This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

V E N T P A G E LII....The BIG Bomber Page!


B-52 The World's Most Lethal Bomber
Our 52nd VENT PAGE!


 Vent Page 52 - and what better icon to represent it than the B-52 bomber - one of the most important tools in the USA arsenal! Boeing's B-52 had it's maiden flight in 1952 - and is still going strong. It's 70,000 pound payload capacity is more than any mere VENT PAGE can hope for!


Whenever the number of posts on a vent page make it cumbersome to navigate, a new vent page is started. This is number FIFTY-TWO in our series!

VENT PAGES are handy for posting of off-topic posts, rants, raves, rages, etc which might not be appropriate on other threads where adults are having serious discussions. Childish rant? Need to call another poster a name?Just feel like spouting off? Or even if you have something to say and there doesn't seem to be any other logical place to say it....THIS PAGE IS FOR YOU!
One of my favorite cars of 1952 was the Kaiser Manhattan with it's (then) somewhat radical design!
and it's little cousin....The Henry J
Henry J was also produced with an "Allstate" badge and sold by Sears Roebuck and Company!


87 comments:

guy faulkes said...

I just got this concerning the agenda at the Democrat convention in Charlotte.

================================================== ===============================
2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule -- Charlotte , N.C.

4:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony – sponsored by CNN
4:05 PM – Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama

4:15 PM – Ceremonial 'I hate America' led by Michelle Obama
4:30 PM – Tips on “How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world” – Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM –Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar “How to have a successful career without having a job.”

5:00 PM – “Great Vacations I’ve Taken on the Taxpayer’s Dime Travel Log” - Michelle Obama
5:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States – Nancy Pelosi

6:00 PM – Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat’s appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.

8:30 PM – Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM – “Bias in Media – How we can make it work for you” Tutorial – sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times

9:15 PM – Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO – Michael Moore
9:45 PM – Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers
,
10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies
11:15 PM – Free Gov. Blagovich rally

11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama Presiding
12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris “He sends a thrill up my leg” Matthews

12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior
12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing
3:00 AM – Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

Do you suppose there is a similar post concerning the Republican convention?

Sarkazein said...

THIS is like the view I had of the B-52 from the pod of in the inflight re-fueler. Up close and personal

NewGuy said...

Sark....I don't know the background here. Were you working the fueler?

That is an amazing thing- that ability to refuel in mid air!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the movie "2016" yet?

Sarkazein said...

NewGuy- I was a crew chief on a KC-135 SAC. The boom operator pod had an observer "bed" and window on each side of his "bed" (you lay on your stomach and operate the boom). So I spent lots of time looking out the boom pod at the B-52, FB-111, and F-4 Phantoms at 45,000 feet and 450 MPH in awe of the pilot's and boom operator's skill and coolness.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- I am going to see it, so don't tell me how it ends.

guy faulkes said...

Here is some information on the Empire State Building shooting that you might find interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSV-iSnk6YM

Johnny Rico said...

One of the sheep blabbering on this site recently said that the hussein obama (notice lower case) administration has deported more illegal aliens than ever before. I countered that by saying it was the least amount ever deported as ICE and Border Control deportation numbers are way down.

The clown then went on to say Border Guard numbers shouldn't be counted. Funny, hussein obama includes them. Check this link out. LOL:

Read and weep:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/deportation-statistics-said-to-be-inflated/


Any liberals care to guess why this wasn't carried on any major news outlets? LOL!! Truth hurts.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- Have you read anywhere how many of the 16 rounds fired hit the bad guy?

It looks like the old guy in the FLA computer cafe wasn't such a bad shot after all. His target was moving around. The NYC's target was posing like a paper target.

Revolvers send less rounds downstream.

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- That is an interesting article. I never took the time to find out what was making up this particular Obama lie.
I wonder how many times Jacque has used the false stats to argue what a great job Obama is doing on the illegal alien situation... as compared to President George W Bush of course.
Thanks for the link.

Johnny Rico said...

Glad it helped Sark. The immigration debacle will sink this country unless we start deporting those in the interior. The border will never be sealed if there is a safe haven for them once they get past the border area.

Johnny Rico said...

I thought that after a law enforcement hero was recently killed in Watauga County, the liberal sheriff hagaman would stop the nonsense at the Watauga County Courthouse and put those deputies back in the road. But no, they continue trampling on the 4th Amendment to the Constitution because they can. Not a peep from the sheep of this county.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal socialist sheep,

What is a Tea Party Mob? Is it like the mob who defeated the British at Yorktown? Great then - you're calling us Patriots!! Thank you.

guy faulkes said...

I cannot get the Empire State Building shooting out of my mind. I am deeply troubled about the state of training that law enforcement receives.

I used to be evolved with training law enforcement in gun handling skills. They were trained to pass the Basic Law Enforcement Training qualification test. This is not a difficult course of fire. I have helped officers that shot in the low sixty percentile bracket (failing the test) to achieve the high eighty percentile bracket (some of the higher qualification scores achieved that day) with about four hours of private instruction. Four hours of training will not make you improve over twenty percent on a difficult course of fire.

This qualification does not require you to shoot a moving target; it does not require you to shoot while you move; and it has no "shoot-do not shoot" factor in which you have to determine if the target is a good guy or bad guy or if there are bystanders that might be hit.

These things are not nearly as easy as shooting at a static target, with no chance of hitting the wrong target. This should and could easily change, at least as far as gun handling skills are concerned.

There is a sport called the International Defensive Pistol Association that involves all these factors. As it is a sport, it is NOT tactical training, but does promote handgun handling skills that would apply to law enforcement. It also gets the officer used to preforming under the pressure of competition in front of a crowd. This would not be the same as the pressure he would face on the street, but it does induce stress.

No Sark, I do not know how many of the 16 rounds hit the assailant, but I do know that a typical beginning IDPA shooter would have hit the target with six out of six rounds from a draw from the holster in four or five seconds at the ten foot range shown on the video.

The next question is how to convince law enforcement officers to participate. Many of them complain about having to qualify once a year. This qualification is the only time they shoot. The rest of them are as constrained financially as the rest of us and may not have the money in their personal budget to enter these matches.

Practice is important for the officer's safety, more important if he is shooting to defend you, and reaches the utmost importance if he is shooting a Rottweiler off your three year old granddaughter.

I realize that, in the current economic times, no agency could pay its officers to participate in a monthly IDPA match (or probably even pay the entry fees), but maybe if we the agency would buy the ammunition, the local IDPA clubs would give the officers a discount in entry fees. If this happened, maybe a few officers would take advantage of it.

A few is better than none. Law enforcement deserves the best training available and we should make it available to them.

Also, please note this has nothing to do with the recent local tragedy. As far as I know, Deputies Mast and Russell did everything right.

Venting over for now.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I completely agree. I am also troubled by the shooting in that I have guns and believe in the right to carry. But should everybody have that right with just a simple safety test and one time target practice? The proficiency that needs to be shown is laughable compared to the responsibility of protecting yourself or others. This craziness happened when trained police officers tried to shoot an assailant. Th blogosphere was rolling with - "If private citizens had guns in the theater - not as many would have died." I can't help but think that if several private citizens had guns in a dark smoky theater that felt their life was threatened, that even more would have died in a similar vein to the NY shooting. The right to bear arms is critical, but the responsibility cannot be taken lightly. So what should happen to these cops? If they are fired, could they not turn around and sue on grounds that they were not given enough training? How many lawsuits from the bystanders are coming shortly?

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- My son just completed his police academy and passed his Texas Peace Officer's exam. He has already been 2.5 years with the S.O. as a Detention Officer.
He said the gun training was weak. He started out as a good shot, mostly non-moving paper targets and some skeet. I started him shooting at 9. I will definitely pay for an extended shooting course and look into the IDPA if it is here in the Houston area.

Johnny Rico said...

Happily Dumb said:

"But should everybody have that right with just a simple safety test and one time target practice?"

This comment alone belies your socialist tendencies. No, everyone shouldn't have that right with a safety test because they already have the right without one. It's called the 2nd Amendment. No test required. To require a test to carry a weapon is exactly what the founders didn't want to happen. How do you test a fundamental, God given, inalienable right? Typical liberal.

Then you break the bank with:

"I can't help but think that if several private citizens had guns in a dark smoky theater that felt their life was threatened, that even more would have died in a similar vein to the NY shooting"

Really? The 71 year old in the casino in Florida a few weeks ago managed to hit two armed assailants who were on the move and not anyone else. Not bad. The elderly, female, in the jewlery store a few weeks back managed to drive off 5 black thugs by firing her weapon twice. No one hurt. To advocate cowering behind your movie theatre seat and not fighting back epitomizes the left - sheep. I don't hear of friendly fire wounding or killing people very often (not often enough that it should become an issue anyway) in light of the fact there are millions of concealed carry holders.

Dr. John Lott's research (in his book entitled More Guns, Less Crime)indicates there are over a million defensive gun uses each year. Strange, I don't hear much about friendly fire. The cops in NYC had a stationary target to engage, and they managed to hit 9 OTHER PEOPLE? Something isn't right when trained professionals do that poorly. At any rate, had movie-goers been armed in Aurora, Colorado, the outcome would've been different as history has proven.

And here we have a very typical comment from the fringe left:

"The right to bear arms is critical, but the responsibility cannot be taken lightly."

How about saying the right to keep and bear arms is a right and any efforts to take it away by fringe left zealots (you) or the government shouldn't be taken lightly? Folks who exercise individual responsibilty and freedom think in these terms. Perhaps you should try and figure out how to increase freedoms for the people instead of enslaving them as has been done in most other countries. LOL!!

This ought to be interesting....

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Are you always this stupid?

Johnny Rico said...

I will diverge from Guy here. We do not need to train police more with firearms. Keep them to the one qualification per year or maybe even every other year.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- If I had been in the theater, UNarmed, I would want somebody/anybody shooting back at the killer.
They may miss, but it would make the shooter have to cover or at least fire at the person shooting at him. This giving other armed citizens a chance to plink him.

Your Utopianism shows in all most all subjects.

Happily Married said...

JR - PS are you always such a prick? I know the answer is yes. When i try to be nice and start a reasonable conversation where I have not called anyone any names and have essentially agreed with basic concepts - I get attacked. Blogger, why is he not censored like POV? He shows his ass every time he posts. You might wan to put a leash on the mutt if you want any civility on the blog. I'll respond later JR you jerk.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

What if somebody/anybody had shot you or shot and killed a love one of yours next to you? How gracious would you have been then? This is an opportunity to have a reasonable conversation about the best way to have gun ownership and carry in this country. JR and Sark - that obviously excludes you so STFU.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Blogs are not for cry babies.

But to answer your comment, mine remains the same. If a killer was casually walking through the theater shooting anyone he wanted at point blank range, I would have a better chance (a better chance than a baby in a liberal democrat's womb-- 50-50 wasn't it) if someone/anyone was making him take cover or drawing his fire.

Sarkazein said...

Don't you luv Liberals. Happily Married cusses at other commenters more than anyone and in the same comment calls for civility.
Liberal DNA is so predictable and so obvious.

Opoib said...

This last post brought to you by the best advertising for the Democratic party I know of.

Sark and JR the best promoters Obama and Biden could hope for.

Sarkazein said...

Perhaps Opoib/GIG/Anonymous can start a victim's group with Happy.

Also, your comment regarding the lower case " i " is very telling. This reminds me of a book I read where the comrades were not allowed to use the words I or Me because it didn't reflect good collectivism values.
You might want to mention this to Obama, 'cause he uses those two words more than any President in history.

Opoib said...

I am impressed Sark has added psychoanalysis to his resume of hatemonger, racist, and all around miserable person.

Sarkazein said...

And all it would take to gain your acceptance is to support killing the pre-born, support your gay marriage, and love Obama in spite of his socialist beliefs, divisive actions, and Communist upbringing.

guy faulkes said...

HM, Rico is correct in that you have the right to carry without any training. The point is that the other side of a right is responsibility. If you carry a gun, then you have the responsibility to train yourself to an adequate degree.

Of course, you are the person that gets to decide what is adequate until you reach the point that you shoot an innocent bystander as these cops did. At that point, it will become a matter for the courts to decide, certainly civilly and possibly criminally.

In North Carolina, a private citizen has no protection under the Public Duty Doctrine as would a police officer. He does have protection from the assailant under the Castle Doctrine. It provides no protection from an innocent person you harmed by accident while you are engaged in the act of self defense.

At that point, you would have to use the reasonable man argument and try to prove to the jury you had no choice but to try to defend yourself and any collateral damage was not your fault. Maybe the innocent person jumped into the line of fire and therefore caused themselves to be harmed. How do you prove this happened or it did not?

Carrying and using a gun is not a matter to be taken lightly, but you have the right to do as you believe is best.

In no case should the state get to make the decision about your use of self defense arbitrarily and before the incident occurs.

Sarkazein said...

New Orleans shops and restaurants are already putting their liqueur, clothing, and electronics out on the sidewalks. This way their windows won't get broken if the storm hits them.

Nobody said...

Middle class incomes down by more than $4000 under Obama - can we really take four more years?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html

Opoib said...

Sark 3:15 even if you did all of those things some of which i do not support, I would still consider you as worthless to me.

Sarkazein said...

Oh darn.

Johnny Rico said...

Happily Dumb said:

"JR - PS are you always such a prick? I know the answer is yes"

Tsk, tsk, tsk - getting mad and emotional when presented with unassailable facts will only make you look more vulnerable sir. LOL! I'm aghast that you would use such language. Then again, I get this from liberals all the time who have no other recourse.

Then you say:

"Blogger, why is he not censored like POV? He shows his ass every time he posts"

He can't help you you little whining smuck. The issue rests with me, so take it up with me. I showed you several examples of elderly citizens putting bad guys on the run with guns, and the realization that I blew your patentedly liberal machinations towards civilians carrying firearms was too much for your small mind to handle. Truth hurts don't it? LOL!! It is so much fun to watch you dolts self-destruct after reading one of my posts. Man, it's the best!!!!!!

Then a gender mistake:

"He shows his ass every time he posts"

As a fully mature female with all the parts common to female anatomy, you might want to correct yourself sir. Do strong females bother you? LOL!!!!

And the topping on the cake:

"This is an opportunity to have a reasonable conversation about the best way to have gun ownership and carry in this country. JR and Sark - that obviously excludes you so STFU"

My, my, aren't we a bit mad!! STFU? Strong language by any standards, and certainly so for a site full of decent, honest conservatives. Check yourself sir before you make an even greater fool of yourself than you already are. LOL!!!

What is not reasonable about my conversation? I've included many real world examples (I didn't include the elderly gentlemen who saved a pinned down cop by shooting a bad guy armed with an assault weapon from 150 feet). You've only included emotion which is the only tactic dyed in the wool liberal sheep (pun intended), such as yourself,are able to use. LOL!!!

So yes, let's have a civil conversation on gun control without your sniveling pleas to Blogger or most especially your foul language. LOL!!

What a dolt. Or, like a typical liberal, you could quit. Doesn't much matter to me because I win either way.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Claire Lesman

Johnny Rico said...

ObloPLOLP! said:

"Sark 3:15 even if you did all of those things some of which i do not support, I would still consider you as worthless to me."

First you don't need a time stamp because Sark used his name (he doesn't hide behind Anonymous like you liberals. Second, I surmise he cares less if you deem him worthless. All is yellow in the jaundice eye my liberal socialist sheep of a friend. LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Ben Goodman

Opoib said...

Sark, for once we agree neither of us gives a rats backside about the other.

Sarkazein said...

Finally, a good explanation for Ron Paul's fanatical support

Johnny Rico said...

OploPLOP!,

You really burned Sark with that comment. How about contributing something worthwhile on this blog instead of one line snippets that say nothing. Is it because you sentence structure lacks or because you have nothing to really say? Typical liberal.

Your ole pal

Ben Farnier

Johnny Rico said...

Where's Happily Dumb?

He must have slunk off to a site he could spew and blabber his socialist, anti-American, idealology without being questioned.

I won

Johnny Rico

Happily Married said...

JR -

Once again you don't win crap and If I don't respond it is simply my decision to quit engaging a jerk like you. I only name call because you have. You say I have proven myself to be worthy of every indignation you have sent. Well so have you. And I think I am more right about your gender than you might like to admit. I started out with a simple post to engage a discussion about responsible gun ownership and you went bat shite crazy. I even agreed that gun ownership is a right. Guy seems to be the only reasonable person where who agrees that with this right comes some responsibility. Your citing of events where nothing happened is irrelevant you moron - the issue is when something does happen like in NY - what do you do? You can cite people that have driven down the highway at 100 mph without an accident - does that mean we don't need speed limits? Who is the dolt here? So someone can carry a gun into one of these situations and accidentally kill someone you love and have no consequences. Do we make the responsibility occur before or after a tragedy has happened? Should these officers go to jail? If my loved one was hit by one of them I would want some accounatbility. Hitting nine people while trying to shoot one is negligence plain and simple. Should the appropriate action be to require more training or harsher punishment if accidents occur? Gun ownership is a right and a huge responsibility. I know my conceal carry training requirement was minimal at best and I was nervous to think some of my classmates would be carrying from that point on. I even had to load the gun for them. Anyone with anything constructive to say I am interested in the discussion - JR - unless you can keep from attacking me please keep your opinions to yourself. You of course have no control over what a jerk you are so - I am sure your will retort.

Happily Married said...

Jr -
I love how you followed up on your castigation of Opoib's one liner that says nothing with one of your own. What a hypocrite! I think you did not win as you seem to be a loser as a whole (that phrase as a whole is so close to another word that seems appropriate - JR you dolt see if you can figure that one out)

guy faulkes said...

HM, responsibility comes with every action you take, whether it is exercising your civil rights, exercising a privilege such as driving on public streets, or any action that does not meet either definition such as driving on private property. When you do something, you are responsible for the results of that action.

You do not get to decide for anyone other than yourself what your responsibility is when it comes to a civil right. That will be decided in a court of law if you mess up, just as it would when you damage anyone for any reason. This is why they have civil courts.

You cannot pass a binding law if it violates a person.s constitutional rights in this country. If you could, I would be in favor of a law making it mandatory that you have to qualify with a gun and pass a self defense course in order to get a driver's license, use public transportation, or vote. Except for voting the law would be legitimate as t violates not rights.

An armed society is a polite society. - Robert Heinlein

Happily Married said...

Guy-

I appreciate your approach and, as I have said, I fully recognize the right to bear arms is a right. I might disagree with your concept of requiring everyone to qualify with a gun. Many Americans are firmly against guns and to make them train on one seems a bit dictatorial. Self protection with a gun should be an option - not a requirement. Imagine someone who is very uncomfortable with guns in a situation trying to use one. So your take is that individual responsibility should be handled after the fact. I.E. everyone has a gun with no training requirements and if someone accidentally shoots and kills someone you love - prosecute them in court after the fact - but do not make any requirements for training or passing a test beforehand. I think this is a matter of a belief system regarding infringement of rights. I do not think it is unreasonable to not allow a violence convicted felon to not have a gun. I feel that person has lost that right by way of action (same concept as personal responsibility - they should have been responsible for their person enough not to commit a violent crime). I also believe that you should have to qualify for increased levels of killing capacity - i.e. i would argue that a pistol provides for personal protection as required by the constitution - if you want a 30 round clip you need to pass test and background checks. Just my humble opinion. See - I am capable of civil discourse with someone who is interested in returning the favor.

guy faulkes said...

HM, please note I did not indicate everyone had to carry a gun. I said they should have to qualify with one. There are people that genially do not want to carry a gun and that is their right. I have no more right to make them carry one than they do to tell me I cannot. For instance, they may have religious convictions about the issue.

However, making certain everyone has both the knowledge and ability to use one is an entirely different thing. People that knew about guns and could physically use one would be more safe than they are in the current situation. This is primarily because they would know enough to teach their children about guns and remove the mystery from the child's mind.

Storing a gun where a child cannot get it is much harder than teaching the child gun safety. Anything one person can do to store a gun, another person can undo. Children are not stupid.

You will find gun proofing a child is both easier and more efficient than trying to child proof a gun.

As to the actual carrying of the gun, no one would know which person was or was not carrying. However, if everyone had qualified, would you take a chance if you were a criminal? This is one important reason why crime rates fall after the practice of carrying concealed becomes common place in a state.

However, you cannot require people to carry for the previously stated ethical and legal issues as well as a very important practical issue. This is the fact that many people are so used to the concept of the nanny state they absolutely could not comprehend the necessity to be responsible for their own safety.

One cannot legislate or require either personal responsibility or civic virtue. You either have them or you do not.

I disagree with your comment about training requirements due to the level of power or the magazine capacity of a gun.

In the first place, you have a right to keep and bear arms. You get to choose which arms, including howitzers if you pay the tax on it. All you have to have is basically the same background check as done for a concealed carry permit.

Secondly,there is no difference in being shot between the eyes with a .22 caliber short out of a Chipmunk single shot bolt action child's gun and between the eyes with a belt fed .50 caliber machine gun. You have a bullet in your brain.

I personally beleive everyone should be required to know CPR,how to drive a car, swim, ride a bicycle, and shoot. Knowing any of these things could save your life and the lives of others. As you cannot limit a right, the only way to require these things would be to limit privileges unless you could do them.

Go troll somewhere else, LPOOV. Adults are discussing something here.

guy faulkes said...

HM, I forgot to mention one other thing. Responsibility for misuse of a right has to be handled after the fact. If there was no misuse, then there is nothing for which to be responsible.

You cannot limit a right because of what might happen.

guy faulkes said...

Here are a couple of videos from the North Carolina State IDPA championship at the Watauga Gun Club. You can see why I think it would be beneficial for law enforcement to participate in these events.

By the way, the targets with hands painted on them are "friendly" targets that incur a penalty if you shoot them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drizzico/7848422468/in/set-72157631151463688

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drizzico/7848172870/in/set-72157631151463688

Opoib said...

Darn it guy faulkes, As a firearms owner and enthusiast and former WGC member and one who hoped to join again.

Now I can not, I am sure your hate and disrespect of me would be evident if we met in real life.

I would not want that situation to occur in the real world where firearms are present. I would not feel safe.

Johnny Rico said...

Happily Dumb said:

"and If I don't respond it is simply my decision to quit engaging a jerk like you"

No, it's because you have nothing to come back with. Plain and simply. Take it from me. I've spent years battling fringe left sociopaths like you, and the first thing they do when beaten is become emotional. You did just this when you whined to blogger to do something about the bashing you were receiving from Johnny Rico. When that didn't work, you resorted to name calling. But what you didn't do is respond to my posts. Very evident you want to steer the conversation away from civil and Constitutional Rights and towards the collectivist theory of what YOU think is good for everyone. Unfortunately for you, I believe in freedom and personal responsiblity and won't let you get away with it. Now quit whining and start answering my truth posts. LOL!!! That was easy!!!!

Then you say:

"And I think I am more right about your gender than you might like to admit"

Why do liberal socialist sheep always refer to race and gender when they are getting trounced in a debate or conversation? What difference does my gender make? Is it because you're threatened by a strong female that you bring up gender. You and Joe Biden would get along well.

continued

Johnny Rico said...

Happily Dumb said:

"I started out with a simple post to engage a discussion about responsible gun ownership and you went bat shite crazy"

And here's where you begin to unravel sir!! Your simple post was not a discussion about "responsible" gun ownership, but a Marxist-born diatribe advocating the abolishment of civil and Constitutional Rights. There is no such thing as "responsible" gun ownership. There is either gun ownership or there isn't. If there is, then you're blessed enough to live in a free country. If there isn't, liberty is immediately in question. Black and white.

The responsibility portion involves nothing more than a simple condition of use; not ownership. Owning a gun is a right. "Responsibility" is a nefarious concept that may take one of many forms. In your case, it invokes the ability to erode or degrade a right, which, by definition, negates the right totally.

You see, this is the problem with socialists such as yourself. You begin an arguement with an assumption that you believe to be correct. When said assumption is brought into question, and your arguement wanes, you feel attacked. Not so. The one doing the attacking is actually you. All is yellow in the jaundice eye.

To degrade a Constitutional Right in any form or fashion is an outright attack on the culture, society, values, customs and beliefs of this nation. Defense of these rights is the rule, not the exception (attack) my dear. So it is you who are out of line here on this site.

Blogger and New Guy realize this, and that is why you hear nothing from them when you claim to have been attacked. Those who exercise personal responsibility with freedom and liberty standing overwatch understand all too well the self serving bias prevalent among liberal socialists such as yourself. And they also understand that defense of Constitutional Rights may actually seem like an attack to the unenlightened. I'm sure sheep feel "attacked" by a sheepherder trying to corral them for the night with the use of his/her sheepdog. They haven't been attacked but given yet another night of safety from a dangerous world. The founding fathers gave us protection from a dangerous world with the Amendments to the Constitution with stern words of warning that a day would come when someone (you) would want to take those rights away.

So, now that you understand you're the instigator on this site, please try and answer one or two of my questions. LOL!! Hard to do isn't it?

Please quit attacking the Constitutional Rights that many, many people have died for over the centuries. If you continue to attack, as you've done over the past few months, feel the literary sting of conservative impediments that have kept this country free since 1776. LOL!!

It ought to be interesting to see how you try and dig out of the hole you've dug.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Stings don't it. Liberty to the uninitiated usually does!!!!!!

Pietro Giglioni

Johnny Rico said...

We have a problem folks. The RINOs have struck again. Although receiving scant attention from anywhere (including the idiots at Fox), the Republitard RINOs held a vote today giving future Republican Presidents the ability to veto Republican delegates chosen by states. This is simply amazing. And it probably just lost the election for RINO Romney.

Sark nearly had me convinced to vote for Romney until today. Romney, along with fellow RINO John Boner, came up with the idea to suppress grass root groups (Tea Party) at the state level through the power to veto state Republican delegates.

Does anyone find this alarming? Perhaps we need a thread on this very subject. The establishment Republitards HATE the Tea Party enough to jeapordize the Presidential election? Amazing incompetance by Republitards.

Sark, how in the world can you vote for RINO Romney now? He is trying to stifle the conservative movement through tactics one would typically see in Chicago!!! What madness the Republitard party spews.

Can any conservative on this site explain why it is a good thing for RINO Romney or any President to have veto power over delegates chosen by their states?

Johnny Rico

guy faulkes said...

I do not hate you Opoib, I pity you. All three of you as you post with different writing styles. Also, if you ever earn any respect, I will be sure to give it to you.

This makes me believe your former blog identity was LPOV, even though when the articulate persona of the three posts, he sounds more like G.I.G.

I actually miss G.I.G. Until he totally lost it over Amendment One, he made some very interesting arguments.

In any case, you are safe with me. However, you would have to abide by the rules of the club and I am not sure you are emotionally able to do it.

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- I will have to read about the delegate issue. I have heard little about it. It would take a lot to turn me into a one issue voter or to surrender to the Leftists.

Reader said...

I read about it Sark and seem they overturned it yesterday. I've made up my mind, I will be voting for Romney.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- I'll bet it had something to do with the Ron Paul delegates. They just can't take no for an answer. The Ron Paul supporters should be doing everything they can do to move the Republican Party to libertarianism and find a better candidate who can win for them. Paul had his chance/chances. I was a Ron Paul supporter long before most had even heard of him. But if he can't win, even in his own state..... change pitchers.

Johnny Rico said...

Why does this receive so little news from anyone. You would think the fringe left news media would be all over disension in the ranks.

Reader, I did not know they overturned the vote. If that's true, does that mean the Republican President DOES NOT have the ability to veto state delegates he doesn't like?

This is the type of Republican I've come to know. They are not much different than liberals. They give us the Patriot Act, gun control, and anything else they can sell us out on. The simple fact they pressed for centralized control (as opposed to grassroots control) over MY state delegates is very telling folks. Wake up!

I won't be voting for RINO Romney now. I was actually considering punching a straight Republitard ticket because hussein obama is so damaging to this country. I continue to find republitards equally as damaging.

What Romney and gang wanted to do here is stifle conservatives. Grassroots efforts, such as the Tea Party, have been very damaging to the establishment republicans (Bushes, Carl Rove, Rino Rick Perry, Gingrich,Mitch McConnel, John Bohner (bone me), etc). And the Republicans are stupid enough to try and chill grassroots organizations a couple months before an election!! Come again?

What utter stupidity. Don't anyone vote for RINO Romney. Write in someone, anyone, but don't vote for that idiot. If he will sell the Tea Party out, then be ready to be sold out yourself. This guy will try and compromise on ANY issue out there including gun control. Typical RINO.

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

And Sark, you really had me ready to vote for Romney. I now urge YOU to vote the other way.

Johnny Rico said...

What happened to the liberals. Beaten again. Turned tail and scadadled I see!!

Johnny Rico said...

Ask yourselves, what have the Watauga County Commissioners done to increase your personal freedom here in Watauga County over the past couple years? I can't think of one thing. Vote them out too. They are typical establishment Republicans incapable of doing anything other than status quo.

This of course doesn't include Vince Gable who actually did try and increase freedoms for Watauga County residents.

Vote them out and replace with someone, anyone, else.

Status quo only stalls the inevitable folks. When you don't hear the liberals whining about the Watauga County Commissioners, they must be a pretty worthless bunch.

I have not heard one negative comment from liberals pertaining to the Watauga County Commissioners. That is telling folks. Time for an electoral change.

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

I don't think it was Ron Paul delegates only. From what I've read and heard, John Bohner asked if there were any nays to the vote. The entire Virginia delegate group stood up and started booing. Bohner ignored them and the vote became final. How was it overturned and who overturned it?

Sark, even if it were Ron Paul delegates, do you not find it disturbing that Romney, if elected, will have power to choose YOUR delegates. That is a sinister move. As a conservative, you ought to take a hard look at what's being done here. The Republican party has caused nothing but mayhem over the past two decades - and now this.

Shows me they didn't learn their lesson in 2010. Shows me they didn't learn from the recent election in Texas in which a Tea Partier (Cortez?) came from behind and smoked an establishment republitard.

Wake up folks, the republitards HAVE NOT changed. RINO Romney just proved it. This won't be good for him as the word spreads among conservatives.

Again, how was this overturned?

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

For some odd reason, even the liberal socialist sheep don't want to comment on this one. Strange indeed.

guy faulkes said...

As I understand it from an alert put out by Grass Roots North Carolina, the Republican establishment changed the control of delegates from the state parties to the national party in order to consolidate non dedicated votes. This is not acceptable as it is removing power from the individual Republican, be he conservative or liberal. In this case it was to negate the concerns of the conservative base.

The end result of this maneuver is that it may actually split the party.

There has always been a number of us that will not support Romney or Obama. That number may have just increased.

Do you think this is one of the first nails in the coffin of the Republican party?

Happily Married said...

J(crap for brains)R -
Here is the problem with morons such as yourself - you fail to acknowledge when I have proven your logic to be ridiculous - Do we need speed limits? I do not retreat when I feel attcked when you spout lies - I felt attacked when you continually spout denigrations such as "are you really this stupid" How many presidential debates have that kind of verbieage? I want to have a civilk conversation with anyone who is capable. Your simple mind and childish name calling indciates you are not. You refer to me as Anti American - and I say screw you I am more American than you are. I love this country enough to want to find a way that preserves the incredible rights that so many have fought for. Your black and white approach is actually working against it. No - nothing is black and white - not even this and when your simple mind grasp that you will be much better off. Convicted criminals who have a history of violence should not have the right to own a gun - period. That does not make me a socialist or say that I am trying to ban all guns - it means that I have some common sense and you do not. Why don't you leave this discussion to rational people like Guy and go spew your name calling somewhere else. Once again - you didnt win crap - you just proved your inability for civil discourse.

Happily Married said...

J (crap for brains) R -

Please note two things - when I am dealing with others on this blog - I do not resort to name calling - you cannot post anything without some sort of name calling.

Hmmm - what does that indicate?

Happily Married said...

"To degrade a Constitutional Right in any form or fashion is an outright attack on the culture, society, values, customs and beliefs of this nation. Defense of these rights is the rule, not the exception (attack) my dear. So it is you who are out of line here on this site."
This is the biggest bunch of crap of all. Do you believe in voter ID requirements? Is that not the same thing? Just registering to vote is a from of hindrance to the actual right of voting. Is this not the same thing? And you call me fringe - your the lunatic who doesn't see your black and white perspective is absurd.

Anonymous said...

"Hmmm - what does that indicate? " (happily married)

It indicates to me that you aren't self directed but are willing to let others determine what conduct you will exhibit.

You don't have much of an internal sense of who you are. No real moral compass to guide you; instead you are completely outer directed and willing to let others define for you who you are.
(since you asked)

Happily Married said...

So Guy -

My father taught me early about gun safety so i can appreciate that approach. I remember a beating a got playing cops and robbers with real guns - I think I was 6. I have no issue with requiring some type of safety training for guns given to all kids - But I don't think it is reasonable to require that everyone know CPR or know how to swim or drive a car. Some people are deathly afraid of water, etc.

"Responsibility for misuse of a right has to be handled after the fact. If there was no misuse, then there is nothing for which to be responsible." - So if a guy has a rap sheet for various violent offenses, if none of them have involved a gun before, he should be able to have a gun? If violence or mental stability is proven beyond gun ownership - is it not reasonable to say we need to not let that person have a weapon of mass casualty. Which brings up the bullet in the brain concept. The issue is not the one bullet in the brain - it is the ability to put bullets in 70 people killing or injuring them. If the issue is personal safety - one ten round clip will provide for that - why do we need weapons that spew out 100 rounds in a minute readily available. If the argument is a well armed militia - that is great - why not eliminate 1/2 of the defense budget and provide all interested parties with M-16 and a thousand rounds of ammo. We would save a buttload of money - reduce the debt and have a well armed militia to protect our interests on our soil.

Opoib said...

Guy Falkes, I put you in the same class of zealot or fanatic as I do Rico. I want no part of any group either of you support. Including the WGC.

I did like that club when I was a memeber 10 years ago. Now i know who a co memebrer would be so i must excuse my self from supporting anything you do.

As far as G.I.G leaving here the fanatics who would deny rights to others caused that.

I will not vote republican since they say they have to defend "an assault on marriage?" The only group I see stopping anyone from marrying is the republicans

Opoib said...

Guy Falkes, please do not make your self look even more the fool by calling me three names. Lpov Gig and Opoib.

GIG and LPOV had some of the most long running threads here at one point disagreeing on taxation and responsibility and immagration.

If you compare more or call me G.I.G i would take that as a compliment.

So your attempt at being rude to me or insulting me can only work if you rethink your argument.

Calling me someone I do not agree with while calling me someone I would aspire to be like at the same time makes no sense. I find it amusing you call me Liberal a Libertarian and a Moderate all in one attempt at an insult.

Happily Married said...

Anon -
I am very self directed and have a moral compass like you would not believe. I choose to give JR back as good as he gives - he does not dictate that. I choose to show how meaningless name calling and denigration gets both sides nowhere. I have challenged him to provide for civil discourse as I have proven I am capable of doing with others.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Happily Married, but I judge you by your actions, not your words.
You talk about civility and claim it as a virtue, but then you call names and conduct yourself like a child. And, you excuse your conduct based on your position that others engaged in it first.

Classic definition of outer directed.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

It seems fine to disparage me as i represent differing opinion that most on this site.
So please tell me your opinion of Johnny Rico - unless you only want to demean those with differing opinions than you.
BTW - you are right - in an ideal world I would be above board and express my opinions consistently. I am also of the experience that effective communication means adjusting one's style to the lowest common denominator. I am assuming that Johnny Rico is brain damaged or from a broken home where the only communication is shame based and laced with insults - so I communicated at that level. If I sensed that he was able to communicate in a civil manner - i would have adjusted my communication appropriately. I do find it interesting that the participants here have no problem with JR's denigrative style and accept it as representative of their views.

Opoib said...

Happily Married, I have come to the conclusion that if you area poster here then you have to accept that this site comes with its warts.

One big wart on the tip of its nose bieng Johnny Rico. Do I think the site would be a much more pleasant site to read on and post on with out her ABSOLUTLEY.

But I can not also claim that she should be censored. She is just a part of who this site is. One that is doing more harm to the republican or conservative party then good in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

We should take a vote. Keep opibo or johnny r?

Opoib said...

Anon 2:48 is there are problem with keeping both ? Or is it you want to only have one of their opinions be valid here?

Do you want a blog where only the opinion you like is allowed to be posted?

That's simple start your own and censor anyone you do not like. I promise if you do I will come there and post and you can delete it?

Reader said...

Sark, I think it had everything to do with Ron Paul. I'm beginning to think he's another Ralph Nader. He'll continue to run as long as he has a few supporters.

Anonymous said...

dopio, I wouldnt have to delete it because I wouldnt allow you to post. I would have a minimum intelligence level for posters.

guy faulkes said...

Opoib/LPOV, I will not cross post on multiple threads as you love to do in either persona. I have addressed the reason I beleive your are multiple posters on another thread. Keep the discussion about this issue on that thread if you wish to continue.

I do not remember anyone with your personality from 10 years ago, but it is possible. There have been people disciplined by the club; some were asked to leave, but I would not have believed any of them to be as illogical as you.

Do not let me keep you from enjoying the benefits of the club. If you feel you could come back and so desire, then please do so.

HM, up until now, you have debated very logically. Your last post about career criminals is not applicable. A criminal loses his rights (not limited to gun crimes). He loses them after the fact he committed a crime.

You need a better example.

The CPR, driving, etc. are my personal opinions of what a well rounded person should be able to do as a means of civic responsibility (they could save his life or the lives of others)in order to make the point one cannot legislate people into having this responsibility. If a person wants to be a ward of a nanny state, he will probably not want to achieve the abilities to fend for himself or care for others. This may ave been a poor example as well.

Your idea about issuing everyone an M16 and ammunition seems to work well in Switzerland. Is that whee you got it?

guy faulkes said...

"Do you think this is one of the first nails in the coffin of the Republican party?"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/august_2012/53_think_obama_will_win_33_predict_romney

guy faulkes said...

Any thoughts on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd

Opoib said...

Guy Faulkes, you would not remember me. I am not the type to draw attention to my self. I do not try to tell others what to do. I came and shot and cleaned up after my self and left.

As far as being a member of a club your a member of I will pass but thanks for the offer.


What one of the people you call me is the offer to by the way ?

Opoib

Opoib said...

Here is a very interesting read. Obama on reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/

guy faulkes said...


What one of the people you call me is the offer to by the way ? - Opoib/LPOV

Any one or all of the at least three that post under either name, After all, you are the same people.

Do not worry about the typo. Everyone makes them so the two of you that were not the author of that particular post should give the other some slack.

Happily Married said...

Guy-

I appreciate the acknowledgement that a criminal loses his rights - even to carry a gun. Unfortunately, there are those that would argue that any law restricting gun rights goes against the constitution - even for criminals to have guns. It is a very black and white approach that I do not agree with. I do not believe in allowing violent criminals to have weapons. That being said, it seems reasonable to have laws that place reasonable restriction on gun ownership (as in the case above). So it seems like you agree that the issue is not black and white - the question is what restriction are reasonable? Should you be required to have training first? Should you have to have a background check to verify no mental conditions? Just questions for discussion.

guy faulkes said...

The Constitution protects the rights of citizens, HM. Criminals that have had a least a portion of their citizenship removed, do not have full rights. Illegal aliens have none.

Should you be required to have training first? No, you should not be required to have it first. It is a right that cannot be infringed upon. If you have any civic responsibility, you will get some, but this cannot be a legislative requirement.

Should you have to have a background check to verify no mental conditions? Not if you follow the Constitution. I truly believe liberalism is a form of mental illness, but this condition should not negate a liberal's civil rights. Just what kind of mental condition are you asking about?

Happily Married said...

Guy:
Regarding Virgina tech shooter - Just two weeks after the shootings, Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine signed an executive order that required anyone court-ordered to receive mental health treatment be added to a state database of people prohibited from buying guns.
Is this constitutional? You really believe liberalism is a form of mental illness - that must mean that in every case and regarding every topic - you are whole heartedly conservative. Which is sad to think that you approach the world in that black and white way. And it is a sad indictment of our political culture that just because someone has a different opinion of you , you think they are mentally ill. My father is very conservative but I don't think he is mentally ill - we just have different belief systems - part of what makes America great. If everyone was conservative in every way - the diversity that is America would be gone and America would be a little less great.

guy faulkes said...

If your father is a conservative, then he is not mentally ill, HM.

The comment about liberals being mentally ill was an agreement with threads and articles that have previously been posted on this blog. These were done by mental health professionals Do you not remember them?

Yes the court order is unconstitutional. No one has been found guilty of any crime. There is only an opinion as to the mental state of some person by a mental health professional, upheld by a judge. You have not been tried by your peers.

You have already indicated you do not agree with some of mental health professionals as they put forth the opinion that liberals were mentally ill.

In addition to this, not all mental health professionals would agree about anyone's condition. They make subjective decisions.

Also, I once read that laymen have as good a record as do mental health professionals in determining if a person has mental health problems. If this is true, then there is no reason not to have a trial before your peers.

Blogger said...

No Guy, I don’t think the Rasmussen poll results is a nail in Republican’s coffin. Think about it. There is no evidence in any of the polling that Obama will win–quite the opposite. So, under these circumstances what other explanation can be had? I think that in a world that is coming apart, they were expressing what they feel is inevitable–like those people who are always saying “If something can go wrong, it will always happen to me.” They can soon join those who know the Mayan calendar ends in December 2012.

guy faulkes said...

Good point Bloger. While I do not believe it is inevitable that Obama will win, I find it highly likely. The possibility that so many other do also made me wonder about the viability of the Republican party in the future.

If I remember correctly, you were responsible for one of the threads that indicated liberalism is a form of mental illness. I do not really care to rehash that subject, but HM's arguments have raised some questions in my mind. I think you would have expertise in the matter.

If a judge involuntarily commits someone, then it is my understanding that he did so at the request of an interested party and on the advice of some type of mental health professional. This might be a big time doctor or it might be the local health department.

My question is does the person being committed have the right to be at the hearing, the right to council and his own doctors, are these available to the judge before the commitment hearing and what is the appeal process?