being just like the Republicans that I got into a fight with last week. They took some tiny thing that Chuck Schumer had said and blew it into Schumer dissing the troops. You don't like Edwards and you are tacking all kinds of invented crap onto the way he answered an essentially unanswerable question. Who is the brilliant and wonderful candidate of your choice? And how soon are they banning cow farming or the eating of red meat in America? Even if you love Obama, he isn't going to touch cow farming (I will bet you that he won't even touch factory farming, which I happen to agree is the main problem). Not with a fifty foot pole. So just quit acting like a Freeper, OK?

[Milo_Bloom]

86. Hit a nerve, eh?

This is just showing a typical Edwards answer. All rhetoric, all duplicity.

I see the Edwards supporters as the Freepers... closing their mind to the reality of their candidate. Only hearing the small bits they want to hear and shutting out the real facts so they can live in a fantasy world in which John Edwards is a liberal warrior fighting for something that any reasonable person knows John Edwards doesn't actually believe in.

The problem is that John Edwards is smart enough to know things, but dishonest enough not to say them. He knows there isn't 2 Americas. There are at least 1 dozen Americas. John Edwards also KNOWS there will never be one America, but he would never say that. John Edwards very own tax plan is designed to help the rich get richer and tax the working families harder, but he won't admit it.

John Edwards does nothing but throw red meat to a deserpate hungry liberal crowd who wants to believe that they are going to vote for someone who represents them.

You want to see the freeper... look in the mirror and wonder why you have a fanatical support for a candidate who doesn't really represent the issues you care about.

[renie408]

89. Who said I have 'fanatical support' for anybody?

If you will check around, in the top ten threads on this board, I have positive posts on ALL of the top Dem candidates. I also have comments criticizing all of them, too.

This is doesn't hit a nerve, this is...annoying. Is this REALLY the best you can do? You do realize that when you attack Edwards for voting for the IWR, that is indefensible. Here is free advice...keep beating that one to death. That is a helluva sight more of a winner than "Edwards didn't want to touch beef farming and the eating of red meat in America." when NONE of the candidates would want to touch it.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. In reality, Kucinich would.

So to say NONE of the candidates would touch this issue is simply untrue, but lets put that aside.

You also miss the point. It isn't that Edwards wouldn't touch beef farming. It is that the man is incapable of really getting into ANY issue with any honesty or integrity and this is just ANOTHER in a long line of examples, including the war and poverty.

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on nearly every issue and I see that as far more dangerous than ANY potential republican president in 2008. Electing someone like John Edwards to office will result in a more radical right wing GOP in 2012 and a GOP take over in 2010.

Clinton VALIDED the right wing by capitulating. John Edwards has a long history of capitulation and has offered NOTHING but cheap rhetoric.

His refusal to honestly address this issue shows that this is the same John Edwards who voted for the bankrupcy bill, who voted for limiting liability for Nuclear Power Plans, who voted for Bush's energy bill, the No Child Left Behind bil, the Patriot Act and of course, the war.

[renie408]

98. I am not being sarcastic. I don't know what 'valided' means.

Besides that, I find your other arguments against Edwards a lot more compelling than the beef thing. I understand his votes on NCLB and on the Patriot Act. I didn't say I approve of them, just that I understand them.

I don't understand the vote on the bankruptcy bill. Unless it is because the second biggest banking center in the country is Charlotte, NC, and he was a NC Senator? But that is a problem for me and THAT will make me stop and think. It is enough to make me look harder at other candidates. That was a bad bill, written by bad people.

The beef thing just seems ridiculous TO ME.

Sadly, one of the reasons Kucinich isn't a viable candidate is BECAUSE he will tackle the hard questions and give the morally and ethically right answers whether they are palatable to the American public or not. I admire him for it. I also know it means he will probably never be President. Sucks. But it is true.

What makes me think you feel freeperish in this attack is the level of vitriol being poured out onto a fairly innocuous subject. If you went apeshit over the IWR vote, I wouldn't say anything. To act so worked up over not being able to answer the beef question sounds like you hate Edwards and would find something to scream about in the way he walks. It feels unreasonable to me.

[Milo_Bloom]

100. A very bad typo of the word Validated

And again, it isn't about the "beef issue" it is that this answer is another example of the same problem that led to the Iraq vote, the NCLB, the Patriot Act, the Bankrupcy Bill, the limiting liability on nuclear power plans, the energy bill and even his current tax plan.

Edwards is all about Edwards' popularity and nothing more.

If a candidate REALLY CARES about global warming as an issue, they would know about the UN report and have an opinion on it and offer some response on the substance. Someone above (sorry I forgot their name) offered an AMAZING response about how there are many causes and everyone should work to reduce their own personal carbon footprint by 10% in whatever way they feel comfortable.

What I saw here was a candidate who didn't care about the issue one bit, but instead cared about the Rhetoric behind the issue "Suv's Bad, Oil Bad" and seemed like he didn't really understand WHY.

It is that same LACK of real caring that leads someone to vote for the IWR. It wasn't about lives to him, it wasn't about the deaths of innocents... it wasn't a vote he researched tirelessly for weeks and struggled with. It was a vote he jumped all over and stood before the senate and labeled Iraq a grave threat that must be dealt with. He cared about how his vote would position him for his presidential run, not about the lives he would be ruining and ending with his vote.

For me, this election comes down to political courage and John Edwards, in his entire life has NEVER shown a single act of political courage and this answer is just another example of that.

[qdemn7]

37. I really dislike Edwards...

And it has nothing to do with this. I think he AND his wife are hypocrites. They talk about how much they are for the little people, then they build a fucking 28,000 sq ft. home. That's more than TEN FUCKING TIMES that of the average American home. And all that land cleared for that house... disgusting!!!



And when questioned about their home Elizabeth Edwards gets all defensive. The undercurrent of her remarks is she feels they are somehow "owed" such a home for their previous "sacrifices". And then Edwards tells people they should give up their SUVs.

Hypocrisy thy names is Edwards. :mad:

[renie408]

39. Does it have some kind of underground bunker?

It doesn't look like it is 28,000 sq ft. Or does that include the barn deal on the side and the hallway leading to it? Plus, 'all that land' looks like it is maybe seven or eight acres. If you want to bitch about people clearing land, you should see the subdivision that just got built near our house. If you stand on the hill behind our field, they have cleared trees almost as far as the eye can see. And now they are replanting these dinky pear trees in the front yards of the houses they have built so far. It'll make you sick.

I don't begrudge the Edwards' their house. I don't think he has to live like a poor person to have sympathy for poor people. What I do wonder is whether or not they have any energy offsets (solar, etc) on that gigunda house. Gore has a pretty substantial house (or two), but he has made sure that he has a zero sum energy bill.

[Cameron27]

41. If the barn is heated, cooled,

and has electricity, then it's part of the 28,000 sq. ft carbon footprint. It has the exterior look of a barn, but I think it's part of their recreation center.

[renie408]

71. Does anybody know what the carbon footprint actually is?

I know Gore has some whomping house, but he uses a lot of offsets (solar, etc) so that his net energy consumption is zero. Does anybody know if Edwards is doing anything like that?

[Cameron27]

83. That's the point,

but how do you think a 28,000 sq. ft house is going to come up with a small imprint no matter how much solar is used, or how high the energy rating is, or how many energy efficient light bulbs are used? It's not possible with today's technology, or is it?

He'd better pass around that information if it is, because that's an incredible feat.

[renie408]

84. I honestly don't know. I have heard of office buildings

which manage to have a zero carbon footprint and they would have more than 28,000 feet. But I am not sure how it would work in a house.

It is a good question and one I would like to see him address.

[Cameron27]

87. He's buying carbon credits--

see my post with the interview.

I don't like carbon credits for several reasons: one, because they're fundamentally unfair to those who can't afford them,

and two, because they're finding that many of these companies are not following through with their promise, for example, thousands of newly planted trees experience crop failure and are never replanted...if I can find the article that talked about it, I'll post the link.

[renie408]

91. Thanks, I am really interested in this. See, THIS is a much better weapon

than the cow thing. The cow thing wouldn't get touched by any candidate.

I don't care if somebody criticized ANY candidate for something real. But jumping them for something silly is just...silly. Nobody is going to answer that question. At least not much better than Edwards or any better than Hillary answered the 'why should we vote for somebody who was fooled by GWB' thing.

I like Edwards, I don't worship him. I like all of the candidates for different reasons. I just HATE all this picking on them for stupid shit. Why not go after them for the REAL stuff?

[Cameron27]

96. I don't know, maybe it was silly, maybe not,

he's not going to lose any votes over it, no matter what we think I suppose.

[renie408]

99. I dunno.

The beef thing seems silly to me, but the energy use at the house is a valid argument.

He is asking people to give up their SUV's and to sacrifice. He needs to be willing to do the same.

[penguin7]

104. Gore didn't recently build his place

Did he?

[Ninga]

57. Oh my gosh, is this jealousy rearing its very ugly head? John Edwards the American story of self

accomplishment.


He actually worked for his money. He has fought and accomplished and it is small and petty for anyone to throw that in his face.

The one thing i have noticed the most about the edwards-must-die crowd....is that they are small, petty thinkers who I would bet, have never had to "manage" or "hire" or "make life and death decisions" for others.

Because people who live with jobs that have a tremendous amount of responsibility, are generally not small, petty thinkers. Especially liberal leaning professionals.
And please, do not come back and post about how many of you are such highly accomplished professionals. You have already played your hand, and the cards don't lie.


I read in wonder as poster after poster refuses to take a holistic view of the entire life of the man...his foundation's, his causes, the whole picture...

For fuck's sake, if anyone of you edwards-must-die characters were in a life and death struggle, Edwards wouldn't leave anything on the table if he was in front of a jury fighting for you.

Would he?

[Milo_Bloom]

58. Edwards sent people to die.

So would I want a life and death decision in John Edwards' hands?

It already was and he failed miserably.


I wouldn't trust John Edwards to make a decision about the life or death of a goldfish with fin rot.

[Ninga]

59. If he indeed, did send people to die, then I personally would string him up by his balls.

But he didn't send anybody anywhere....except maybe Afghanistan.

I marvel at the absolute confidence in your assertion.

I am sure the people who have seen him fight first hand, would beg to differ with you.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Oh, he didn't vote and co-sponsor the IWR?

Wow, I could've sworn this was the John Edwards who stood on the Senate Floor and declare Iraq a grave threat to the US and co-sponsored the war resolution and voted against the Levin Amendment.

So the guy running for office is the psychic and not the John Edwards who sold out so many times in the Senate? My mistake.

[Ninga]

65. Your opinion is your opinion. You have been so vocal and so absolute that I would not expect

you to suddenly turn the tide and consider the entirety of a man's life.

I would not want to face you if you sitting on jury, judging my sentence.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. I am looking at the entirety of his life.

He spent his career winning high profile cases for personal profit and although I have no objection to his making money that way, his legal career was not one of selflessness. It was of opportunity for profit.

I know of no high profile pro-bono cases that he took on or cases where he was truly the underdog.

His time in the senate is marred by several votes that were OBVIOUSLY political in nature, with no caring for the consequences.

I see a man who did nothing for something he considers the central issue of his campaign until recently.. His senate career included votes AGAINST the poor, such as the bankrupcy act.

I see a man who profited from a hedge fund, but then claims not to know that the very hedge fund was heavily invested in the same predetory lenders that he now claims to be against.

I see a man who just recently sent out a fund raising e-mail claiming that he is stopping campaigning to go to New Orleans and help out oh and by the way, you could go with him and you should contribute as well.

I see a man who is selling himself as a progressive for the sole purpose of fooling people into voting for him as a progressive choice, when he is no friend to the progressive community.


I see a man whose entire life and career has been spent in a grab for money and power and a man who cares nothing for what he has to do to attain that power.

I have seen absolutely NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to suggest he is anything other than what I see.

[Ninga]

74. There are none so blind, as those who will not see.......What you chose to see

is not necessarily the way it "is"......

Here is a bit of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE....read and drink and be nourished,.....the cup is not as bitter as you proclaim.....

There is some good....all you need to do is have the good will of heart, to take the time to read it all.
Four Trials by John Edwards
Before running for political office, John Edwards was a personal injury trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were alleged victims of corporate negligence and/or medical malpractice.
After law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.<13>
Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.<14> In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.<13>
In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's settlement, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.<13> Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.<14>
After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"<13>
In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.<13> The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl<15> who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.
In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."<16> The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.<14> The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the settlement was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the settlement was unprecedented and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment<13> that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.
After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.<13>
In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. Why did you want to prove my point?

I can't believe you really just offered to prove my point for me by offering cases in which John Edwards PERSONALLY profited.

Thanks for reinforcing EXACTLY what I have been saying about Edwards.

[Ninga]

93. Duh, of course he personally profited, he was the lawyer who won the case. What? He should have

done it for free?

It was his job, his employment, what he got paid for.......

Do you do your job for free?


Yikes.....some of the judgements he won, led to some good legislation and laws.

(I know you say, but he is a scum bag!!)


This isn't any fun, you are fronting points I am trying to find merit in, but just can't.


It's a one way debate. No fun.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. Its a simple point, really.

He doesn't get extra special brownie points for doing his job.

People try to act as if John Edwards did something HEROIC by taking a case and suing a company for millions of dollars.

That was his job and he got paid well for doing it.

Good for him. I am glad for the family that he won.

However, why does the fact that he was a good lawyer who made good money mean something more than any of the other thousands of lawyers out there (including myself) who made good money for doing a good job?

He didn't make any sacrifice to do it. He didn't risk his career. He didn't really RISK anything but time.

Show me where John Edwards mortgaged his home to pay bills for a client so they could continue their case.

Show me where John Edwards waived his fee in entirety and paid out of his own pocket for court costs so a case could continue.

Show me something like that and I will conceed his heroism at his job.

However, I can show you 1000's of lawyers who take cases for profit.

I don't begrudge them the money they earn doing it, but I try to hold it up as something special either.

[Cameron27]

63. If any of you Edwards supporters

could actually address the issues and not resort to these "edwards-must-die characters" insults, we might get somewhere. Most people don't give a crap how much money Edwards' made, where he came from, how he grew up or who cuts his hair.

When he tries to justify the house as somehow "green" and then asks people to give up their SUV's, then it's fair to talk about it. When he makes money in a hedge fund, and says he did it to learn about poverty, then it's fair to talk about it, and when he's goes on national tv and laughs off a serious question about the environment, then it's fair to talk about that too.

[Ninga]

67. Maybe his house is green, maybe he drives or doesn't drive his SUV, maybe he

did want to learn about poverty.....I don't know about the cow thing.

You sure sound confident like you have first hand, accurate information. Are you basing your opinion about Edwards on lies????

Better be careful, because some seasondblue-must-die-posters will come out of the ground and say "see, he said things about Edwards when he should have known better and now he must die."

Do you really know for sure every thing you have asserted? You know, the hedge fund stuff and the SUV in the picture stuff, and the big house that the rich bastard couldn't possibility have greened stuff.


I don't think so.......just admit it......you just want him to go away and die.

It would be much better for your blood pressure if you would just be honest and admit it.

[Cameron27]

69. WTF are you talking about?

Edwards said he went to work for Fortress to learn about poverty, do you want a link, it'll take a few minutes. Elizabeth and John both have come out and said their 28,000 square house was environmentally friendly because she used energy efficient light bulbs, some solar power and had a high energy rating.

The question is: what's the cost of their energy consumption, a question he ducked and finally disingenuously answered by quoting a figure on only a part of the unfinished house. Do you want a link for that too, I'll be happy to provide one.

I don't make accusations without having the facts to back them up. Why don't you stop trying to demean the character of you're fellow DUers, and fact check things yourself.

[Ninga]

70. Because you are trying to demean his charater by out right accusing him of

lying and not only that......rolling your eyes........and suggesting that all of his statements were mutually exclusive of each other and that none of the things he said were possible. And you still don't know if his work at Fortress helped him learn about poverty.....do you. !!


That is WTF I was talking about.......

[Cameron27]

81. I don't know how working for a hedge fund helped

him to learn about poverty, because he never told us how, and he never explained what he learned about "the relationships between financial markets and poverty."

I never said his statements were mutually exclusive of each other, because the point is that they're NOT mutually exclusive of each other.

M. O’BRIEN: All right, I’ve got to ask you about the house, though. You’ve got a house that’s 10,000 square feet. The whole compound is 28,000 square feet. That isn’t even completed. There’s a whole other wing that we’re not showing you there. First of all, what’s your power bill each month there?

EDWARDS: It’s actually not bad. Because what we’ve done is…
M. O’BRIEN: Really?

EDWARDS: No, it’s not. Because what we’ve done — well, first of all, the 10,000 square foot house, which is where we live, is a five-star energy-rated house, which is a federal government rating. It’s extraordinarily energy efficient. We use solar to power part of the energy needs of our house. And I might add we have — Elizabeth, and myself and my family — we’ve committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way which means in addition to using energy-saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market.

M. O’BRIEN: What is the power bill? We’re just dying to know. What is it?

EDWARDS: I’m not telling you.

M. O’BRIEN: You’re not going to tell me. Why not?

EDWARDS: It’s actually not bad. It’s about $300, $400, the last one I saw.

M. O’BRIEN: Three or four hundred dollars for 28,000 square feet? Boy, I want to move there. Orange County, North Carolina is the place to go.

EDWARDS: Well, first of all…

M. O’BRIEN: I pay more than that for 2,000 square feet in Manhattan.

EDWARDS: But we live in part of the house, and part of the house is being constructed, as you pointed out. So the part that we’re living in, the power bill is extraordinarily energy efficient. The power bill is several hundred dollars a month.

M. O’BRIEN: I guess the real question is, when people look at the house they think, and you’re saying, you know, let’s cut back, let’s put in the fluorescent bulbs, and they see the house, what conclusions will they draw?

EDWARDS: Well, if we weren’t doing responsible things to control the energy needs of our house, they could draw an adverse conclusion, but we’re actually doing, I think, responsible things under the circumstances. We’re operating the house and we’re going to operate the house in a carbon-neutral way. We use solar power. We’ve made sure we take the steps to have a five-star energy rating. I think we’re doing the responsible things, for the place that we live.

CNN Transcripts

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/20/ltm.01.html

That's why we ask questions about his house in relation to his environmental stance. He dodged the energy bill question and in the last sentence he talks about operating the 28,000 sq. foot house in a carbon-neutral way, but never explains how.

John Edwards has made poverty a top issue as he stumps for the Democratic Presidential nomination. So his connections to Fortress Investment Group, a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes’ latest billionaires list, have provoked quite a bit of interest from campaign watchers. Asked about his decision to join Fortress as a senior adviser in 2005, Mr. Edwards told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he did it “mainly in order to learn about the relationships between financial markets and poverty.”

But the reporters and editors at the A.P. didn’t let him off that easy.

Did he really have to join a hedge fund to learn about that? they asked Mr. Edwards, a former United States senator and trial lawyer. “How else would I have done it?” he responded. Well, you could have taken a class, it was suggested.

“That’s true,” he allowed.

He also conceded that he worked for Fortress in part because “making money was a good thing, too,” but insisted he did it “primarily to learn.”

Hedge funds are private, lightly regulated pools of capital that are usually restricted to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. The best of these funds offer returns that far exceed what the average investor could get from a mutual fund. Hedge funds have created mountains of wealth for the people who run them, some of whom have built modern-day castles in Greenwich, Conn., where many hedge funds are based.

The New York Times

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/for-poverty-101-edwards-went-to-a-hedge-fund/

That's it, I'm done with your temper trantum and your insults. This is a political message board, and we argue about politics and political figures here, it's not a place to trade personal insults. Make your case or not, and let it go.

[renie408]

73. Is the house green or not?

Listen, it doesn't really matter how BIG the house is as long as it is energy efficient and/or generates its own energy. If he isn't sucking up power from an outside source, why do you care how big his house is? It doesn't effect you. Or me. And honestly, cutting seven acres of pine trees probably isn't going to tip the scales that much. What will matter is what gets planted on the bare ground and how it is maintained. If they planted grass and fertilize it traditionally-BAD. If they plant sustainable regional plantings which are drought tolerant and maintain them in an eco-friendly way-GOOD. If the big house sucks up electricity-BAD. If the big house sells electricity back to the grid-GOOD.

So, the size of the house and the amount of trees cleared are not the issues. The issues are how environmentally sound the power used to run the house and maintain the cleared land are. Do you know anything about that or are you just bitching about the size of his house?

[Cameron27]

82. That's my point renie,

nobody gives a crap about the size of the house, but he is paying for his energy use, he just hasn't told us how much. If he's paying it all in carbon credits, then I personally think that sucks, but that's not what he said.

He would never have been targeted for any of this if he hadn't brought it up himself.

edited to say, yes according to him he IS buying carbon credits to gain carbon neutrality.

[renie408]

85. He says that he is running a carbon neutral campaign and that the house

is uber efficient and he is buying carbon offsets so that the house has a small/zero carbon footprint.

I don't know how offsets work, though.

[Cameron27]

92. They're not good IMO

but I'm out of energy myself lol. Thanks for an honest debate though, I love that, and generally learn more than I started with.

[renie408]

95. Looks like I have some research to do.

And thanks to you, too.

[penguin7]

107. The size of the house does matter

Even if at some point in the future it becomes carbon neutral, which I very much doubt is possible, it will still be very much positive in CO2 emissions because building the house creates quite a bit of CO2.

I don't like cutting down all those trees either.

[cobalt1999]

38. I disagree with the link between global warming and cattle, however...

These are the kind of charges of hypocrisy Edwards opened himself up to by advocating against one specific thing (SUVs) in order to reduce our carbon footprints.

He would have been much smarter by advocating everyone reduce their carbon footprints by 10% in the manner they choose. Some could give up the SUV, some the steaks, some the home electric use. By going after one item, he opens himself up to attack on all the other factors in global warming.

[renie408]

40. Why? Why do you disagree with the link?

I agree with your comment about how Edwards should have handled the situation, BTW. I was just wondering if could give some info on the cow thing.

[cobalt1999]

46. The link between cattle and global warming isn't totally accurate

Is the issue cattle or factory farm raised cattle? They throw deforestation into equation as if that will stop if people don't eat meat, however the timber industry has been mowing down the rainforests for decades and what about deforestation to grow crops? Is

IMHO, people should produce and consume food in the least environmentally impactful way possible. Eating a grass feed cow raised in West Texas has much less of an environmental impact than eating South American vegetables.

So, the argument isn't completely accurate.

[Milo_Bloom]

52. Love it!!!

Great answer. I happen to disagree with the link created by PETA (cows=global warming) and believe the real link is Factory Farming = Global Warming

This was a great opportunity for a candidate to talk about the difference between factory farming and global warming and discuss exactly what you said... no one has to GIVE UP anything specific, but gather all the facts and choose where they want to have an impact.

For example. I don't drive a prius or other hyrbid car, because it is too expensive. However, my 2001 car (which I bought new) has only 19K miles on it. My fiance's 2004 car (which we bought new) has only 9K miles on it. In short, even in LA, we walk everywhere we can and try to use the cars as little as possible.

I eat meat, but only buy free range organic from Whole Foods, as I do not want to support factory farming.


What bothered me most about Edwards answer was the extended laugh time, to a question that wasn't really funny and his inability/unwillingness to actually address the issue. One of the things I really liked about Howard Dean in 2003 is that he gave straight answers to questions. I haven't seen that from any of the candidates yet (except for Kucinich) and I especially don't see it from Edwards who I find completely disingenuous.

[Sanctified]

42. It was a stupid question.

There are alternatives than just not eating beef at all, Americans can opt to eat pasture raised grass fed beef, cows that are grass fed emit 40% less emissions than grain fed cows. And there are no issues with disposing of cow waste when they are pasture raised.

[Cameron27]

43. Not stupid,

if you can come up with answers, then Edwards' should have come up with some. And if you're right, then it would have been a great shot at informing the rest of us about the alternatives.

[Sanctified]

44. I read a lot of literature about livestock and organic farming

Edwards most likely does not, if Edwards would have answered the question without knowing all the facts he would most likely have come off as an idiot.

[Cameron27]

45. Maybe you're right,

but I'd wish he had known those answers, because these alternatives are news to me, and I'd like to eat a hamburger without feeling guilty.

[Sanctified]

47. It's hard to find good suppliers of Grass Fed Beef

You can find a supplier in your area if you check out www.eatwild.com. The reason cows who eat grains create so much gas is because grains are not their natural diet and grains are extremely hard for them to digest. The worst thing is now that corn is so fricken expensive some feedlots are now feeding cows expired candy because it's cheaper than corn.

Grass Fed beef is leaner and healthier for you than grain fed but it's also a lot more expensive. I only eat grass fed beef and because of the price I limit myself to eating beef 2 times a month.

[Cameron27]

48. Thank you very much,

I'll check out the site. If I can buy healthier meet, that's also safer for the atmosphere, I'll buy less like you, and pay a higher price.

[cobalt1999]

50. That's what we do too.

That option does tend to get lost in the drive to convert people though.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. He's running for President.

If the most serious issue we are facing is the climate crisis AND factory farming is one of the leading causes of global warming...

shouldn't he have become informed on these subjects?

[Cameron27]

55. Milo, this turned out to be a great thread,

no matter how you feel about Edwards' answer. I've cut way back on my own meat consumption, just because for some reason, I've lost the taste for it. But now I realize that it just makes sense to go for grass fed beef for that little amount.

Thanks, think of how many people would have learned something if the question had been answered properly.

[Catchawave]

54. Obviously, neither has the OP read up on his organic farming facts.....

It's all about the JE Smackdown...sigh.

Disclaimer: I support the animal rights movement, as does Bill Maher.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Or you didn't read my post earlier...

Its true, I have no use for John Edwards and wouldn't vote for him...I make that very clear.

I also stated in a post up there somewhere that I don't believe it is accurate to say cows=global warming and that the more accurate statement is factory farming = global warming.

The fact that Edwards was unable to state this point is disturbing. The fact that he tried to laugh off a very serious question is disturbing. The fact that this is the typical type of John Edwards answer that has caused me to dislike him, is exactly why I posted this thread.

[Romulox]

60. Should've asked him if he would give up private jets and 30,000 '2 mansions...

I could eat a rib roast while driving a Mack truck and still have a much smaller environmental impact than John Edwards.

[Ninga]

62. Wow what self righteous inane crap. Let's see, i would guess you play the lottery or go to

Las Vegas to "try and hit it big" ......because you were too dim and couldn't hack law school.....and now you resent anyone who worked as hard as Edwards has and try to diminish his accomplishments with attacks.

Ha, what a joke you characters are.......

:puke:

[Romulox]

66. LOL...Ad hominems suggest I touched a nerve!

:rofl:

[Ninga]

68. Ad this or Ad that....call it what ever you want....but your disdain for the good man is so

obvious that you make me think that you have not done well in therapy and need to work on why you are so
quick to make bloated and grandiose statements about a person who has achieved the American dream through hard work.

H a r d W o r K

There, I just spelled it out for you. And really rolling around on the floor will only get you dirty.

Gee this Ad stuff is kinda fun!!
I am learning well from all of you edwards-must-die=believers.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Its about the the hypocrisy.

Most of us who haven't bought Edwards' snake oil don't begrudge him the money he has earned.

It is his do as I say, not as I do and have done in the past.

Of the war voters, John Edwards was the biggest supporter and gave senate floor speaches about the grave threat to the US Iraq was. And now he wags the finger of shame at those who don't apologize.

He claims to be for the poor, but supported and voted for the bankrupcy bill.

He wants people to "sacrifice" and give up SUV's, but he makes ABSOLUTELY NO SACRIFICES of his own.

[renie408]

79. And his reply would be "As soon as Al Gore does." Gore travels by private jets.

And Gore has more than one giant house. Please cite a link which proves that John Edwards has such a HUGE environmental impact.


ALL of the candidates live in the glass house you are throwing stones in.

[NYCGirl]

111. Actually, Al Gore travels by public transportation. Unless he's hiring jets to rescue sick

people in New Orleans after Katrina, that is. But thanks for playing.

[w4rma]

64. I have seen my enemy and thy name is cow. All c o w s must die. They all burp too much. (nt)

:sarcasm:

[renie408]

77. It's the farts that are really going to get us. n/t

[ChiciB1]

88. FOR HEAVENS SAKE... Here We Go AGAIN!!! No Matter What Edwards

does, you can bet the farm that there will be some of the SAME EXACT people, doing a TRASH JOB on Edwards!!

Edwards WILL NEVER do anything to their liking and I find THIS one particularly LAUGHABLE!!!

[Milo_Bloom]

90. Yes, quite laughable.

I have already converted one on the fence Edwards supporter with this video and I plan to use it a lot in the future to show people exactly what I see in him that so many of those who bought the snake oil have yet to figure out.

[ChiciB1]

113. What Flavor Is YOUR Kool-Aid??? n/t

[Ninga]

102. I need to adopt your attitude, I take them too seriously. I am going to go sit on the porch with a

frosty brew and visualize a President Edwards.





:toast: :toast:

[Lord Helmet]

101. he joins Hillary in the inappropriate laughing category

not good PR for either of them

[hisownpetard]

103. Still not used to Edwards' accent...when he says "the polar ass-cap" is melting,

the image still startles me.

[smalll]

106. So John Edwards wants to FORCE me to go to the doctor, AND take away my hamburgers? --

And yet there are those here who still contend that this hairdo is ... wait for it ... electable! It is to laugh! :rofl:

[w4rma]

110. Milo is angry that Edwards refuses to take away your hamburgers.

And Edwards was talking about making things mandatory for the health system, not the patients.

[Milo_Bloom]

112. Nope... Angry he can't answer a simple question...

Without resorting to useless rhetoric.

[Sandaasu]

108. Terrific reason to support Edwards

There really isn't much of an attack here. He says in the video that the loss of forests is another cause of this issue, and simply, it is more likely that Americans will give up excessively sized vehicles than beef. Until there is a better substitute, it's just not practical to plead to people to do something about this part of the problem. We'll get there eventually, but for now, reducing the usage of fossil fuels is a very practical way of helping in this area.

Anyway, this is why Edwards is one of my favored candidates. It's really hard to land a good punch on him, so people resort to small things like this which just aren't very convincing.

[Nutmegger]

109. Welcome to DU Sandaasu.

:toast::bounce::toast: