Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opini ... ral&src=me



Early one morning, 50 years ago today, while his wife, Mary, slept upstairs, Ernest Hemingway went into the vestibule of his Ketchum, Idaho house, selected his favorite shotgun from the rack, inserted shells into its chamber and ended his life.

Hoover destroyed more lives than we will ever know...

The guy dug his own grave.

So, getting chummy with tin-horn dictators from south of the boarder will get you investigated????

Col Hogan wrote:So, getting chummy with tin-horn dictators from south of the boarder will get you investigated????

That's a bro' handshake.

--

"All his life he tried to drown something inside him with booze. Finally he just gave up and shot it."
Vonnegut


Hemingway revealed as failed KGB spy
Notes from Stalin-era intelligence archives show 'agent Argo' as a willing recruit in 1941


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ju ... ed-kgb-spy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bronco wrote:--

"All his life he tried to drown something inside him with booze. Finally he just gave up and shot it."
Vonnegut


Hemingway revealed as failed KGB spy
Notes from Stalin-era intelligence archives show 'agent Argo' as a willing recruit in 1941


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ju ... ed-kgb-spy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gotta say...

...there's little that was generated during Hoover's reign that has integrity. He (IMHO) clearly suffered from paranoid delusions.

It's one thing to allow ones imagination to run free...but when you have control of the largest investigative agency on the planet, that "imagination" must be curbed.

To suggest Hemingway was interested in providing Russia with some form of "intelligence" seems a bit laughable.

What would he have provided? Having spent most of his adult life as an American ex-patriot living in Europe, writing...what intelligence could he have provided? What would have been his motivation? By 1941, Germany had already begun the push east, and Russia had little interest in the West under newly-minted Stalin.

Hemingway was gifted, and Hoover wasted time and resources chasing an improbably malevolent ghost.

Hemingway did fight on the communist side in the Spanish Civil War...but hated Hollywood where many commie sympathizers resided.
Who knows

Bronco wrote:Hemingway did fight on the communist side in the Spanish Civil War...but hated Hollywood where many commie sympathizers resided.
Who knows

If he was anything like most other liberal "artistes" then he probably didn't know, either.

He was just a heart broken romanticist writer that wrote simplistic prose immersed in his own sadness. Great contributor to our written art, but a completely miserable drunk, that finally put an end to his misery, whether we liked it or not.


I went and bought a copy of The Old Man And The Sea for my son to read while he was recovering from a stupid summer fuck up with burns over 45% of his body, he actually got the message by it.

Bronco wrote:Hemingway did fight on the communist side in the Spanish Civil War...but hated Hollywood where many commie sympathizers resided.
Who knows

One could also say he fought on the Anti-Fascist side... since it was in essence everybody else against Franco, the Nazis and the Italians...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Bronco wrote:Hemingway did fight on the communist side in the Spanish Civil War...but hated Hollywood where many commie sympathizers resided.
Who knows

One could also say he fought on the Anti-Fascist side... since it was in essence everybody else against Franco, the Nazis and the Italians...

Neither ideology was viable, although some folks seem to think that Communism just hasn't had the right opportunity to show its full potential yet.

That garbage heap of history has a certain "Groundhog Day" quality for some reason. I thought liberals/progressives/leftists were supposed to be the smart ones.

BTW- Josef Stalin was anti-Nazi, too.

CID1990 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
One could also say he fought on the Anti-Fascist side... since it was in essence everybody else against Franco, the Nazis and the Italians...

Neither ideology was viable, although some folks seem to think that Communism just hasn't had the right opportunity to show its full potential yet.

That garbage heap of history has a certain "Groundhog Day" quality for some reason. I thought liberals/progressives/leftists were supposed to be the smart ones.

BTW- Josef Stalin was anti-Nazi, too.

again - the loyalists WEREN'T communists. there were certainly communists (and plenty of them) among their number - but they were NOT fighting to install a communist government in Spain - they were fighting AGAINST fascism - plain and simple.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Neither ideology was viable, although some folks seem to think that Communism just hasn't had the right opportunity to show its full potential yet.

That garbage heap of history has a certain "Groundhog Day" quality for some reason. I thought liberals/progressives/leftists were supposed to be the smart ones.

BTW- Josef Stalin was anti-Nazi, too.

again - the loyalists WEREN'T communists. there were certainly communists (and plenty of them) among their number - but they were NOT fighting to install a communist government in Spain - they were fighting AGAINST fascism - plain and simple.

Tito wasn't SUPPOSED to be a commie faggot either

Looks to me like he was nuts anyway and I don't know if I'd ascribe him killing himself to being monitored by the FBI. And I'm not saying that to defend the FBI. I do think the FBI is too powerful and I don't even know if there should be a Federal police force like that. But that article makes it sound like the guy was just plain nuts and if it hadn't been the FBI he would've thought space aliens were watching him or something.

And the shock treatment. Ouch. I can't believe they used to do that to people. I'm assuming they don't still do it. I hope not.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Neither ideology was viable, although some folks seem to think that Communism just hasn't had the right opportunity to show its full potential yet.

That garbage heap of history has a certain "Groundhog Day" quality for some reason. I thought liberals/progressives/leftists were supposed to be the smart ones.

BTW- Josef Stalin was anti-Nazi, too.

again - the loyalists WEREN'T communists. there were certainly communists (and plenty of them) among their number - but they were NOT fighting to install a communist government in Spain - they were fighting AGAINST fascism - plain and simple.

Orwell's Homage to Catalonia was a real eye-opener for me regarding the infighting and factionalism on the loyalist side.

As for Papa Hemingway, I tend to agree with Wedgie.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Neither ideology was viable, although some folks seem to think that Communism just hasn't had the right opportunity to show its full potential yet.

That garbage heap of history has a certain "Groundhog Day" quality for some reason. I thought liberals/progressives/leftists were supposed to be the smart ones.

BTW- Josef Stalin was anti-Nazi, too.

again - the loyalists WEREN'T communists. there were certainly communists (and plenty of them) among their number - but they were NOT fighting to install a communist government in Spain - they were fighting AGAINST fascism - plain and simple.

TTBF you are incorrect.

The Republicans were certainly communists, to the point that their sole foreign support came from the Soviet Union. They used Soviet munitions, flew Polikarpov fighters, you name it. Stating that the Spanish Republicans were not communists (they even called themselves communists) is pure invention on your part.

You are also misleading in saying that the Republicans were simply fighting fascism. They were fighting to stay in power, as it was Franco who was challenging the existing government. You could just as easily say that Franco's forces were not fascist, they were just fighting communism, and you would be equally disingenuous.

The biggest inaccuracy in your post was the claim that the Republicans were not trying to install a communist government. The Republicans WERE the government, and it was socialist through and through. The fascists were the insurgents in the Spanish Civil War. The Spanish government started out as a coalition government with pure Republicans and Socialists, but by the time the war began in earnest, the centrist elements of the government had switched sides leaving the socialists as the primary faction within the loyalist side.

Maybe you meant to say that the Republicans were not Bolsheviks.

CID1990 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
again - the loyalists WEREN'T communists. there were certainly communists (and plenty of them) among their number - but they were NOT fighting to install a communist government in Spain - they were fighting AGAINST fascism - plain and simple.

TTBF you are incorrect.

The Republicans were certainly communists, to the point that their sole foreign support came from the Soviet Union. They used Soviet munitions, flew Polikarpov fighters, you name it. Stating that the Spanish Republicans were not communists (they even called themselves communists) is pure invention on your part.

You are also misleading in saying that the Republicans were simply fighting fascism. They were fighting to stay in power, as it was Franco who was challenging the existing government. You could just as easily say that Franco's forces were not fascist, they were just fighting communism, and you would be equally disingenuous.

They took Soviet support because it was what they could get... the western powers refused to help the loyalists largely because of the myth that they were all communists - which was fueled by both the Falangists and the right wing press in the US and the UK.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
TTBF you are incorrect.

The Republicans were certainly communists, to the point that their sole foreign support came from the Soviet Union. They used Soviet munitions, flew Polikarpov fighters, you name it. Stating that the Spanish Republicans were not communists (they even called themselves communists) is pure invention on your part.

You are also misleading in saying that the Republicans were simply fighting fascism. They were fighting to stay in power, as it was Franco who was challenging the existing government. You could just as easily say that Franco's forces were not fascist, they were just fighting communism, and you would be equally disingenuous.

They took Soviet support because it was what they could get... the western powers refused to help the loyalists largely because of the myth that they were all communists - which was fueled by both the Falangists and the right wing press in the US and the UK.

No, they were not all communists to a man. It WAS a socialist government, and you are still incorrect.

Stalin offered his support in the first place because of ideology. He didn't just wake up one morning and decide to support the Republican government.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
TTBF you are incorrect.

The Republicans were certainly communists, to the point that their sole foreign support came from the Soviet Union. They used Soviet munitions, flew Polikarpov fighters, you name it. Stating that the Spanish Republicans were not communists (they even called themselves communists) is pure invention on your part.

You are also misleading in saying that the Republicans were simply fighting fascism. They were fighting to stay in power, as it was Franco who was challenging the existing government. You could just as easily say that Franco's forces were not fascist, they were just fighting communism, and you would be equally disingenuous.

They took Soviet support because it was what they couldthe western powers refused to help the loyalists largely because of the myth that they were all communists get... - which was fueled by both the Falangists and the right wing press in the US and the UK.

Fiction.

Try to get on the right side of something before the day is over.

Great Britain and France forwarded a non-intervention treaty which was largely ignored, but the US non-involvement was largely in deference to the UK.

I am not sure what history book you are taking this stuff from, but the crayon obviously obscured the important parts.