Wikipedia

Talk:Walter B. Jones Jr./Archive 1

< Talk:Walter B. Jones Jr.
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Untitled

I changed his alma mater from North Carolina State University to Hargrave Military Academy when I added the bioguide data (see [1] for a reference). That was the only discrepancy. 68.81.231.127 03:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WashPost: Detainee Abuse Charges Feared

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WashPost story concerning Gonzales from the JD seeking protection from a 1996 law sponsored by Jones that makes US citizens subject to prosecution for the violation of the Geneva Conventions. See [2]. --Ben Houston 15:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WashPost: Jones "raved" about book advocating criminal prosecution of George Bush for Iraq War

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jones reportedly "raved" about Vincent Bugliosi's book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.[3] I think this is OK to include, but in light of WP:BLP I thought it safer to put it here in case others disagree.Crust (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

H. CON. RES. 107

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Warning of impeachment for obama and possible charges of high crimes and misdemeanor.

citation: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112%3AH.CON.RES.107%3A

H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107 Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work and (I corrected the link formatting above) Purely WP:POV editing to put here and in article. Edits make it sound like he is actually calling for impeachment, which the resolution does not explicitly call for. Merely a statement of beliefs, basically. Really, this appears to be more like original research. Are there any media references to this? Since it was just introduced and is only in committee now, I don't know how notable it is. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) updated 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Political Cesspool appearance

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Many reliable sources do not list the Political Cesspool as a "white-supremacist" show, nor does the website of the program itself. They refer to themselves as "conservative" and "populist."

A new article published in Sweden's Fria Tider labels them as "paleoconservative."

http://www.friatider.se/skranig-vansterkritik-efter-intervju-med-nationalistisk-radio

During James Edwards' (Cesspool host) appearances on CNN, he has always been introduced as a "conservative talk radio host." I think CNN is a reliable source. [Removed link as it is copyvio Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]

View the video and scroll to the 4:50 mark to see CNN desrcibe the Political Cesspool as a "conservative radio program."

If it can't be agreed that this show is "white-supremacist" or "conservative" let's just not refer to it as either and let people view it and draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.190.110 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It can't be agreed that Hitler was a bad guy, so should we just not suggest it? That would allow any group, no longer how evil, to avoid being called what they actually in fact are. In any case, the article clearly says who thinks that, it doesn't actually say that that is what he is. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point Dougweller. However, I have also admended the article to also include what CNN thinks as well, in order to add balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.65.252 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't know what CNN thinks, only about one report, and in any case I've replaced the comments on Edwards with material from the Political Cesspool article. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the Political Cesspool's video page you will find multiple instances of CNN referring to Edwards and/or the show itself as "conservative." Also, the link above provides written evidence of Fria Tider referring to the show as "paleoconservative." I find the show interesting, but am not a fan, so don't take me as a partisan. There should be some balance though. The hosts don't claim to be "white-supremacists" and other reliable sources have listed them as "conservatives." That should be at least added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.65.252 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, your argument is very disingenuous. You are taking a position on an issue about them, so of course you are partisan. Don't have to be an actual "fan" of the show for that. Anyway, being conservative doesn't preclude the hosts or the show from being white-nationalist. It is not an either/or statement. Again, it is very disingenuous to try to downplay or negate the actually cited information with minor opinions when that issue is the whole point of Jones' controversial appearance on the show. If you look at the Fria Tider article you point to, you have to note that while they call the show "paleoconservative" they also state, "The program clearly has an ethno-nationalist orientation and makes no secret that the audience is white conservative Americans" See the link and translation provided by the Political Cesspool's own website! http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2012/09/24/ Please! The unnecessary qualification doesn't belong in the article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The bias of JoannaSerah and others is interesting. They race to trot out denunciations of the show, but will not allowed to be posted what CNN and other reliable sources have said about it. I wonder why that is? My citations are clearly listed here and should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.65.252 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Far Tider is described in various spots as 'right-wing', 'extreme right-wing', 'racist', 'neo-Nazi' etc. Interesting choice, and not surprising to find it on the Political Cesspool's website. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
And again, the IP continues to insist upon adding uncited info against consensus into the article. Crying wolf (bias) doesn't further your argument any. As I said before, the show is conservative, yes, but not just conservative. Being conservative doesn't automatically mean you are white nationalist. At the same time, it doesn't mean you are not white nationalist. To reply to your comment above, your citations are clearly listed here in the talk page, yes, but those need to be cited in the article as well, IF consensus states that it should go in. Right now consensus does not support that. We have already answered your suggestion above. Choosing to ignore our answers is the problem. As I stated above, the Fria Tider article does not negate the idea that it is "ethno-nationalist" as they call it. And as Dougweller states, we don't really know what CNN thinks. Just because they introduced him one time as "conservative" doesn't mean they don't also think is might be a white supremacist. You are calling for a conclusion to be drawn, not something really specifically stated somewhere. I and others keep taking it out because you are edit warring to try to get your way, not waiting until discussion has completed and consensus is reached. Please stop. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Walter B. Jones, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Walter B. Jones Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walter_B._Jones_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=1061738224"