Supposedly Alex Jones said something to that scumfuck David Gergen about it and he responded with a stream of obscenities. Here is a picture from 1967 with Reagan and Nixon at the Grove.
It's in Martial Law 9/11. It's quite entertaining to watch. Especially the look of amusement on Alex Jones' face.
sure, hunter wrote about politics and all---but usually he wrote about goofy things. you know-- guns, sports and his daily routine. he became a hack by the end of his life anyhow.
sure, hunter wrote about politics and all---but usually he wrote about goofy things. you know-- guns, sports and his daily routine. he became a hack by the end of his life anyhow.
Have you read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail or the Great Shark Hunt or are you just quoting someone else who pretended to read hunters work? Sure he wrote about "goofy things" but usually as a way to explain something a bit deeper. His flashes of brilliance greatly out way any goofiness. While he had a tendency to make bold and foolish predictions, he also made many extremely astute ones. If you read his column from September 12th 2001 you would know what I mean. Don't make lame blanket statements about things you clearly haven't read or can't understand.
no, i know he wrote about politics. i know he voted nader in 2000 (as did i)and was on the campaign trail for him and was for kerry in 2004 (though i still voted nader in 2004). he had been writing on politics for a long time too--since the 60s and 70s-- i know all about "gonzo" journalism, etc. clearly, he was political. but still--my belief is that while other people wrote politics--they didn't win friends in the upper echelons of politics--like he did. but it was reading a ny times piece from earlier this year that made me think, "this dude was a crazy hack." in that article, the times reporter showed a typical night with thompson--one that involved waving guns around, doing tons of drugs, cursing at his friends, and then telling them to "read his work aloud to him". dude was just crazy. sure, he was funny--but he was a hack. a doped up dude who was bound to go. so "son" that, son.
sure, hunter wrote about politics and all---but usually he wrote about goofy things. you know-- guns, sports and his daily routine. he became a hack by the end of his life anyhow.
Have you read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail or the Great Shark Hunt or are you just quoting someone else who pretended to read hunters work? Sure he wrote about "goofy things" but usually as a way to explain something a bit deeper. His flashes of brilliance greatly out way any goofiness. While he had a tendency to make bold and foolish predictions, he also made many extremely astute ones. If you read his column from September 12th 2001 you would know what I mean. Don't make lame blanket statements about things you clearly haven't read or can't understand.
Cosign. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is HSTs great "lost" book, full of brilliant political insight. I think it may be back in print as well...
no, i know he wrote about politics. i know he voted nader in 2000 (as did i)and was on the campaign trail for him and was for kerry in 2004 (though i still voted nader in 2004). he had been writing on politics for a long time too--since the 60s and 70s-- i know all about "gonzo" journalism, etc. clearly, he was political. but still--my belief is that while other people wrote politics--they didn't win friends in the upper echelons of politics--like he did. but it was reading a ny times piece from earlier this year that made me think, "this dude was a crazy hack." in that article, the times reporter showed a typical night with thompson--one that involved waving guns around, doing tons of drugs, cursing at his friends, and then telling them to "read his work aloud to him". dude was just crazy. sure, he was funny--but he was a hack. a doped up dude who was bound to go. so "son" that, son.
First, you asked why he hung out with politicians, then you said he wrote a little bit about politics but mostly goofy stuff, now this. Dude stop doing research with a goolge search and go read a book. You know why he had friends in the upper echelons, it was because he was respected by people that read his work.
uhm..i own some of his books. i don't need google to find out about him. i read the times article earlier this year because i read the times a lot. so yeah--i still just say he was a hack by the end of his life and that it still confounds me why so many political figures hung out with the guy. and yes---it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was involved somehow with this sordid affair.
uhm..i own some of his books. i don't need google to find out about him. i read the times article earlier this year because i read the times a lot. so yeah--i still just say he was a hack by the end of his life and that it still confounds me why so many political figures hung out with the guy. and yes---it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was involved somehow with this sordid affair.
Yeah, a lot of people own books they haven't read its a real waste.
and i'm not too interested in reading his other ones--like the hell's angels one or whatever. i'll pass and leave that for my pothead friend. i actually like his quasi-political writings/ramblings and his work in journals more than his own work. but, i don't think he was extremely brilliant either like so many do.
and i'm not too interested in reading his other ones--like the hell's angels one or whatever. i'll pass and leave that for my pothead friend. i actually like his quasi-political writings/ramblings and his work in journals more than his own work. but, i don't think he was extremely brilliant either like so many do.
Thats what I mean you read one book and a times article and your an expert. You don't think he is brilliant. Thats good for you. You haven't read his best works and you don't want to. Okay, why talk shit on the books of his you haven't read. If you had said, 'I didnt like Fear and Loathing' that would be fine, but to dislike something you haven't read is .I dropped it and I suggest you do the same you just sound foolish.
I think it's hilarious that some people can't even entertain the possiblity that Dakar might have a point. But go ahead and keep attacking his credibility. If Rove has taught us anything, we know it's the surest way to avoid the subject.
I think it's hilarious that some people can't even entertain the possiblity that Dakar might have a point. But go ahead and keep attacking his credibility. If Rove has taught us anything, we know it's the surest way to avoid the subject.
I think it's hilarious that some people can't even entertain the possiblity that Dakar might have a point. But go ahead and keep attacking his credibility. If Rove has taught us anything, we know it's the surest way to avoid the subject.
I think it's hilarious that some people can't even entertain the possiblity that Dakar might have a point. But go ahead and keep attacking his credibility. If Rove has taught us anything, we know it's the surest way to avoid the subject.
He was probably a reptilian. They go crazy when they dont get enough virgin blood to drink. Sometimes they are no longer able to shape shift. Thats the reason for all the sacrifices.
My point is: Hunter S. Thompson is revered by private-mind-garden counter-culture dudes everywhere as a hero of epic proportions. That may or may not have been what he started out to do, but it's definitely what he comfortably settled into. I've known out-of-control narccisists and believe me, Hunter S. Thompson was exactly that, a sociopathic slimeball who luckily had a talent for writing. How many pieces do you have to read before you figure out that he's writing for a target audience, an audience that's practically falling over themselves to eat it up? Hell, most of the people I've met in person who talk about Hunter S. Thompson as if he were a god would be totally shocked and appalled if they saw some of his feats acted out in front of them by someone they did not know.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
My point is: Hunter S. Thompson is revered by private-mind-garden counter-culture dudes everywhere as a hero of epic proportions. That may or may not have been what he started out to do, but it's definitely what he comfortably settled into. I've known out-of-control narccisists and believe me, Hunter S. Thompson was exactly that, a sociopathic slimeball who luckily had a talent for writing. How many pieces do you have to read before you figure out that he's writing for a target audience, an audience that's practically falling over themselves to eat it up? Hell, most of the people I've met in person who talk about Hunter S. Thompson as if he were a god would be totally shocked and appalled if they saw some of his feats acted out in front of them by someone they did not know.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
You were talking about dakars point before. You might have a point but he didn't. Much of Thompson???s persona was played up by himself and those around him in order to sell copy. He had every intention of making himself a larger then life literary figure so you really need to take his work with a grain of salt.
My point is: Hunter S. Thompson is revered by private-mind-garden counter-culture dudes everywhere as a hero of epic proportions. That may or may not have been what he started out to do, but it's definitely what he comfortably settled into. I've known out-of-control narccisists and believe me, Hunter S. Thompson was exactly that, a sociopathic slimeball who luckily had a talent for writing. How many pieces do you have to read before you figure out that he's writing for a target audience, an audience that's practically falling over themselves to eat it up? Hell, most of the people I've met in person who talk about Hunter S. Thompson as if he were a god would be totally shocked and appalled if they saw some of his feats acted out in front of them by someone they did not know.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
I think you could insert alot of the "creative geniuses" of the 20th century into that description... It still does not take away from the impact of their contribution to their art/skill. True over time most people go through a climax in popularity/Relevence and fall off, same with HST.
As for your point about meeting the actual person, I think anyone I consider a genius that I were actually to meet in real life would be disappointing or even scary considering that most of the people I would put in that category have all been considered nuts by society. Society's categorization of a writer/artist as nuts has no bearing to me at least of their relevence.
My point is: Hunter S. Thompson is revered by private-mind-garden counter-culture dudes everywhere as a hero of epic proportions. That may or may not have been what he started out to do, but it's definitely what he comfortably settled into. I've known out-of-control narccisists and believe me, Hunter S. Thompson was exactly that, a sociopathic slimeball who luckily had a talent for writing. How many pieces do you have to read before you figure out that he's writing for a target audience, an audience that's practically falling over themselves to eat it up? Hell, most of the people I've met in person who talk about Hunter S. Thompson as if he were a god would be totally shocked and appalled if they saw some of his feats acted out in front of them by someone they did not know.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
Keep in mind that Thompson's conversion into 'Dr Gonzo' was a very late development. He wrote the vast majority of his best work before 1980. That's not to say that everything that he wrote after 1980 was garbage (some of it was). Late in his life he did kind of degenerate into that cartoon character, but that should not erase the extremely high quality of his early work, including 'Hells Angels', Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail', and the collected short pieces in 'The Great Shark Hunt'. Thompson was a gifted writer who unfortunately got swallowed by his own legend. As far as him being a "sociopathic slimeball", I think if you read either of the volumes of his correspondence, or read what his friends and family have to say about him, you might change your mind.
My point is: Hunter S. Thompson is revered by private-mind-garden counter-culture dudes everywhere as a hero of epic proportions. That may or may not have been what he started out to do, but it's definitely what he comfortably settled into. I've known out-of-control narccisists and believe me, Hunter S. Thompson was exactly that, a sociopathic slimeball who luckily had a talent for writing. How many pieces do you have to read before you figure out that he's writing for a target audience, an audience that's practically falling over themselves to eat it up? Hell, most of the people I've met in person who talk about Hunter S. Thompson as if he were a god would be totally shocked and appalled if they saw some of his feats acted out in front of them by someone they did not know.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
Keep in mind that Thompson's conversion into 'Dr Gonzo' was a very late development. He wrote the vast majority of his best work before 1980. That's not to say that everything that he wrote after 1980 was garbage (some of it was). Late in his life he did kind of degenerate into that cartoon character, but that should not erase the extremely high quality of his early work, including 'Hells Angels', Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail', and the collected short pieces in 'The Great Shark Hunt'. Thompson was a gifted writer who unfortunately got swallowed by his own legend. As far as him being a "sociopathic slimeball", I think if you read either of the volumes of his correspondence, or read what his friends and family have to say about him, you might change your mind.
Yeah his letters are really interesting. His journey from want to be F Scott Fitzgerald to "gonzo" journalist is really fascinating. Hells Angels is a fairly straightforward piece of journalism. His early fiction is good too. I liked the Rum Diary. The vast number of people that considered him a friend is amazing. From McGovern to Pat Buchanan the people that knew him found him to be really honest and trust worthy. I agree his later work fell short of his early stuff, but there was still some good stuff in there. I read a bunch of his Hay Rube columns on ESPN.com when he died and some of them were really good.
Supposedly Alex Jones said something to that scumfuck David Gergen about it and he responded with a stream of obscenities. Here is a picture from 1967 with Reagan and Nixon at the Grove.
It's in Martial Law 9/11. It's quite entertaining to watch. Especially the look of amusement on Alex Jones' face.
Supposedly Alex Jones said something to that scumfuck David Gergen about it and he responded with a stream of obscenities. Here is a picture from 1967 with Reagan and Nixon at the Grove.
It's in Martial Law 9/11. It's quite entertaining to watch. Especially the look of amusement on Alex Jones' face.
Still no dice on the sound, dog.
Plays fine in Winamp and Windows Media Player. Sound on both.
Whoa...reading schitt I wrote 10 (!?!) years ago is a trip.
That said, I don't believe the two were the same person. I do believe some strange, illegal and awful things went down with the Franklin case and we will probably never know the truth or how far it reaches. I don't believe HST was involved from what I've read and I think Alex Jones is a fucking opportunistic nut job.
Here's the documentary that was supposed to air, but never did. You can do some cursory google-fu on the subject and/or watch this and make your own mind up.
I find it funny how people dismiss anything remotely considered a "conspiracy" ("haha, reptilians, bro!) even when there's enough information and witnesses to give it some possible merit.
Especially when shit like this does indeed happen.
Comments
damn, thats deep.
Might be because he wrote about politics.
Try this one. There's bigger versions knocking around via Bittorrent too.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/conspiracyofsilence2.wmv
It's in Martial Law 9/11. It's quite entertaining to watch. Especially the look of amusement on Alex Jones' face.
you know-- guns, sports and his daily routine.
he became a hack by the end of his life anyhow.
Have you read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail or the Great Shark Hunt or are you just quoting someone else who pretended to read hunters work? Sure he wrote about "goofy things" but usually as a way to explain something a bit deeper. His flashes of brilliance greatly out way any goofiness. While he had a tendency to make bold and foolish predictions, he also made many extremely astute ones. If you read his column from September 12th 2001 you would know what I mean. Don't make lame blanket statements about things you clearly haven't read or can't understand.
clearly, he was political. but still--my belief is that while other people wrote politics--they didn't win friends in the upper echelons of politics--like he did.
but it was reading a ny times piece from earlier this year that made me think, "this dude was a crazy hack." in that article, the times reporter showed a typical night with thompson--one that involved waving guns around, doing tons of drugs, cursing at his friends, and then telling them to "read his work aloud to him".
dude was just crazy. sure, he was funny--but he was a hack. a doped up dude who was bound to go.
so "son" that, son.
Cosign. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is HSTs great "lost" book, full of brilliant political insight. I think it may be back in print as well...
First, you asked why he hung out with politicians, then you said he wrote a little bit about politics but mostly goofy stuff, now this. Dude stop doing research with a goolge search and go read a book. You know why he had friends in the upper echelons, it was because he was respected by people that read his work.
i read the times article earlier this year because i read the times a lot.
so yeah--i still just say he was a hack by the end of his life and that it still confounds me why so many political figures hung out with the guy. and yes---it wouldn't surprise me if the dude was involved somehow with this sordid affair.
Yeah, a lot of people own books they haven't read its a real waste.
i actually like his quasi-political writings/ramblings and his work in journals more than his own work. but, i don't think he was extremely brilliant either like so many do.
Thats what I mean you read one book and a times article and your an expert. You don't think he is brilliant. Thats good for you. You haven't read his best works and you don't want to. Okay, why talk shit on the books of his you haven't read. If you had said, 'I didnt like Fear and Loathing' that would be fine, but to dislike something you haven't read is
Maybe it's because he doesn't have a point....
Predictable.
What was his point then?
clearly, you guys are all misinformed.
Wow, someone voted for Nader in 2004. That's is some goofy shit right dere.
I have read probably 4-5 of his books. Whether or not that makes me an authority, I don't really care. But I should tell you that I probably wasn't able to trudge through the last one. After two or three I could see the formula pretty clearly. Take out the political insight and witty social commentary, which I agree was often good, and what you have left is a heaping serving of self-indulgent BS.
The point is that by the end of his career, some feel he had started to become more of a parody of himself, playing up the "wacky" aspect of his persona. That's neither impressive nor admirable. So get off dudes dick already.
You were talking about dakars point before. You might have a point but he didn't. Much of Thompson???s persona was played up by himself and those around him in order to sell copy. He had every intention of making himself a larger then life literary figure so you really need to take his work with a grain of salt.
I think you could insert alot of the "creative geniuses" of the 20th century into that description... It still does not take away from the impact of their contribution to their art/skill. True over time most people go through a climax in popularity/Relevence and fall off, same with HST.
As for your point about meeting the actual person, I think anyone I consider a genius that I were actually to meet in real life would be disappointing or even scary considering that most of the people I would put in that category have all been considered nuts by society. Society's categorization of a writer/artist as nuts has no bearing to me at least of their relevence.
Keep in mind that Thompson's conversion into 'Dr Gonzo' was a very late development. He wrote the vast majority of his best work before 1980. That's not to say that everything that he wrote after 1980 was garbage (some of it was). Late in his life he did kind of degenerate into that cartoon character, but that should not erase the extremely high quality of his early work, including 'Hells Angels', Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', 'Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail', and the collected short pieces in 'The Great Shark Hunt'.
Thompson was a gifted writer who unfortunately got swallowed by his own legend.
As far as him being a "sociopathic slimeball", I think if you read either of the volumes of his correspondence, or read what his friends and family have to say about him, you might change your mind.
Yeah his letters are really interesting. His journey from want to be F Scott Fitzgerald to "gonzo" journalist is really fascinating. Hells Angels is a fairly straightforward piece of journalism. His early fiction is good too. I liked the Rum Diary. The vast number of people that considered him a friend is amazing. From McGovern to Pat Buchanan the people that knew him found him to be really honest and trust worthy. I agree his later work fell short of his early stuff, but there was still some good stuff in there. I read a bunch of his Hay Rube columns on ESPN.com when he died and some of them were really good.
Still no dice on the sound, dog.
Plays fine in Winamp and Windows Media Player. Sound on both.
That said, I don't believe the two were the same person. I do believe some strange, illegal and awful things went down with the Franklin case and we will probably never know the truth or how far it reaches. I don't believe HST was involved from what I've read and I think Alex Jones is a fucking opportunistic nut job.
Here's the documentary that was supposed to air, but never did. You can do some cursory google-fu on the subject and/or watch this and make your own mind up.
b/w
[strong]*Caution : uncomfortable links ahead*[/strong]
I find it funny how people dismiss anything remotely considered a "conspiracy" ("haha, reptilians, bro!) even when there's enough information and witnesses to give it some possible merit.
Especially when shit like this does indeed happen.
https://news.vice.com/article/uk-police-investigating-alleged-murders-in-government-child-abuse-scandal
Numerous times, actually.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/