Does anyone know whose house this is?
Hint: he's running for president, is pro-environment, can afford to spend six million dollars on a house containing a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge, and is best known for the anti-class warfare phrase
"two Americas."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/edwardshouse1.jpg

Boy, those politicians really "serve" our country, don't they? I wonder which "America" he lives in?

What I mean is, he's probably just burning to give something back to your average working stiff....

http://cache.wonkette.com/images/i've%20never%20done%20this%20before-tm.jpg

I wonder what Kerry's house looks like. Oh wait, he and Edwards share the same pad.

a kitchen, bedroom, and bathrooms? all in the same house? dammmmmn! that's fancy!

And let it begin. Republicans harping on things that mean NOTHING,however things that people will fall for and use as "reasons" to not vote for a certain person.

And let it begin. Republicans harping on things that mean NOTHING,however things that people will fall for and use as "reasons" to not vote for a certain person.
You act as if Democrats are not guilty of this.

You act as if Democrats are not guilty of this.
IMO, to a far lesser degree.

It seems on this forum you are either...

Pro-Republican
or...
Anti-both parties.

Screw that.

You're a democrat, so is Jester. VP and Imagineer will likely vote for democrats, as will Dop.

You're a democrat, so is Jester. VP and Imagineer will likely vote for democrats, as will Dop.
So? That does not mean the overall feeling on this forum is that you have to hate both parties. Just because they are "voting" for a Democrat does not mean they "like" Democrats (although I could be wrong) But it seems they just like them better then the Republicans. I, however, simply just like the Democrats.

... they are "voting" for a Democrat does not mean they "like" Democrats ...

No more than voting Republican means the individual "likes" Republicans. Sometimes it's simply the lesser of 2 incompetents.

No more than voting Republican means the individual "likes" Republicans. Sometimes it's simply the lesser of 2 incompetents.
I'd say people who vote for Republicans actually like the Republicans. I don't think I could say the same for Democrats.

I'd say people who vote for Republicans actually like the Republicans. I don't think I could say the same for Democrats.
Again you make partisan blanket statements.

What leads you to this conclusion? trav, Decka, and Prae all complain about the Republicans from time to time.

Again you make partisan blanket statements.

What leads you to this conclusion? trav, Decka, and Prae all complain about the Republicans from time to time.
It isn't an opinion I can prove with facts. It is an observation due to my personal experience. Take it or leave it. And knowing you you'll leave it. But no loss there.

You're saying that because the guy who says it happens to be rich then that totally refutes his claim about "2 Americas." Nobody, but nobody can run for national office in this country without being rich. Matching funds is chump change, sucka. That's a simple fact of life in American politics. That, in no way, make Edwards a hypocrite for claiming (rightfully I might add) that there are 2 Americas. Do I have to be a crime victim to recognize that there's too much crime in America? Do I have to be a homosexual to support gay marriage? Do I have to be a moron to recognize that Bush is one?

You're saying that because the guy who says it happens to be rich then that totally refutes his claim about "2 Americas."
The title of this thread is "Faux Enviromentalist."

Would a person with concern for the enviroment be a wastrel by owning a 6 million dollar estate? I think that is what Brooks is trying to get at.

Well admittedly he has done a pretty good hatchet job on those trees in the back yard there. But that is really a hair on the ass of the flea on the tail of the dog when it comes to irreversable damage to the environment. Millions of obscenely huge Hummers and SUVs driving around thanks to loopholes in the fuel efficiency laws (thanks GOP) has much more impact than one man's house.

Millions of obscenely huge Hummers and SUVs driving around thanks to loopholes in the fuel efficiency laws (thanks GOP) has much more impact than one man's house.
I was thinking the same. Brooks doesn't have a potent, debatable point here. He seems to just be poking fun at Edwards.

I was thinking the same. Brooks doesn't have a potent, debateable point here. He seems to just be poking fun at Edwards.
that's not a debatable point?

that's not a debatable point?
Making fun of someone by posting a picture of their house hardly opens the floor for deep cerebral discourse on the 2008 election and the motives of the enviromentalist movement. I could be wrong, I shall just wait and see what this thread becomes.

Making fun of someone by posting a picture of their house hardly opens the floor for deep cerebral discourse on the 2008 election and the motives of the enviromentalist movement. I could be wrong, I shall just wait and see what this thread becomes.
it took awhile, but it wormed it's way out...now get ready for it to drift into "Cheney is Darth Vader, and Bush is his Sith Master".http://anakinskywalker1.homestead.com/files/vader.gif

it took awhile, but it wormed it's way out...now get ready for it to drift into "Cheney is Darth Vader, and Bush is his Sith Master".http://anakinskywalker1.homestead.com/files/vader.gifDon't you know anything?

Cheney is the Sith master.

Does anyone know whose house this is?
Hint: he's running for president, is pro-environment, can afford to spend six million dollars on a house containing a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge, and is best known for the anti-class warfare phrase
"two Americas."1. Is there a rule that says you have to BE poor to care about the poor?

2. What connection, if any, is there between John Edwards' estate and his position on the environment?

1. Is there a rule that says you have to BE poor to care about the poor?
It comes from personal reasoning.
A = I'm not poor
B = I don't care about the poor
C = He's not poor
D = He doesn't care about the poor
A -> B
A <-> C
B <-> D
So therefore
C -> D.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Duh.

It seems on this forum you are either...
Pro-Republican
or...
Anti-both parties.
Screw that.
That's a really astute point. I think it suggests that the few way-out-of-the-mainstream posters here are on the left, and I agree with that.

Do I have to be a crime victim to recognize that there's too much crime in America? Do I have to be a homosexual to support gay marriage? Do I have to be a moron to recognize that Bush is one?I don't believe that but Echo has said that since I'm a man, my opinion on abortion is irrelevant; the term "chicken-hawk" is used against Republicans who support the war but have never been in the military and last week Senator Barbara Boxer actually brought up Secretary Rice's non-parent status to question her credibility on sending soldiers to Iraq.
You're actually projecting a Democrat ploy onto me.

******

During the last presidential campaign Senator Kerry made a big announcement. Something to the effect of the Kerrys and the Edwards's being on the list for the new Ford hybrid SUV. I've been trying to find out if they actually ended up getting one after the campaign was over.
I bet they didn't.

My point is that many Dem politicians just pay lip service to this issue. And that giant footprint that his mansion made in that forest, along with the incredible heating bills he'll generating do make him look like a hypocrite.

Brooks - if you keep bringing up that insane old broad from Oregon who's not posted here in quite a while, you know she's going to show up again. All it takes is repeating her screen name a certain # of times backwards & she'll not only start posting, but give all reading her posts the flu.

Brooks - if you keep bringing up that insane old broad from Oregon who's not posted here in quite a while, you know she's going to show up again. All it takes is repeating her screen name a certain # of times backwards & she'll not only start posting, but give all reading her posts the flu.
i thought you had to do that looking into a mirror:confused:

2. What connection, if any, is there between John Edwards' estate and his position on the environment?

There would be a connection, I think, if he were always making the usual comments about driving big SUVs and wasting energy and whatnot. Big houses use a lot more energy than small one, take a lot more resources to build, etc. Having said that, Edwards, to my knowledge, isn't really that overboard on the environment, so I don't see any real conflict here. Now if that were Al Gore's house . . .

Brooks - if you keep bringing up that insane old broad from Oregon....I thought her point was relevant and common among liberals, so it fit.
Besides, I like her.

Well, now I've said Echo three times. According to Bettlejuice....

There would be a connection, I think, if he were always making the usual comments about driving big SUVs and wasting energy and whatnot. Big houses use a lot more energy than small one, take a lot more resources to build, etc. Having said that, Edwards, to my knowledge, isn't really that overboard on the environment, so I don't see any real conflict here. Now if that were Al Gore's house . . .
Al's is even bigger, and he's got two of 'em!

Al's is even bigger, and he's got two of 'em!

I'm gonna remember that one :D That's definitely coming out of context when I quote you

Just because someone acts a certain way in their personal life does not mean that their policy will reflect that or should, and vice versa. Edwards' personal life doesn't reflect his policies, I really could care less. Just as long as he doesn't let his personal life affect his professional life, I'm ok with that.

I'm not biased on this, the same thing goes for Bush. If he screwed a dirty, infested prostitute and the tabloids got ahold of it I would be defending him on that issue, not lambasting him.

Millions of obscenely huge Hummers and SUVs driving around thanks to loopholes in the fuel efficiency laws (thanks GOP) has much more impact than one man's house.I agree with you on all of that. How does that affect the Edwards thread?

Making fun of someone by posting a picture of their house hardly opens the floor....
I posted a picture and quoted him. I'm not making fun of him.
If you think it's a bad point that's fair enough, but as far as I can see I'm not making fun of him

I posted a picture and quoted him. I'm not making fun of him.
The statements:

"Does anyone know whose house this is?
Hint: he's running for president, is pro-environment, can afford to spend six million dollars on a house containing a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge, and is best known for the anti-class warfare phrase
"two Americas." "

...strike me as mocking and jestful. And I didn't say your point was a bad one. If he is truly pro-enviroment, why would he be so prodigal? That leads us to the conclusion that he is not an enviromentalist. Plus, he wasn't radical in his stance on the enviroment either, therefore this thread ended as soon as it began.

If he is truly pro-enviroment, why would he be so prodigal? That leads us to the conclusion that he is not an enviromentalist.
Why? Simply because he does things which are not environmentally friendly? His politics (if he were in office) would have a much greater effect than his personal life on the environment. The same thing goes for Arnold driving a hummer. He can still be an environmentalist and do a few things that are not environmentally friendly.

Plus, he wasn't radical in his stance on the enviroment either, therefore this thread ended as soon as it began.
True, he never was a huge tree hugger.

Why? Simply because he does things which are not environmentally friendly?
You make a really good point, and I don't totally disagree with you, I just wish the people who disagree with me on this take the same stance when someone uses the phrase "chicken-hawk" (which means a republican who is pro-war but hasn't served in the military).

If someone can't be pro-war without having served in the military, then someone can't be pro-environment without living green.

True, he never was a huge tree hugger.I don't exactly know what a huge tree hugger is, but he definitely ran against president Bush on the issue and he's using it now (from his wife's blog):
"We sold the conventional fuel SUV ....we bought a hybrid,... all the water in our home and some of the flooring is heated with solar energy….. our home is Energy-Star rated…We recycle, of course, .…, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs…..…. Our family is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania, to help winterize a home"

Here's my favorite part (yes, now I am making fun of him): "the bulbs are more expensive (although Costco and eBay have some good prices),"

You make a really good point, and I don't totally disagree with you, I just wish the people who disagree with me on this take the same stance when someone uses the phrase "chicken-hawk" (which means a republican who is pro-war but hasn't served in the military).

If someone can't be pro-war without having served in the military, then someone can't be pro-environment without living green.

True, I agree. You can be pro-war without having served. An officer who was not a private can still make good decisions on what a private should do. Direct experience in a field is not always necessary for someone to make decisions in that field.

The difference in the comparison is that in order to wage war, we need to have a military, and soldiers. If someone is truely for supporting our military, and they have served (which shows their support); and if they then say that they are pro-war, I will listen more to them than to a chicken-hawk (that's a new term for me).

I don't exactly know what a huge tree hugger is
I suppose environmentally-friendly is more appropriate. He is environmentally-friendly, but that's wasn't his major platform.

but he definitely ran against president Bush on the issue and he's using it now (from his wife's blog):
"We sold the conventional fuel SUV ....we bought a hybrid,... all the water in our home and some of the flooring is heated with solar energy….. our home is Energy-Star rated…We recycle, of course, .…, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs…..…. Our family is headed to Scranton, Pennsylvania, to help winterize a home"

Here's my favorite part (yes, now I am making fun of him): "the bulbs are more expensive (although Costco and eBay have some good prices),"

heh, hey I'm not here to defend Edwards. Thank God his wife isn't a politician - like she actually does the shopping anyways.

I just wanted to point out that he can make lifestyle decisions that are not environmentally friendly, yet overall (through policy) make positive environmental changes.

You make a really good point, and I don't totally disagree with you, I just wish the people who disagree with me on this take the same stance when someone uses the phrase "chicken-hawk" (which means a republican who is pro-war but hasn't served in the military).I wouldn't say being pro-war without having served is enough to earn the 'chickenhawk' moniker. It rightfully belongs to those who actively avoided dangerous military service themselves but have no problem sending other people's kids into wars of aggression.

Why? Simply because he does things which are not environmentally friendly? His politics (if he were in office) would have a much greater effect than his personal life on the environment. The same thing goes for Arnold driving a hummer. He can still be an environmentalist and do a few things that are not environmentally friendly.
It's like a priest who preaches in church but spends time buying hookers and getting drunk. Just because you are against something publicly doesn't mean that gives you a pass to be part of the problem.

Brooks, you are making even less sense then you usually do. What do you think you are proving with this nonsense? That if someone has money they can't possibly be a progressive or a populist?

Can you even prove that house in the picture belongs to Edwards?

...the 'chickenhawk' moniker. It rightfully belongs to those who actively avoided dangerous military service themselves but have no problem sending other people's kids into wars of aggression.Define "wars without aggression" for me.
But anyway, we'll use that definition from now on, if you like.
It still bears direct similarity to Edwards and his green-for-thee-but-not-for-me position.

It still bears direct similarity to Edwards and his green-for-thee-but-not-for-me position.

A "position" you made up with no evidence to support it.

It's like a priest who preaches in church but spends time buying hookers and getting drunk. Just because you are against something publicly doesn't mean that gives you a pass to be part of the problem.These comparisons are all fair. The difference is that everyone calls that priest and the chicken-hawk hypocrites.

The difference is that everyone calls that priest and the chicken-hawk hypocrites.

Explain to me how Chicken-Hawks are not hypocrites.

A "position" you made up with no evidence to support it.I think you're confusing opinion and debate with discussions in which evidentiary proof exists.

If you can find a math or geology discussion group on the internet, jump in. But this, by definition, is a little different.

Didn't you learn this at Stanford or U of M?

Explain to me how Chicken-Hawks are not hypocrites.My point here is that the priest, the Edwards's and the chicken-hawk are all analogous. If one is, they all are. If one isn't, none of them are.

Actually, the priest and John Edwards is the better comparison, since the "chicken-hawk" can delegate his duties and decisions to advisors and experts.

I think you're confusing opinion and debate with discussions in which evidentiary proof exists.

So in other words, you have nothing.

Smear for the sake of partisan smear.

Getting a jump start on the swiftboating eh? :rolleyes:

My point here is that the priest, the Edwards's and the chicken-hawk are all analogous. If one is, they all are. If one isn't, none of them are.

Assuming one accepts your partisan "opinions" about Edwards.

Didn't you learn this at Stanford or U of M?

Snarkiness is par for the course with you, isn't it?

So in other words, you have nothing.
Smear for the sake of partisan smear.
Getting a jump start on the swiftboating eh? :rolleyes:If an opinion that I attempt to defend is "nothing", "partisan smear" and "swiftboating" then the concept of AllForums is "nothing", "partisan smear" and "swiftboating". Why are you wasting your time?

Seriously, go to a math discussion group. It's not so partisan.

Snarkiness is par for the course with you, isn't it?I don't mean to be because I really like your avatar and the way... uh...
I really like your avatar.

I don't mean to be because I really like your avatar and the way... uh...
I really like your avatar.
wait until he finds out that Shatner is one of those evil jews:@@:

If an opinion that I attempt to defend is "nothing", "partisan smear" and "swiftboating" ...

The "Nothing" to which I was referring is the amount of anything substantial you have with which to defend your partisan opinions.

Let me see if I understand your claims...

You used a picture, that is supposedly Edwards' house, to support your opinion that he is somehow a "faux environmentalist" and you referenced his "two Americas" speech (which has nothing to do with environmentalism, by the way) as further evidence that he is somehow a hypocrite.

And this makes sense to you???

:rolleyes:

wait until he finds out that Shatner is one of those evil jews:@@:

You are obviously confusing me with someone else. :rolleyes:

The following is a posting from someone who saw the same Drudge report/Carolina Journal story that Brooks brought to this forum. The guy makes some great points...



So what? In the status quo, aren't "rich people" getting those tax cuts in order to spend their money on things, thus benefitting people in construction, manufacturing, etc? We know that politics is largely made up of "rich people" as it's pretty difficult for the "average person" to scrape together the millions necessary for campaigning.

Shouldn't people on the right be complimenting Mr. Edwards on his contributions to the local economy? I mean if they had documentation that he went and picked up some illegal immigrant laborers or hired a bunch of poor people from India to come build his house at a labor cost far below market value, then that's a story.

However, a national politician and speaker has the largest/most expensive house in the county? Especially in a rural county? Is it really that surprising?

Brooks? Any comment?

These comparisons are all fair. The difference is that everyone calls that priest and the chicken-hawk hypocrites.

The priest....maybe.

But I have a hard time finding ANYONE in the media exposing the RightWing chicken-hawks in Washington for being exactly that; "chicken-hawks".

It's like a priest who preaches in church but spends time buying hookers and getting drunk. Just because you are against something publicly doesn't mean that gives you a pass to be part of the problem.

It means you are a hippocrate. If the preacher convinces 100 people to change their lives, but he does all those bad things himself I would still say he was a good preacher.

So in other words, you have nothing.

Smear for the sake of partisan smear.

Getting a jump start on the swiftboating eh? :rolleyes:

Well, if that is Edward's house, then he is a hippocrate. However, he can still be a hippocrate and also be an environmentalist.

It means you are a hippocrate. If the preacher convinces 100 people to change their lives, but he does all those bad things himself I would still say he was a good preacher.

Its hard to get people to listen to you if you don't practice what you preach.. you don't see 500 pound fatasses at the gym telling people how to lose weight.

Well, if that is Edward's house, then he is a hippocrate.

Whoa!

Wait a minute.

THIS is a what a hippocrate looks like.......

http://www.cedarislandpark.com/images/Walthers/w1367a.jpg




.....while THIS is a what a hypocrite looks like;

http://www.bartcop.com/military-idiot.jpg

....he is somehow a "faux environmentalist" and you referenced his "two Americas" speech (which has nothing to do with environmentalism, by the way) as further evidence that he is somehow a hypocrite.
And this makes sense to you???
Re-explaining things to the sole person who doesn't understand it is usually an exercise in futility, but here goes.

I called a mystery person a "faux environmentalist". To help everyone figure it out who I meant, I gave some clues.
To wit: he's running for president, is pro-environment, can afford to spend six million dollars on a house containing a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge, and is best known for the anti-class warfare phrase.

I never said the "two Americas speech" was related to the environment.

1. The "Nothing" to which I was referring is the amount of anything substantial you have with which to defend your partisan opinions.
2. And this makes sense to you??? 1. I have an example of one thing he said, and I have an example of how he did another.
Do I have a speech of him saying "I am an environmental hypocrite"?
No I do not.
But that's what makes this my partisan opinion, as opposed to my partisan fact.
But again, I implore you. Please find a math or small engine repair discussion group if you want discussions with black and white proof of something.

2. That sort of cutesie declarative-statement-read-as-a-question thang was funny when Monica and Chandler did it, but it feels like I'm receiving a text from my thirteen year old daughter..

Well, if that is Edward's house, then he is a hippocrate.

Why because he is rich but cares about the poor?

Those are values and criticising them is just as silly as the Democrats who criticize the poor people who vote Republican against their own economic self interest.

That kind of criticism has never won over a single voter.

The following is a posting from someone who saw the same Drudge report/Carolina Journal story that Brooks brought to this forum. The guy makes some great points...


So what? In the status quo, aren't "rich people" getting those tax cuts in order to spend their money on things, thus benefitting people in construction, manufacturing, etc? We know that politics is largely made up of "rich people" as it's pretty difficult for the "average person" to scrape together the millions necessary for campaigning.

Shouldn't people on the right be complimenting Mr. Edwards on his contributions to the local economy? I mean if they had documentation that he went and picked up some illegal immigrant laborers or hired a bunch of poor people from India to come build his house at a labor cost far below market value, then that's a story.

However, a national politician and speaker has the largest/most expensive house in the county? Especially in a rural county? Is it really that surprising?

Brooks? Any comment?

Great points!

Why am I not suprised that Brooks did not respond to them?

Brooks? Any comment?This is the first I've seen of this article. I passed it right by because I'm more interested in your opinion than your cutting and pasting skills (Oftimes, I don't participate in threads that start with a long article).
But anyway....

The oversimplified and stereotyped right, about whom this article was written, probably would compliment the creator of a big footprint in a forest as long as it provides jobs. I'm not of the same opinion. And I think those disagreeing with me on this thread are, usually, not of this opinion.

Other than that, I don't see what else y'all want me to address in this article.

Re-explaining things to the sole person who doesn't understand it is usually an exercise in futility, but here goes.
In the future, I wouldn't bother, Brooks. Any person who can't logically make sense of simple words (i.e. READ THEM (without drawing any bone-headed conclusions, that is)) (e.g.......
I called a mystery person a "faux environmentalist". To help everyone figure it out who I meant, I gave some clues.
To wit: he's running for president, is pro-environment, can afford to spend six million dollars on a house containing a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge, and is best known for the anti-class warfare phrase.

I never said the "two Americas speech" was related to the environment.)
......doesn't deserve to have anything "re-explained". From my own personal experience, retarded people are hardly worth the keystrokes.

I suppose you'd rather see the "faux environmentalist" living in a run-down shack where he would be an ineffective political candidate.

I suppose you'd rather see the "faux environmentalist" living in a run-down shack where he would be an ineffective political candidate.no

This is the first I've seen of this article.

I didn't post an article. I quoted a comment by someone who also saw the Drudge Report article.

I passed it right by because I'm more interested in your opinion than your cutting and pasting skills. (Oftimes, I don't participate in threads that start with a long article).

I see. So.... instead of discussing your own topic, you're actually more interested in making snide comments about those who disagree with you. "Snipe first, read later (maybe; if it isn't too long)." Good deal!

Brooks, you started this stupid discussion. Any logical person would assume you were curious what others had to say about it. Your sorry excuse for not reading the comments here about your own freakin' topic, does not fly. Wanna try again?

Also, please note that I clearly stated that my opinion was the same as that offered in the quoted comment.

The oversimplified and stereotyped right, about whom this article was written, probably would compliment the creator of a big footprint in a forest as long as it provides jobs.

Try to pay attention, Brooks. As I have explained twice now, the comment I quoted isn't an article. It is a comment about the Drudge Report/Carolina Journal story that you obviously read, and then brought to AllForums to start shit.

The comment (once again, NOT an article) offered good questions and sound logic in response to the Drudge Report claims/complaints about Edwards' home.

Which explains why you're working so hard to avoid responding to it.

Other than that, I don't see what else y'all want me to address in this article.

Here we go again.... It's not a freaking article. And you haven't addressed a bloody thing, pal. :rolleyes:

Ok Frannie. Re-read what I said and substitute the word "comment" for the word "article". You seemed to have gotten really worked up about that.

The reason I usually avoid someone else's cut and paste is because if I make a comment or an argument, the person can always back out by saying "Hey, I only posted it." So what's the point?

And I'm not avoiding anything. Please tell me what else there is in this article that I didn't address. Seemed like pretty thin gruel.

Pal.

Pal.
:)

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, because everyone knows that a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge are all bad for the environment and anyone who has any of these things couldn't possibly care one whit about the poor...

</sarcasm>

Originally Posted by Leper
I suppose you'd rather see the "faux environmentalist" living in a run-down shack where he would be an ineffective political candidate.

no

Right, you would rather just criticize the effective political cantidate as a "hyporcite" for having the ability to be effective.

My point here is that the priest, the Edwards's and the chicken-hawk are all analogous. If one is, they all are. If one isn't, none of them are.
It's a fair point but I would add it's a matter of degree. A priest who preaches morality but is a real life pervert is commiting a greater crime than just a run-of-the-mill pervert. The head of the IRS cheating on his taxes is worse than me cheating on mine.

Right, you would rather just criticize the effective political cantidate as a "hyporcite" for having the ability to be effective.
just how does a squash court and two stages make a political cadidate effective?...the pool and basketball court i can understand:rolleyes:

just how does a squash court and two stages make a political cadidate effective?...the pool and basketball court i can understand

Assuming for a moment that Edwards actually has any of those things...

The fact he can afford them means he has the money to be effective in our current system.

Assuming for a moment that Edwards actually has any of those things...

The fact he can afford them means he has the money to be effective in our current system.
do you have any idea how much CO2 is being belched out to heat and light that kind of living space?

have you ever heard the phrase "do as i say, don't do as i do"?

do you have any idea how much CO2 is being belched out to heat and light that kind of living space?


No, I do not. Enlighten me.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-29T164554Z_01_L29194410_RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-SURVEY.xml

13% of Americans haven't heard of global warming.

It isn't an opinion I can prove with facts. It is an observation due to my personal experience. Take it or leave it. And knowing you you'll leave it. But no loss there.

your wrong, I hate republicans yet sem to vote for them more often then not. as evak said, the lesser two evils. they are pro tax cut, thats all they do for me.

your wrong, I hate republicans yet sem to vote for them more often then not. as evak said, the lesser two evils. they are pro tax cut, thats all they do for me.
about the same here..but with me they're the lesser of two idiots.

No, I do not. Enlighten me.
you're not familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, are you?

you're not familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, are you?

Ah, mere "rhetoric"... I should have known.

rhe·tor·i·cal /rɪˈtɔrɪkəl, -ˈtɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-tawr-i-kuhl, -tor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.

Sarcasm doesn't carry over well into writing. Thats why I try to end my sarcastic statements with </sarcasm>

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, because everyone knows that a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower and a lounge are all bad for the environment

As I said previously, I never saw Edwards as a real big environmentalist, so I'm not bothered by it - but since you asked - it's harmful the same way a Hummer is harmful. The Hummer complies will all emissions laws, etc., but it is criticized because it uses a lot more resources to get the job done. The same thing applies to larger houses - it takes more energy to heat and cool them, they use more resources to build, and they use a lot more land (sprawl and all of that supposedly being bad).

Anyone (I'm not saying you specificaly, Dharma) that is offended by people driving Hummers should be as offended by this place.

I am not "offended", per se, by people with Hummers but the thought of having to pay that kind of gas bill makes me cringe.

As I said previously, I never saw Edwards as a real big environmentalist, so I'm not bothered by it - but since you asked - it's harmful the same way a Hummer is harmful. The Hummer complies will all emissions laws, etc., but it is criticized because it uses a lot more resources to get the job done. The same thing applies to larger houses - it takes more energy to heat and cool them, they use more resources to build, and they use a lot more land (sprawl and all of that supposedly being bad).

Anyone (I'm not saying you specificaly, Dharma) that is offended by people driving Hummers should be as offended by this place.
i'm all for Hummers on the road...not necessarily H2s, but that's a different subject.:o

Ah, mere "rhetoric"... I should have known.

rhe·tor·i·cal /rɪˈtɔrɪkəl, -ˈtɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-tawr-i-kuhl, -tor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.

Sarcasm doesn't carry over well into writing. Thats why I try to end my sarcastic statements with </sarcasm>
and where is sarcasm noted?:corn:

It is per se. Per se.

It is per se. Per se.
he can't see you unless you get a li'l help.:comphit:

and where is sarcasm noted?

Im sorry? Are you expecting a response?
Or are you just being "rhetorical" again? :rolleyes:

he can't see you unless you get a li'l help.:comphit:
I feel obliged to correct his error.

I feel obliged to correct his error.
so do i, but i can let the typos slide....even though i know it wasn't a typo.

Im sorry? Are you expecting a response?
Or are you just being "rhetorical" again? :rolleyes:
if i was expecting an intelligent response, i would have asked someone else.

but, yes-that was a rhetorical question too.

if i was expecting an intelligent response, i would have asked someone else.

but, yes-that was a rhetorical question too.

I see maturity is too much to hope for from you. :rolleyes:

I see maturity is too much to hope for from you. :rolleyes:
:banana:

I see maturity is too much to hope for from you. :rolleyes:

Thats like Shit telling Vinegar it smells bad.

Thats like Shit telling Vinegar it smells bad.

Pot...kettle...black...