DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 29, 2007, 11:44:42 PM

Title: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 29, 2007, 11:44:42 PM
John Edwards new house
(http://www.johnlocke.org/images/articles/screen_45b96f4556a25.jpg)

The 28,200-square-foot home also Orange County's most valuable

Guess so at 6 million.

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: sirs on January 29, 2007, 11:53:04 PM
Maybe it doesn't have indoor plumbing     ;)
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Plane on January 30, 2007, 12:54:17 AM
Which America is it in?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 01:02:53 AM
Quote
Which America is it in?

The racist south, of course.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 30, 2007, 08:19:23 AM
How about a picture of Cheney's digs?  Or Juniorbush's ranch?

Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 09:44:25 AM
Quote
How about a picture of Cheney's digs?  Or Juniorbush's ranch?

How about a quote from either of them decrying the two Americas
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Brassmask on January 30, 2007, 11:11:15 AM
BTW, I heard about this last week and I was just dumbfounded.  How moronic can it be to try running on the "Two Americas" theme of poor vs ultra-rich whilst building this monstrosity?

The only way to salvage this in my eyes, is by gathering up homeless people from that area and having the house be a shelter that teaches the homeless farming skills and provides free health and mental care.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Amianthus on January 30, 2007, 11:26:20 AM
BTW, I heard about this last week and I was just dumbfounded.

He was interviewed like a month ago by CBS, and they showcased his new house.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Brassmask on January 30, 2007, 11:28:28 AM
BTW, I heard about this last week and I was just dumbfounded.

He was interviewed like a month ago by CBS, and they showcased his new house.

Hm, I just heard about it last week.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 11:43:03 AM
Quote
The 28,200-square-foot home also Orange County's most valuable

Guess so at 6 million.

Why does that prevent him from speaking about poverty and the gap between wealthy and poor in America?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 12:04:26 PM
Quote
Why does that prevent him from speaking about poverty and the gap between wealthy and poor in America?

It doesn't. But it does affect his credibility as well as limit his options on any effort to close the gap.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 12:06:42 PM
Quote
It doesn't. But it does affect his credibility as well as limit his options on any effort to close the gap.

Why?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Universe Prince on January 30, 2007, 12:53:28 PM
Because it's a little hard to buy his supposed concern for the poor and attacks on the wealthy of America when he's spent $6,000,000 on a 28,200-square-foot house.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Brassmask on January 30, 2007, 12:55:27 PM
Quote
It doesn't. But it does affect his credibility as well as limit his options on any effort to close the gap.

Why?

I'd have to agree with BT, _JS.  A campaign of the design that Edwards is using usually appeals more to the have nots than the haves.  When someone starts talking about that gap it is usually aimed at the lower end of the pay scale, especially when that candidate is a Dem.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 01:14:43 PM
The problem with these attitudes is that it assumes that only the poor may speak for the poor. What that tends to do is limit the possibilities for reform. The poor are generally under-represented in the media and politics, and often do not have a strong voice in society.

By saying that someone such as Edwards cannot speak of the gap between the wealthy and poor is limiting the voice of the working class. It is essentially no different than saying that a white representative cannot fairly represent a majority black district.

Labels such as "Champagne Socialist" have been around forever, but often some of the greatest strides towards progressive policies have come from those who were not impoverished. Edwards has been given the gift of a great deal of intelligence and a quality education. The fact that he has earned great wealth should not preclude him for speaking on behalf of the poor.

While you may or may not agree with him on everything, he has been derided for being an "ambulance chaser" but has in fact helped many families who would otherwise be unable to afford his services. He should be commended, in my book, for pointing to the difficulties faced by poor Americans. And if you don't think there is "another America" then you weren't paying attention when Katrina hit New Orleans.

Or do you think he should react like Barbara Bush and say " many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them?"

No, your argument is invalid. It might be nice for the impoverished to have no voice, but it is hardly fair to demand it.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 01:32:01 PM
JS

If we can't agree on the easy stuff i really don't have much hope for us ever reaching common ground on the hard stuff.

Edwards display of opulence has to affect his credibility. Especially when his chief bully pulpit would be enacting laws that allegedly level the playing field.

How can he in good conscience say that a CEO should not be paid 400 times what the lowest paid worker is paid when he lives in house 14x the size of he average 3/2 suburban ranch house.

Now if he wants to give rousing speeches urging poor americans to take advantage of the opportunities ( a la Bill Cosby) for advancement that exist, education comes to mind, wise life choices come to mind, then he is more than welcome to do that and would have some credibility due to his rising from humble beginnings himself.

But if he wants to pass puniive taxes for success or limit compensaton packages or irony of ironies, urge tort reform,  then he will come up short in the credibility arena simply because he does blatantly display his wealth, he does take advantage of every tax break in the book, and because a family his size does not need a 28,000 square foot house, and since he is already on record as saying he, through government,  gets to decide what is needed, he definitely doesn't walk the walk.



 

Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Amianthus on January 30, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
No, your argument is invalid. It might be nice for the impoverished to have no voice, but it is hardly fair to demand it.

Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Perhaps he should look to Yvon Chouinard for a guide in how to make a ton of money and then still advocate for the impoverished and the environment.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 01:48:52 PM
First, let me make it clear that I'm not here to campaign for John Edwards. It is the point that matters to me, not the candidate.

The poor need advocates. The fact is that politics is set up to dissuade the working class folks and especially the poor from advancing to high levels of political influence. Moreover, it is difficult to have a shared, collective voice.

Why does he have to "walk the walk" to support policies to limit compensation packages, or basic policies to help redistribute wealth for the benefit of the poorest in America?

Do you consider Franklin Roosevelt to have not "walked the walk" either (no need for handicap jokes)?

Quote
Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Amianthus on January 30, 2007, 01:55:27 PM
Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?

Nope. But I do know that a small family can live much more cheaply than he does. A display of opulance as this - especially in the area his house is built - is basically thumbing his nose at the poor.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: sirs on January 30, 2007, 01:58:59 PM
Quote
Yet, it seems disingenuous for someone to claim that the wealthy should have their money taken away to help others, when obviously, he is not doing the same with his own money.

Do you know for a fact that he does not give to charities or comit to volunteer work?

Last time I looked, he was taking advantage of every single tax loophole he could to keep more of his own money, vs allowing the Government, to which he is a public representative of, to take as much as they could in order to do the "will of the people", which he advocates and looks to expand.  
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 02:00:31 PM
So he should really be a Republican, then? Is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: sirs on January 30, 2007, 02:11:57 PM
So he should really be a Republican, then? Is that what you're saying?

Who's saying that?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 03:02:56 PM
JS,

It is inevitable that people will take an inventory of the messenger whilst digesting the message.

A racist could be an advocate for civil rights, but i doubt his message would sell well in the hood.

The subliminal message one gets from Edwards is he got his but you can't get yours.

Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: domer on January 30, 2007, 03:04:04 PM
D'uh. I don't think Edwards is abandoning a "bootstrap" message, as he and Bill Cosby have lived. What he seems to be doing is expanding the range of that notion's efficacy beyond "the talented tenth" to the entire disadvantaged population, most of whom simply cannot capitalize a bare diet of self-reliance. And further, he is not arguing that people shouldn't live well; indeed, he is arguing, within reason, that everyone should. And his pitch for "equity" is not cast in absolute terms but in degrees of relative contribution to solving this and other pressing social issues. One can argue that anyone who effectively puts these matters before the public is certainly doing his share to close the gap. It may be a paradox but what Edwards stands for is true nonetheless: Live well, work hard, and to the extent it is reasonable, we will help you by making the political system more responsive to your needs.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 30, 2007, 03:23:27 PM
I cannot say it better than that.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 04:04:57 PM
So basically Edwards is advocating a do as i say not what i do philosophy.

If not perhaps you can pointout his value of education speeches, his nose to the grindstone recipe for success. All i seem to recall about him is his divisive have vs have not rhetoric. And if not divisive why the two Americas catch phrase?


Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: domer on January 30, 2007, 04:16:05 PM
I don't think Edwards, or any politician, has to cast his arguments to be kosher according to the lights you follow, which would lead to intellectual strangulation. I think the matter is simple and obvious, as I've stated it.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: BT on January 30, 2007, 04:29:51 PM
Domer if you can't debate civilly why bother posting. We already have a Knute, we don't need two.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: domer on January 30, 2007, 04:40:21 PM
Get your hands off of my neck, now!
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Universe Prince on January 30, 2007, 07:35:51 PM

The problem with these attitudes is that it assumes that only the poor may speak for the poor.


I've got a little extra time this evening, so I'd like to respond here. I won't speak for others, but I am not saying only the poor can speak for the poor. I am merely saying I find a little disingenuous to talk about "two Americas" in terms of haves and have-nots as a means of placing oneself as a champion of the middle class and the poor, and then to spend $6,000,000 on a house. His action is what I am criticizing, not his economic status. I have nothing against the man being wealthy and talking about helping the economically disadvantaged improve their lives. Good for him on both points.

Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Plane on January 31, 2007, 12:05:25 AM
Did he really start out as a man of modest means?


Did the system as it is facilitate his efforts to improve his own condition?


Are the changes he advocates going to make it harder to follow the path he took or easyer?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 31, 2007, 09:43:13 AM
Quote
Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.

In that sense, why do Conservatives who run on family values and morals gripe when more attention is placed on them when they are caught in decidedly amoral actions?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: sirs on January 31, 2007, 10:50:10 AM
Quote
Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.

In that sense, why do Conservatives who run on family values and morals gripe when more attention is placed on them when they are caught in decidedly amoral actions?

How does that address Prince's point?  Does Edwards get a pass on assessing his actions, because some conservative is caught with his pants down?  Same thing applies, Js.  If some conservative who preaches family values is caught performing amoral acts, his credibility in pushing a more morals is substantially degraded.  The "gripe" is largely in referencing how Conservatives are apparently unable/not allowed to be human, with vitriolic condemnation applied for when one does fall, while Libs getting caught for acts even more egregious are pretty much given a pass by those same folks, because Libs apparently don't have a moral platform.  There's where your "gripe" comes from
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: _JS on January 31, 2007, 12:32:51 PM
I made my points and stand by them Sirs. I see no reason to reiterate them another time.

My point is that I find it humorous that Edwards is condemned for his home, while some of the same people making these condemnations have been shouting about how unfairly the conservatives are treated when they are caught with their pants down after preaching morality to the American public.

You can't have it both ways.

As for the question itself, I think the answer is relatively simple.

Look at it like early Christianity. There was a great debate between the very early Christian scholars on what to do with non-Christian (and non-Jewish) philosophy and learning. Was it valuable? What place did it hold?

Some scholars argued that it held no value. It was not fruit from the divine and therefore held nothing of value for a Christian. Indeed, any such philosophy could only lead to heresy. Tertullian was somewhat noted for this position.

Other scholars argued that it certainly had value. It wasn't divinely inspired, sure, but there was clearly value in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and other Gentile cultures and philosophies. To simply discount them completely, due to their pagan roots was faulty logic. They weren't there to replace Christian thought, but surely they would be useful. Proponents of this course included Saint Clement and Saint Augustine.

The argument still occurs today in some form (and I gave a rather simple view), but I agree with the latter as did the great Scholastic thinkers.

I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, Edwards may have built himself a grand estate. Yet, that doesn't make his ideas terrible by default. In my mind that is a ridiculous manner of approaching the issues.
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: sirs on January 31, 2007, 12:46:01 PM
I made my points and stand by them Sirs. I see no reason to reiterate them another time.

Which point would that be?


My point is that I find it humorous that Edwards is condemned for his home, while some of the same people making these condemnations have been shouting about how unfairly the conservatives are treated when they are caught with their pants down after preaching morality to the American public.

See how you singled out 1 person to apply your rationlization, but then apply a broad brush when trying to make a comparison.  The "gripe" has been explained.  The "gripe" is in the largely applied free pass that folks on the left get for far more egregious ammoral/immoral acts, based on some psuedo non-moral platform apparently.  Are you alluding that the left has no moral foundation, thus the explaination for the pass they get?


You can't have it both ways.

Not asking for it.  You seem to be the one hung up on the attached rhetoric, coming from whomever.  What I'm asking for is in fact equal condemnation for equally immoral/ammoral acts.   Regardless of what they do or don't "preach".  From the other thread, a request for equal condemnation for racist acts, whether it's white on black or black on what-ever.

And both Prince's & Bt's commentaries remain valid in judging Edwards, as we'd judge any indivdual, for their actions, as compared to their rhetoric


As for the question itself, I think the answer is relatively simple.  Look at it like early Christianity. There was a great debate between the very early Christian scholars on what to do with non-Christian (and non-Jewish) philosophy and learning. Was it valuable? What place did it hold?   Some scholars argued that it held no value. It was not fruit from the divine and therefore held nothing of value for a Christian. Indeed, any such philosophy could only lead to heresy. Tertullian was somewhat noted for this position.  Other scholars argued that it certainly had value. It wasn't divinely inspired, sure, but there was clearly value in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and other Gentile cultures and philosophies. To simply discount them completely, due to their pagan roots was faulty logic. They weren't there to replace Christian thought, but surely they would be useful. Proponents of this course included Saint Clement and Saint Augustine.   The argument still occurs today in some form (and I gave a rather simple view), but I agree with the latter as did the great Scholastic thinkers.   I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, Edwards may have built himself a grand estate. Yet, that doesn't make his ideas terrible by default. In my mind that is a ridiculous manner of approaching the issues.

Not so simple apparently     :-\   Also keep in mind, no is claiming Edwards' rhetoric is defacto terrible, only that his credibility in applying what he preaches takes a hit.....JUST as the conservative who preaches moral values, takes a major credibility hit if found having an extramarital fling with an intern. Or are you claiming that said conservative's actions need not be necessarily applied to the "ideas" and rhetoric they're advocating?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Universe Prince on February 05, 2007, 06:50:52 PM

Quote
Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.

In that sense, why do Conservatives who run on family values and morals gripe when more attention is placed on them when they are caught in decidedly amoral actions?


Because they thought they could get away with it? Because talking about standards is easier than living up to them? I don't know. Edwards' professed ideas may be grand (though I disagree with him more often than not about policy issues), but again, I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message. I do the same for conservative politicians and libertarian politicians and all other politicians. And for most people trying to sell me something. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Diane on February 05, 2007, 07:56:14 PM
a picture of Bush or Cheney's digs does not quite make the point of poor suffering democrats... fighting for the little guy... making big gubment to look after dem folks that can't look after dem selves.


How about a picture of Cheney's digs?  Or Juniorbush's ranch?


Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Jwmcc on February 05, 2007, 11:14:34 PM
Cro!!!!!
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Plane on February 06, 2007, 03:11:23 AM
Quote
Maybe I'm being unfair. It's possible. But I see no reason why I should not consider his actions when assessing the man and his message.

In that sense, why do Conservatives who run on family values and morals gripe when more attention is placed on them when they are caught in decidedly amoral actions?

Is this situaton really analougus?

If it is ,why are liberals waiting for conservatives to complain?
Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Diane on February 06, 2007, 08:17:39 AM
Cro!!!!!


Yep, tis I.

I just couldn't resist... wot with the not so kind and gentler me.

Title: Re: The Other America
Post by: Michael Tee on February 06, 2007, 10:14:06 AM
<<Yep, tis I.>>

Holy sh . . . 

Uh, I mean, hi.