Pornication anyone? (Mature Content)
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 1:15 pm
Last Updated:Mar 11, 2008 6:26 am 867 Views
|
In light of some people on here speaking of trouble with porn. Contrary to some concepts of me I am not against people on here. Some I may not care for and have little in common with.
But I am going to deal with the issue of porn. I am sure people feel guilty because they know in their hearts it is wrong. Not only wrong but demeaning and destructive.
One person here said they are taking a leave of absence because of their struggle. I am telling them....don't leave. We aren't buddies, we argue but. Don't leave. You do have friends here. They will be a good support.
You know, some people say that the battle is in the mind. If we looked at the situation regarding pornography and analyzed it... What is really really there? Would you ever be with that person? No. Are they thinking of you when they are doing it? No.
There is no real connection other than some reason to help you masturbate or something. To me it seems more shallow than it seems involved for a person. I do not even like to go to Daytona Beach because I do not like looking at what I can not have.
It goes deeper than that. The one I want to be with is the treasure of my heart.
Ok.........going a little further. If any of you that might be struggling with any obsession. Stop and think. Could anyone just go and resolve things? Can you save yourself? Can you bring yourself to be a performer and able to do what you perceive is right as a Christian?
No you cant. Thats why Jesus was given. Because we fail and we fail and we fail. Perhaps in different ways but we all fall short.
People could not right the ship before, and they never will be able to. However just saying I am sorry Lord an saying....Help! that will do it.
Don't try and be Mr Goody two shoes because then it is you trying to be a concept again. Just allow Jesus Christ to live through you. That is your simple answer. It isn't rocket science or it wouldn't be for everyone. It would be for the intelligent.
My purpose to write this isn't to embarrass anyone. Just t say that God gives us all a circle of friends that are good for us. Recognize who they are and be edifiers of each other.
The early church had all kinds of issues when Christianity began. It drove Peter and Paul and John crazy. But they addressed it as a fellowship, as a family.
Stay, no one wants you to leave
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Why Socialism Must Always Fail: Ludwig Von Mises on Economic Calculation under Socialism
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:42 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 12:22 pm 731 Views
|
"Without calculation, economic activity is impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic activity in our sense of the word ... All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place. Everything would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1981, pp. 103-105.
Von Mises Socialism
First published in 1922 (under the title Die Gemeinwirtschaft), Mises' masterpiece Socialism was the lone dissenting voice to challenge the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy of his time.
In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, an entire army of "useful idiots" (as Lenin contemptuously called Western intellectuals) were proclaiming the superiority of socialism. Blind to the massive evidence of socialism's failure that started accumulating as soon as the Bolsheviks came to power, collectivists throughout the world were singing paeans to the wave of the future that would allegedly sweep the outmoded capitalist methods of production into oblivion.
An essential aspect of Mises' exposition of the irrationality inherent in socialism is his concept of "economic activity." Mises does not use this notion to describe any processes entailed in producing goods. Arbitrary production plans set by the caprice of some commissar or planning board do not constitute economic activity. To qualify as economic activity in Mises' use of the term, production must be guided by rational principles.
The context in which Mises establishes the irrationality of socialism rests on the fundamental economic difference between capitalism and socialism, which economically consists of the private vs. communal ownership of the means of production.
Economic calculation in a capitalist economy
Under capitalism every individual plays a dual role in the determination of economic values. First as a consumer, secondly as a producer. As a consumer, he establishes the valuation of goods and services ready for consumption. As a producer, he allocates productive resources to the uses that yield the highest product. This is the very essence of the free market mechanism, which ensures rationality in production and consumption alike.
As a consumer, each individual spends his money on the goods and services that best satisfy his needs. The pattern of consumer preferences is conveyed to producers in the form of prices. This is the crucial function performed by market prices under capitalism.
Prices of consumer goods and services are the signals producers use to determine what goods and services are to be produced. Let's look at how this works.
Let's say that shampoo has a high price on it. This means that consumers value shampoo a lot, which is why they are willing to pay such a high price for it. The high price acts as a signal to producers. It tells them that they can make a large profit by producing and selling shampoo. As a result, they will shift resources to the production of shampoo. The end result is that more resources will be used to produce shampoo because this good is highly valued by consumers.
A high price indicates to producers that consumers place a high value on a certain good or service. From the producers' perspective, the high price means that they can realize a large profit by producing and selling this good or service. Thus the pursuit of profit induces producers to direct more resources to the good or service in question.
In contrast, a low price signals that consumers do not particularly value a good or service. The low price shrinks the producers' profit margin, so they will naturally shift resources away from this good or service. As a result, rationality is achieved by producing more of the goods and services that are highly valued by consumers and less of those that are not preferred by consumers.
The market mechanism also achieves rationality in production. Again, the role of prices is essential. In this case the signals guiding the actions of producers are the prices of productive resources (land, labor, capital, technology). A high price for a certain factor of production indicates that this resource will raise the cost of production and thus lower the producers' profit margin. Therefore producers will end up using less of this particular resource.
In contrast, a low price for a resource signals that producers can lower the cost of production and thus increase their profit margin by using this factor of production. The end result is rationality in production by lowering costs through the increased use of less costly resources and the corresponding reduced use of costlier ones.
This is the very essence of the price system that ensures rationality in consumption and production alike. This is because prices are formed as the result of the actions of consumers who spend their own money on the goods and services they desire and resource owners who sell the resources they own in the market.
Economic calculation under socialism: "a leap in the dark"
Since under socialism there is no private ownership, those actions are rendered impossible. In the most consistent versions of socialism (such as the War Communism implemented right after the Russian Revolution), money is abolished and goods and services are distributed by governmental decree. This is a bona fide recipe for total irrationality.
More "moderate" versions of socialism do not eliminate money. They allow individuals to have some income which they can spend as they see fit. This enables the establishment of prices for consumer goods and services, which give socialist planners (who play the role of "producers" under socialism) some signals as to the goods and services that need to be produced.
However, this signal is distorted, as consumers do not earn their income in a free market. Instead, their income is determined by socialist planners, who arbitrarily set the prices of resources (rents, wages, interest rates). Resource prices set in this manner are totally disconnected from the facts of reality, as there are no price signals conveying to planners information about those facts."
Since, by definition, productive resources are not privately owned under socialism, there can be no market where the prices of those resources are formed by the interaction by demand and supply.
Even if socialist planners have some knowledge of the goods and services that need to be produced, the obstacles they face in selecting the proper methods of production are impossible to overcome. In the absence of private ownership of the factors of production, there be no market where the prices of those resources are established.
In producing any good or service, socialist planners are confronted with a vast array of resource combinations. Some processes are more land-intensive, others more labor-intensive, still others more capital-intensive. Furthermore, there is an enormous variety of different types of land, labor, and capital. Similarly, there is a multitude of technologies to choose from.
Without the guidance of price signals, there is only one way of selecting among those alternatives: The planners' whim. This exposes the utter irrationality of socialism, eloquently expressed in Mises' statement that "Everything would be a leap in the dark."
The problems of socialism are not based on the irrationality or dishonesty of public planners
Mises' critique does not even address the critical issue of incentives. He did not claim that, since the profit motive is absent under socialism, bureaucrats have no incentive to try to follow the guidance of reason in their production decisions. To the contrary, Mises readily accepted that government officials are totally dedicated to the efficient production of goods and services.
The problem he identified was not lack of motivation on the part of planners. Instead, the cause of socialism's irrationality is that those highly motivated and competent civil servants have no rational mechanism to guide their productive efforts and thus any decisions they make are necessarily arbitrary. Their position is akin to that of the captain of a ship in the midst of the ocean without a compass. No matter how able he is, any efforts he makes to set the course of his ship are doomed from the outset.
Although Mises' analysis is purely economic, it illustrates the effects of an abstract philosophic principle in an economic practical context. That principle is that capitalism is the only economic system based on reason, while socialism rests on arbitrary whim. While capitalism cannot be effectively defended solely on economic grounds, Mises' exposition is of tremendous value to philosophical defenders of capitalism.
Mises' conclusion can be combined with the defense of capitalism on the basis of the rational moral code defined by Ayn Rand (in "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). In a brilliant demonstration of the power of integration, the philosophy of reason and sound economic theory concur to uphold the rationality of capitalism and expose the patent irrationality of socialism.
The truth of Mises' analysis was confirmed by historical experience. The irrationality of socialism was revealed in the fate of all socialist experiments conducted throughout the twentieth century. Stalin's Ukraine famine, the widespread starvation brought about by Mao's "Great Leap Forward," the decadent misery that is a daily fact of life in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and all other socialist utopias is writ large for the full slate of the practical manifestations of Mises' conclusion that "Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy."
Now if only the economic professors at Yale and Harvard could grasp this fact.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Liberals are against the Death Penalty, but for abortion?
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:31 am
Last Updated:Mar 13, 2008 10:00 am 1345 Views
|
This is more of an observation on just how backwards liberal thinking really is; however, I felt compelled to add it to the list. How can you support the taking of an innocent life and be opposed to taking the life of someone that has committed acts of evil? Those on death row have hurt innocent people, families, and society. What acts has an unborn committed to deserve the fate of being aborted.
This is a perfect example of how liberals are on the wrong side of issues. Liberals will claim that abortion is a right to privacy issue - the so called, "it is my body and I can do with it what I wish". Well- a person cannot do whatever they wish with their body if it effects me. You cannot take your fist (which is part of your body) and punch me in the face. A person has the right to privacy in their home, but that does not extend to activities which are illegal. Your rights end where my rights begin. A heart beats at less than 4 weeks. Isn't a heart beat the final determination of death. Why should a heart beat not be the final determination of life?
Thomas George
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Enron Scandle and democrats
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:27 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 12:22 pm 760 Views
|
The Enron Scandal- First Democrats attacked the Bush administration demanding to know the extent they were involved in the Enron collapse.
Once Democrats learned that they were not involved- they attacked the Bush Administration demanding to know why they did not help to save the company.
Thomas George
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Republicans are to blame for companies moving jobs overseas
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:25 am
Last Updated:Mar 10, 2008 7:25 am 728 Views
|
I was sitting next to an woman one time who was talking about her company and how they were moving jobs to India.
She said, "the reason that all these jobs are going overseas is because the Republicans are in power". I paused for a second and then I told her, "I think you have that backward".
I subsequently began to explain to her that the liberals are the ones that impose so many restrictions on business. Democrats are continually wanting to raise the minimum wage, impose excessive environmental legislation, are infamous for raising taxes when in power, are pro union and are generally anti-business. Two examples are California and New York.
In California, a person can claim workers compensation for almost any type of issue. As a result, businesses pay almost 10 times the amount of workers compensation insurance per employee as in other states. Many businesses have left California and moved to neighboring Nevada just due to that cost.
In New York, when Mario Cuomo was governor, taxes were so high that many business decided to just leave the state. When conditions are not hospitable- business leave and find other locations that are more suitable.
Recently this has been a trend with companies moving parts or all of their operations overseas. As previously noted, The Democratic Party has been the party for raising the minimum wage, imposing excessive costly environmental legislation, votes to raise taxes, is pro union and has been anti-business.
The Republican Party has always been in favor of deregulation, lowering taxes, letting the economy dictate wages and creating legislation that is pro business Now- you tell me who is to blame for companies moving jobs overseas
Thomas George
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Bill Clinton created millions of jobs????!!!!!
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:21 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 12:22 pm 762 Views
|
Bill Clinton created millions of jobs-
What policy did Bill Clinton implement to create millions of jobs? The majority of jobs that were created under the Clinton Administration were Internet related.
The great boom of the Internet led to the creation of millions of jobs, which Clinton had nothing to do with. As a result of so many people working and paying taxes, there were large government surpluses.
However, instead of attacking terrorism, Bill Clinton decided to use the Justice Department to attack Microsoft. There is a direct time line link between the decline of the NASDAQ and the ruling to break up Microsoft.
As the NASDAQ declined many Internet companies failed or downsized. As a result, millions of jobs were lost and government revenues declined. Bill Clinton was handed a great economy and with his actions only served to undermine it.
Thomas George
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Top Ten Liberal Lies
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 7:18 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 12:22 pm 695 Views
|
by Thomas George
1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.
2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.
3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.
4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.
5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve , because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.
6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?
8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don't protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.
9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt's mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it's lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt's mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn't have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.
10. Trickle down economics does not work- money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Why are Liberals and sociaists....well ...so stupid?
|
Posted:Mar 10, 2008 5:51 am
Last Updated:Mar 10, 2008 5:56 am 694 Views
|
I have yet to meet a Liberal who is factual in the way that they look at things. You can bring up tons of facts from independent and nationally recognized facts and yet "Its misinformation"always to them.
Tell a global warmist the truth regarding what the top scientists in the world say about how man has no ability to change the climate and they proclaim these scientists part of the "establishment". It is so ridiculous. It is sad how blinded these people are to the actual fact nature runs in cycles.
It doesn't matter the fact that socialism and communism has failed economically wherever it has been implemented. It creates instability economically and it puts a drain on everyone.
Should I care if America is looked at positively by the whole world? Hell no. Do I want communist China and Russia to be in agreement? No because Communism is always trying to spread and take over, much the same as Islam. Islam is not a so called peaceful religion. Get over it. 140 wars worldwide and they are in all of them. Yeah thats peaceful.
I am not a communist,let alone a socialist. Both are bottom feeders in life. Both want someone to do their thinking for them. God is not part of this thinking. God gave us all talents. Talents we are supposed to use in this lifetime. He gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us all things.
The man who took his talent and advanced it, God praised. He didn't say ok take the excess and spread it around. It speaks in the bible what a good man are they that do well and when they leave this planet, they have left a good inheritance.
It does say how the man who just hid his talent so it would not be lost was scorned.Helping someone is one thing, a good thing. Enabling people is entirely different.We are responsible for our own lives.
These facts remain
52 straight months in America we had job gains...which was a record for this country
24 straight quarters(6 years) of economic gain. Averaging 1% higher than the previous administration which if you understand economic growth at all, that is substantial; especially considering this administration took over a actual recession.
Unemployment is down 2% from the 90's and was as low as 4.5% which is considered at zero because college students are figured into the equation. The best in the last administration was 5.7% and was usually over 6%.
Once again, and for the socialists out there, this country has given eons to other countries in aid. You can throw in England, China, Russia, France,Mexico, Africa...and by the way President Bush has given more to Africa than any President; Europe, Canada. You can add up all of the countries together and the United States is so far ahead of the collective contributions. Why is that? Capitalism works. Why? Because it is putting into play, God's principles.
So Liberals. You also ignore facts about the war. The just reasons for it. You ignore the weapons of mass destruction that come out of the mouth's of Hussein himself in the Hussein tapes. You wish to forget that Bill Clinton and the democratic/communist party all confirmed it was a huge problem when Clinton was in office.We have them on tape verbalizing as much.
You ignore the Christian former Iraqi General who is in America and explained and verified what our intelligence thought, that the weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria.
The list goes on and on and it just will not fit on your plate. You are like the who is being told the truth about something and it is not news you want to hear so you clasp your ears and make noises so the truth will not be the truth. But just like those little that you are, the truth is truth and it remains.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
self righteous moderators
|
Posted:Mar 8, 2008 4:08 pm
Last Updated:Mar 8, 2008 10:21 pm 932 Views
|
so full of crap. Taking down pictures of Tarzans of all things. None of these pictures were out of line. You probably self gratificate yourselves in private.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The alltime fav Tarzan is?
|
Posted:Mar 8, 2008 7:16 am
Last Updated:Mar 9, 2008 7:38 pm 941 Views
|
Born in Freidorf, Austro-Hungary on June 2, 1904 (he often claimed to have been born in Windber, Pennsylvania), Johnny Weissmuller emigrated with his parents to the U.S. as an infant. The family eventually wound up in Pennsylvania, where his father Peter Weissmuller worked as coal miner.
The family moved again to Chicago; a sickly youth, Johnny Weissmuller took up swimming in Lake Michigan to build strength. By the time he entered the University of Chicago in 1922, the 6'3" young man had become an excellent swimmer, ultimately leading him to the Olympic Games in 1924 and 1928. He won five gold medals and set numerous world records.
After appearing in a couple of small film roles, Weissmuller signed with BVD and worked as a print model for swimsuits and underwear, instantly becoming a hit with admiring female fans.
Louis B. Mayer of MGM Studios signed Weissmuller to a long-term contract in 1932, but in doing so Mayer forced Weissmuller to divorce his second wife, Bobbe Arnst. (Mayer feared that female audiences wouldn't swoon over Weissmuller were it known he was a married man.)
Mayer sweetened the deal by paying off Arnst to dissolve the year-old marriage. The next year Weissmuller married fellow MGM contract player Lupe Velez. The union was always fodder for gossip columns, and they divorced in 1939. Weissmuller remarried in 1940 to Beryl Scott, and the couple had a and two daughters before the marriage ended in 1948.
In 1942, MGM's option with Edgar Rice Burroughs expired, so Weissmuller and the series headed over to RKO Studios, where he made six more Tarzan films before retiring from the role in 1948 when Lex Barker replaced him in the role of Tarzan.
Weissmuller then fielded an offer from Columbia Studios, where he starred in fifteen low-budget Jungle Jim films and a short-lived TV series. Columbia's Jungle Jim series was based on the popular comic strip by Alex Raymond
From Weissmuller's first Tarzan film, Tarzan the Ape Man. The film was an immediate smash hit with filmgoers and critics alike, and Weissmuller forever was identified with the role of Tarzan. Also pictured are C. Aubrey Smith, Maureen O'Sullivan, and Neil Hamilton
later years
By the mid 1950s, Weissmuller grew weary of acting and retired to Florida. He made only a handful of film and TV appearances in the ensuing years. In the later 1970s, he suffered a series of strokes and other health maladies.
After moving to Acapulco in the early 1980s, he passed away there in January 1984 at the age of 79. He was survived by his sixth wife, a , and a .
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
