Difference between revisions of "Talk:John Edwards"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 27: Line 27:
 
:it's OK.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 
:it's OK.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 
Great.  I try, sometimes, haha.  Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 
Great.  I try, sometimes, haha.  Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 05:13, June 29, 2007

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) Kolbe 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. Kolbe 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic. TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians - Myk 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. Kolbe 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Have to agree with PF Fox

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-Phoenix 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. RobS 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-Phoenix 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. Karajou 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-Phoenix 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. Karajou 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-Phoenix 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

it's OK. Karajou 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-Phoenix 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --PF Fox 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)