Talk:Nixon's Enemies List: Difference between revisions
Jokestress (talk | contribs) →Leonard Woodcock: reply |
Teiresias84 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:That is the verbatim text of Colson's memo. The editorializing was part of the original memo. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
:That is the verbatim text of Colson's memo. The editorializing was part of the original memo. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks [[User:Teiresias84|Teiresias84]] 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:18, 12 July 2006
Page thought
Maybe the names shouldn't be italicized, only the descriptions. --RobbieFal 02:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Getting close
Through judicious use of the 'requested articles' on the recent changes page, I've made sure that all but 5 of the people on the list have articles :) →Raul654 12:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I got three more, but two of the ones I did are substubs. Jokestress 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Got the last one today! Jokestress 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yay! :) →Raul654 00:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Got the last one today! Jokestress 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
What??? Did Nixon try to kill them??????
--4.154.123.40 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)MARLO bag40
- No, he ordered the Department of Justice to harass them with trumped up criminal charges, the IRS to give them severe audits, 'etc. Nixon *did* give orders to firebomb the Brookings Institute though. And remember - that's just what we know about. He resigned rather than turn over his tapes (most of which have never been released), and you can bet that's a goldmine of evidence of other crimes he got away with. Raul654 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, we know pretty solidly about some even nastier stuff, like the government spreading a rumor when Nixon "enemy" Jean Seberg was pregnant in 1970 that the father was not her husband, Romain Gary but one of the Black Panthers she was working with. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Leonard Woodcock
From the article: Leonard Woodcock, United Auto Workers, Detroit, Michigan: No comments necessary.
Well I hardly the phraze 'no comments necessary' is encloypedic. Prehaps American readers know why no comments are necessary, but I have no idea. Is it because he is a trade-unionist? Was he particulary militant or extreme? Is there an incident that I am not aware of? Could someone please fix this, I was going to add a 'world-wide view' tag but it is unnecessary just for one line, but could editors of this article please consider international readers. Thank-you. Teiresias84 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is the verbatim text of Colson's memo. The editorializing was part of the original memo. Jokestress 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)