0
   

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 11:08 pm
Policeman: what do you do sir?
WC Fields: I'm a memory expert
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 11:35 pm
Quote:
I had not ever considered American religious behavior as another instance of entrepreneurialism. But it is a compelling thought.

Two people come to mind: Sam Kinison and Marjoe Gortner! Wink
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 11:38 pm
hobit

Kinison is the madman comic, yes? Gortner I don't recognize.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 11:40 pm
Marjoe:
Quote:
Biography for
Marjoe Gortner


Page 10 of 13

Birth name
Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner
Mini biography

In his early career as the "World's Youngest Ordained Minister" at age 4, Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner became a Miracle Child extraordinare, preaching gospel from memory and performing faith healings - drawing capacity crowds as he barnstormed throughout the Bible Belt. Marjoe (his name is a combination of "Mary" and "Joseph") eventually became disillusioned with what he considered a huge deception and withdrew from the scene in his teens. But his "God-given" talents for drawing an audience and public speaking were to be put to good use later on.

After singing with a rock band, he found acting. The documentary Marjoe (1972), based on his life as a fake evangelist, introduced the public to a profoundly talented and appealing actor. Marjoe's potent, mesmerizing roles in the TV projects Marcus-Nelson Murders, The (1973) (TV) and Gun and the Pulpit, The (1974) (TV) capitalized on his off-centered flamboyance and led to his big break in films. Unfortunately, most of them, promising as they seemed - Earthquake (1974), Food of the Gods, The (1976), Viva Knievel! (1977), and When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder? (1979) - were dismal failures, and his quest for stardom never materialized. He sort of stumbled through some films in the 80s, but even HE couldn't save such drivel as Mausoleum (1983/I) and Hellhole (1985) from sinking into oblivion. Seen less and less these days, his past work as an actor has grown faint, but Marjoe will always be remembered as the man who blew the whistle on evangelism.
IMDb mini-biography by
Gary Brumburgh / [email protected]
Spouse
? (1960 - ?) (divorced) 1 daughter
Candy Clark (1978 - 1979) (divorced)
Trivia

Former Child Evangelist

His name is a combination of "Mary" and "Joseph", a fact his parents exploited during the child evangelist period of his life.

As a child evangelist Gortner performed his first marriage ceremony at the age of 4.

Billed simply as Marjoe, hit #109 on the Billboard Singles Charts in 1972 with "Lo and Behold" (Chelsea 0107)
Personal quotes

"When I was traveling (as a minister), I'd see someone who wanted to get saved in one of my meetings, and he was so open and bubbly in his desire to get the Holy Ghost. It was wonderful and very fresh, but four years later I'd return and that person might be a hard-nosed intolerant Christian because he had Christ. That's when the danger comes in. People want an experience. They want to feel good, and their lives can be helped by it. But then as you start moving into the operation of the thing, you get into controlling people and power and money."

"I don't have any power. And neither do any of these other guys. Hundreds of people were healed at my crusades, but I know damn well it was nothing I was doing."



Sam:
Quote:
Biography for
Sam Kinison


Page 10 of 15

Birth name
Samuel Burl Kinison
Spouse
Malika Souiri (5 April 1992 - 10 April 1992) (his death)
? (1975 - 1980) (divorced)
Terry (? - 1989) (divorced)
Trade mark

His Oh Oooh!!! scream
Trivia

Standup comic.

Started out as preacher, traveled all over the southern U.S. doing tent based revivals.

Interred at Memorial Gardens, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

A long-time hard drinker and drug user, Sam Kinison was (ironically) killed in a traffic accident by a drunk driver.

Father was a preacher
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 11:48 pm
hobit

Thanks. Did not know of Kinnison's travelling TentOChrist circus. And you've introduced me to Gortner.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 07:11 am
Quote:
...It is not only Islamic fundamentalists who share such sentiments. From politically correct exponents of proper genderspeak to William Bennett's virtuecrats, the urge to police personal behavior remains formidable here in democratic America. Even Locke himself endorsed laws that provide for the "direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest," adding that it "ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices." Why, then, should the state deny itself the power to drain bogs and fence off precipices so as to save the unwise and unwary from themselves?

Here is one answer: People have different concepts of the good life, and any attempt to impose one favored view will be contentious. Contention leads to war, and war is the antithesis of civil peace. So better to leave people to their own ways, wayward though they be.

Here is another response: We are fallible beings who do not always judge correctly concerning matters of right and wrong. Therefore we do well to let people go their own ways rather than take the risk of imposing on them what might be mistaken moral concepts.

These are creditable liberal motifs, sound as far as they go. However, they do not go far enough...

We are still looking for a positive case to be made on behalf of liberal toleration.

That case is offered by William Galston in Liberal Pluralism. Building on theories enunciated by Isaiah Berlin (and, a century earlier, by John Stuart Mill), Galston argues that there is no such thing as the good life. Rather, there are many good modes of human life, and no one of them outranks all the others...
http://www.reason.com/0311/cr.ll.defending.shtml
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 08:00 am
This post, from another thread, belongs here too, and perhaps here most properly.

A lot of readers, particularly American readers, will think Vidal's conclusions are unhinged. I do not think they are. I think they are far closer to the truth than are the mythologies many Americans believe about their own country. It is America which is come unhinged from what too many believe it to still be.

This thread began with three sophisticated analyses of American governance under the present administration. It is more than a little discouraging that the key notions of each, for many readers, simply cannot be true. They cannot be true in the same way that the sentence 'god is bad' cannot be true - god is predefined as a matter of faith, thus his description becomes self-evident and unchanging.

blatham wrote:
Interview with Gore Vidal...and if the electronic voting bit doesn't scare the pants off ya, the Saladin bit ought to...
Quote:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 10:30 am
Blatham -- as one who isn't particularly wedded to our form of "civilization" [OH HOW SHOCKING], I wouldn't necessarily bemoan the Gory ending, particularly if the neo-cons are rousted out of their bunkers and put on the front lines.

The threat feeds (and will ultimately destroy) the Right. The Left is more open to change, progress, is more aware of the mutability and possible impermanence of The American Way.

As for electronic voting, there's a Congressman from NJ who is fighting for a paper trail. I think we should all get on his wagon -- I think his name is Rush.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 10:44 am
tart

I just opened a thread for the electronic voting issue... under politics
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 11:10 am
Most excellent move.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 06:26 pm
Time for the current Washington Update by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Today's subject is the sanctity of marriage, the protection of it and hate crimes........wow, such logic. Looks like the Republicans are trying to unload this one. They must see it as politically unwise to go against it. And I think they're right. But that doesn't stop the FRC nutters from trying. There may be some hope yet for the Republican party, but don't hold your breath:

Quote:
November 17, 2003
'Hate-Crimes' Push Obscures Real Agenda

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) newly announced support for Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) "hate-crimes" bill has given a boost to homosexual activists who have long pushed for this legislation, which adds penalties to existing penalties if it is proven that a crime was perpetrated because the victim was a homosexual. But in a new paper released by FRC today, "Hate Crimes: Beyond Virtual Reality," author and civil rights attorney Leah Farish points out that the justification for "hate-crimes" legislation is faulty at best, and the motivation behind the bill is summed up in one word: marriage.

Homosexual activists know that obtaining "special class" status via "hate-crimes" legislation will significantly increase their chances of getting a court to declare that in the interest of civil rights for this newly protected group, homosexuals must be given the right to marry. And this hidden agenda is not unique to the push for "hate-crimes." Virtually every piece of legislation aggressively pushed by the homosexual lobby is an attempt to gain social approval of their chosen lifestyle and, ultimately, to gain the right to marry.

By clicking below you can read the new FRC publication, "Hate Crimes: Beyond Virtual Reality." This paper is a powerful expose which details the false statistics and flawed justifications that homosexual activists are using to push Ted Kennedy's "hate-crimes" legislation.


Additional Resources
Hate Crimes: Beyond Virtual Reality
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=IS03K01&f=WU03K11



QUIZ: What do hate crimes have to do with virtual reality?


Quote:
Marriage in 2004: All Eyes on GOP


I was quoted this morning in a Houston Chronicle story which details a debate currently being had within the Republican Party: whether or not to make marriage a major issue in the 2004 elections. The article, which you can read by clicking below, shows that some in the GOP think that protecting marriage is too divisive an issue to allow it to creep into the presidential campaign and various state-wide races going on next year.

It may be divisive, but the preservation of marriage is far too important for it to go unaddressed by candidates seeking the votes of pro-family Americans. That's why FRC launched our Marriage Protection Pledge, which lets voters know whether candidates for state and federal office will stand for the protection of marriage, or whether they will allow this vital institution to be deconstructed and redefined into nothing.

Like with abortion, many politicians seem to think that not addressing controversial issues is the way to win elections. This has been proven wrong time and time again. And with the reality that four million evangelical voters stayed home in 2000, leaving President Bush without the popular vote, it is obvious that pro-life, pro-family voters want to be energized if they are to support a candidate for office.

With every Democratic presidential contender supportive of counterfeiting marriage in one way or another, the GOP would be well-advised to not only address the marriage issue, but to do so unapologetically.


Additional Resources
Houston Chronicle: GOP to Wait, See on Gay Marriage
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK03K76&f=WU03K11
The Marriage Protection Pledge
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AD03J01&f=WU03K11


And then we move on to Medicare.......

Quote:
Medicare Needs Reform, But Not This Kind

This week many in Washington are consumed with reforming Medicare. And, we at FRC agree that serious Medicare reform is needed and we believe that these reforms should include provisions of no price controls, expansion of health savings accounts, cost controls and protection for seniors already covered. But it is clear that the current bill does not meet these four simple provisions.

Medicare is facing certain extinction unless serious reform is undertaken, yet this bill would impose the largest federal entitlement increase since the so called "Great Society." The reported 10 year "cost" of $400 billion for the new benefit is almost certainly a fantasy (Medicare itself now costs seven times more than it was projected to cost when the program was first created in the 1960's.) The bill aims to create a universal entitlement, even though 76 percent of seniors already have drug coverage (and would probably pay more for inferior benefits under the proposal). Even worse, the proposed subsidies will not deter employers from dropping large numbers of retired workers who now have drug coverage.

The "reforms" in the current legislation are merely revamps of the Hillary care legislation of the 1990's that died a well-deserved death. It is now Republicans who are pushing this legislation, with Democrats demanding even more benefits on the taxpayers' dime. This catastrophic legislation is said to be "politically expedient." A better term might be to call it politically inexcusable.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 06:31 pm
well, hate is a conservative family value! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 06:42 pm
Good answer, Hobitbob.........

But I've added a quiz question.....what do you think. What do hate crimes have to do with virtual reality? I think it may have something to do with the crime of having a good time.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 06:51 pm
I don't think the 'hate crime' term makes any sense.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 07:33 pm
Here's another Tony Perkins gem from his Washington Update on November 13, 2003.

Quote:
White House Congratulates 'Gay Church'?

Much ado is being made in Washington today about the White House's apparent gaffe in sending a letter to the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles, congratulating it for its 35th anniversary. The MCC is one of the largest homosexual church organizations in the country, and has openly criticized the president's policies on same-sex "marriage" and several other social issues. The president's letter was apparently sent just as we were marking "Marriage Protection Week" back in October.

Today I spoke with the White House about this matter. While on its face this looks troubling, it appears to have been a form letter which does not reflect the previously stated views of the administration on the issue of marriage. We look forward to the White House's official response.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 07:41 pm
Lola,

I'm sure the FRC appreciates your efforts to spread their material. You treat it as obvious that the logic behind it is somehow flawed or inconsistent with some common values. However after reading the material I find no inconsistencies and nothing particularly controversial in it.

Where's the beef?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:50 pm
Oooh Lola, have I got an article for you. Wait there a minute -- I'll go get it...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:55 pm
Quote:
Clergy Group to Counter Conservatives


Thank, uh, god.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 10:26 pm
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2003 09:23 am
So basically, Perc, you're against organized dissent? What sort of democracy would you like?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 12:49:55