This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He 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.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Vent Page XXXVII - NOT as boring as Super Bowl XXXVII !!!


Vent Page XXXVII - we hope it's better than Super Bowl XXXVII was!

Ah yes....Super Bowl XXXVII, the most boring Super Bowl matchup ever. Who remembers the game between the 12-4 Tampa Bucs and the 11-5 Oakland Raiders? Notable mostly for having the 3rd worst attendance of any Super Bowl...(lowest all time was Super Bowl I).
 
 
Whenever the number of posts on a vent page make it cumbersome to navigate, a new vent page is started. This is number THIRTY SEVEN in our series!  Thirty Seven is not an easy number to relate to. We considered making it a Nixon Vent Page in honor of our 37th President but, well, it's NIXON!  So, in honor  of the Holy Day of Super Bowl Sunday, we decided to commemorate this one with an awkward reference to a prior Super Bowl.


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!!
Ah yes...the Super Bowl Vent Page.....We hate to see Vent Page XXXVI go, but in departing we once again pay homage to it's inspiration.....Marilyn Monroe~


Thanks for dressing up our little blog!


49 comments:

Johnny Rico said...

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomburg will use the superbowl to promote gun control. Bloomburg is paying for an add, with his own money, in which he and another mayor will make a pitch for gun control. Although this add is regional in nature and may not be shown in NC, the fact remains one of the the largest stages in America today is being used to erode Constitutional Rights. I don't see many people very angry about this, and neither do I see the NRA posting a counter-ad.

The sheep of this nation are even more ignorant than most of us conservatives realize. They are taking your Constitutional Rights during the superbowl now! Wake up.

Samantha Stone

Sarkazein said...

I think Bloomberg is &%$#@ into the wind. This will probably spark gun sales. Even though it is under the pretense of "illegal gun sales", he will get no where with it... unless we end up with Obama for another 4 years, lose the House and don't win back the Senate. There is something abut NY'ers and guns. Even Brian of FOX&FRIENDS doesn't understand the political aspects of gun ownership. There are probably a dozen laws already covering Bloomberg's latest wants.

Sarkazein said...

For the non-believers

Johnny Rico said...

Sark,

I hope his foray into communism does indeed spark gun sales. With more guns owned by more Americans, how do liberals like Yack, Mike D, Povs and jw williamson say that guns cause crime? They hate it when personal freedom and responsibility win out.

I plan on buying several guns if Hussein Obama wins the election. And he may very well win it.

Johnny Rico said...

Good one Sark! So true.

NewGuy said...

Maybe you need to stock up BEFORE he wins the election!

See opinion article in Daily Caller...

"Obama administration officials are deliberately keeping gun owners in the dark about the president’s gun-control agenda as we head into next year’s national election, because administration officials know that when NRA members and gun owners show up at the polls en masse, anti-gun candidates lose.

The Obama campaign’s strategy goes like this:

Neutralize gun owners and NRA members as a political force in the upcoming national election by pretending to be pro-gun or at least not focused on pushing a gun-control agenda;

With gun owners neutralized, Obama will be able to win the election. After the president is re-elected, he won’t have to answer to voters because he won’t have to face another re-election battle;

Launch a full-scale, all-out assault to rip the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders and international treaties — in short, every lever of power at the administration’s disposal.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/the-obama-administration-is-planning-a-second-term-attack-on-gun-rights/#ixzz1lZKCj8fv

Mike D. said...

Rico,

"Guns cause crime" (attributed to Mike D. by Johnny Rico)

Rico, you have got to be kidding me. Guns are tools, just like knives, scissors, pliers, and wrenches. Guns do not have brains, so they cannot have thoughts. Guns do not have the ability to move, so they cannot cause anything.

To attribute such ridiculous anti-logic to me should serve as definitive proof that you are out of your freaking gourd, and you ought to be placed in a padded room at Broughton before you cause a catastrophe. :-)

The presence of guns, in the hands of the general population, reduces crime, in my opinion. But to be honest, I object to your framing of our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms in terms unrelated to the intent of our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did not grant us the permanent freedom to own firearms because they wished to reduce back-alley thuggery. They immortalized our right to own guns as a hedge against tyranny.

You are on the right track, grasshopper, but you lack discipline and wisdom.

Don't mind me, Rico... I'm just a fly in the ointment.

Yippee-ki-yay, Johnny Rico.

Yours truly,
John McClane

P.S. Lay off the crack pipe, ok?

General Zaragov said...

Rainsford,

Don't go getting all emotional on me. Your comments regarding the prohibitions on concealed carry in Blowing Rock parks more than validate any conclusions towards your stance on the 2nd Amendment. As for a padded room at Broughton, why not opt for electric shock therapy? After all, sterilization and shock therapy were developed under liberal Democratic administrations. All about controlling the people isn't it sir?

On guaard Rainsford!!!!!!!!!

General Zaragov said...

I SAID, on guaaarrd Rainsford!!!!

Johnny Rico said...

I find no pleasure in watching professional football anymore. Rules are becoming so strict that hard field hits are becoming a thing of the past. So is playing in adverse conditions such as snow and rain. Last year, the Philidelphia Eagels canceled a game due to snow. The days of Johnny Unitas, Dick Butkus and Mean Joe are gone forever. I loved the gritty grid iron performances of these near-immortals as they battled their way to glory in terrible conditions due to love of the game and sheer fortitude. Can't say the same for today's pampered players who whine about rain showers and supposed long playing seasons all the while raking in tens of millions per year.

Then there is the NFL sanctioning events like Bloomburg's anti-Constitutonal rant (Bloomburg and another communist were wearing Giants/Patriots jerseys during the infommercial). Had it been a commercial advocating for the cesation of abortions or gay marriage, you can bet the NFL would have pitched a fit. Not so with the 2nd Amendment - it's always ok to trounce that right.

With the millions of young kids and adults watching, the prospect of gun control becomes ever more accepted sheaple. Social engineering by the left at its worst. Heck, if the NFL endorses it, then it must be ok, right?

The NFL is corporate America too. Why isn't OWS protesting corporate denigration of Constitutinal Rights?

How about answering that one JW? LOL!!!!

Your ole pal

Linda Smith

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

I pretty much stopped watching it when the on-field celebrations got going. A player does his job right once out of fifty tries and starts celebrating like he just invented the cure for cancer. Add to it the government built stadiums and, for me, it just lost its luster.

Mike D. said...

"Your comments regarding the prohibitions on concealed carry in Blowing Rock parks more than validate any conclusions towards your stance on the 2nd Amendment." - Rico

Prove it, Johnny! Let's see the quote! Never in my 39 years have I ever advocated against gun ownership of any kind.

General Zaragov said...

Rainsford,

That's not the impression you left with your comments on the Blowing Rock Parks carry a few weeks back. This, coupled with your inability to answer glaring consistencies between your comments on parks carry and the Blowing Rock Land Trade lead one to directly conclude you are anti-2nd Amendment.

On guaaarrd Rainsford....!!

General Zaragov said...

I say old chap, On guaaard...!!!

Mike D. said...

Rico,

As my dad would say, you lie like a rug!

You can easily look back at archived posts. So do it, and prove me wrong! Show me the money, baby!

Repeat a lie enough times, and it becomes the truth, right Rico?

That's when you know that you have been utterly defeated, when you have to cling to an obvious lie and hang on to it like it's what is going to save you.

Sarkazein said...

Anti-gay Democrats

General Zarrof said...

Dear Boy Rainsford,

Which short story do you find most appealing, "The Most Dangerous Game" or "Lennigan versus the Ants"? Both are classics appealing the base human instinct of survival. Who do you find the most capable - Rainsford or Lenigan? If Rainsford were pitted against Lennigan, who would win and why?

On guaard Rainsford!!!!!

Mike D. said...

I love both, Rico, but I definitely prefer "The Most Dangerous Game".

What, are we starting a reading club here?

Now quit changing the subject and take my challenge! :-P

General Zarrof said...

Rainsford,

I believe Lennigan vs the Ants to be a more in depth representation of the human spirit when confronted with overwhelming odds. Not that Rainsford didn't exemplify this spirit, but Lennigan's 10 mile wide, 2 mile deep mass of ants had to be more disconcerting than facing General Zaroff and his deaf mute Ivan (but not by much).

At any rate, it appears you stray from the subject area. Your pretty smart Rainsford, so I'll chalk it up to your trying to obtain the tactical advantage through offlining and subterfuge.

On guaaard Rainsford....!!!!!!!

Johnny Rico said...

well, well, well, we have the lemming among us. Povs, aren't you tired of the shallacking you recieve each time your slime covered probiscus peeks out of the vermin hole? LOL!!!

Care to explain what you would tell the US citizens who have their living wage lowered by illegal aliens? Would you tell Americans to their face they deserve to have their jobs taken by illegal aliens?

This ought to be interesting.....

Your ole pal

Billy Gauge

Johnny Rico

Mike D. said...

Meh, Rico,

I simply prefer man vs. man over man vs. nature.

General Zarroff said...

Rainsford,

The man vs man matchup is ideal for the creativity it is sure to invoke. Strategic decision making between two human antagonists is always interesting. This is why Americans love boxing, wars, and Trivial Pursuit.

The man vs nature genre is also interesting. Nature is such an overwhelming force that it is rare that man overcomes it. This is why we are so intrigued by plauges, apocolyptic scenarios, and the Mayan Calander. I like Lennigan Versus the Ants better than The Most Dangerous Game. Thinking about death by ants is tantilizingly macbre.

I understand one dies of suffocation as hordes of ants invade the lungs causing breathing difficulty. Of course, before they make it to the lung area the tens of thousands that collectively bite and sting the largest organ in the body (skin)makes living an insane proposition.

Lennigan Versus the Ants takes place in South America which is a bit inaccurate. South American Army Ants do attack enmasse, however it is the African Driver Ants having the most ants per colony. Legends have it that African natives would stake enemies from other tribes in front of advancing Driver Ants and return to find skeletons picked clean. Legends also indicate that every so often Driver Ant colonies would merge to produce an ant mass of unimaginable quantities. Elephants were even eaten.

In reading about Driver Ants of Equitoral Africa, it appears that "normal" Driver Ant swarms can spread out over several hundred yards. If this is the case, it's not out of the question a swarm in antiquity (before so much human influence) might have been 2 miles wide and 10 miles deep.

With that in mind, Lennigan Versus the Ants gets my vote. As usual, Rainsford, YOU LOSE.

On guaaard Rainsford....!!!!!!!!! (heavy English accent).

Mike D. said...

Now, Rico,

About that gun thing. You prepared to admit defeat, or must I pound you into submission, knave?

Sarkazein said...

Obama learns, for the first time, which end of the barrel the round comes out

General Zarrof said...

Rainsford,

The last time you "pounded away" all I heard was silence. Your gun control fetish has got to go old chap.

On guaarrd Rainsford!!

Johnny Rico said...

20-30 thousand drones flying over the US by 2020? The following article explains:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/

And not a peep from the sheaple. This meshes in nicely with what recently happened in Ashe County, Blowing Rock and Boone with the concealed weapons bans. Your rights are being taken away very quickly now, and it's happening out in the open.

guy faulkes said...

Our Founding Fathers did not grant us the permanent freedom to own firearms because they wished to reduce back-alley thuggery. They immortalized our right to own guns as a hedge against tyranny. - ikeD

Mike you should go back and read the writings of the founders. They expounded the right to use firearms from everything from defense against tyranny to self defense to self discipline (both physical and mental)

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Although he was not a founder, I like this quote:

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

Sarkazein said...

Two excellent quotes Guy Faulkes.

Mike D. said...

Guy,

I like the quotes very much, but when I said "they immortalized our right to own guns", I was speaking of our Bill of Rights, which is the law of the land, the legal backbone of our country.

Thomas Jefferson wrote and spoke about many subjects, but only what made its way into the Constitution can be interpreted by the Supreme Court as law. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

How's this:

The authors of our Constitution immortalized our right to own guns as a hedge against tyranny, not as a deterrent against back-alley thuggery.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Where does it say, in the US Constitution, "The authors of our Constitution immortalized our right to own guns as a hedge against tyranny, not as a deterrent against back-alley thuggery." I Thought it said "And the Right to keep and bare arms". To add--In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]-Wiki. It was all the things, not just the tyranny thing as you wrote.

Sarkazein said...

"The authors of our Constitution immortalized our right to own guns as a hedge against tyranny, not as a deterrent against back-alley thuggery."- MikeD

This is like --going out of your way to be wrong.

guy faulkes said...

MikeD, what you fail to realize is that the writings of the founders concerned the arguments for a Constitution for a federal government. The arguments on both sides of the debate made mention of the fact that people for various reasons such as self defense, recreation, to obtain food, etc. Because they were armed they would be protected from a tyrannical government, even their own. The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the assurance there would be a Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was prominently required by at least two states, if I remember correctly.

This is not a chicken and the egg argument. The authors all acknowledged the fact the people were already armed. Armed free men predated the Constitution.

guy faulkes said...

Should ahve said that people were armed for various reasons

Sorry

Johnny Rico said...

This is why I won't vote for Romney:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/105402.html

Sark, try this link - the video is embedded at the bottom of the article and shows Mitt Romney talk about gun control. What do you think?

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Try this Sark,

When I cut and paste the link it leaves off a few characters.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/105402.html

Johnny Rico said...

This ought to do it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/
archives/105402.html

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- I got it. It sounds to me as though he is talking about laws keeping guns from criminals. Illegal guns to felons etc. I don't see the Ronald Reagan moment in that video where a governor makes it illegal for citizens to carry loaded weapons. I would like to see all the Republican candidates being as pro-gun as legally possible. I have carried since 1978--- "legally" since 1996 +-.

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- Mass. is a "may issue" state. Romney should have pushed for a "shall issue'. Was there a call for it from the public? I don't know. In comparison-- Illinois (Obamaland) is a "no issue" state. Not all states citizens are pushing for "shall issue" or even "unrestricted" like Vermont and Alaska and Wyoming.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, give it up. There is no doubt in any logical person's mind that Romney is anti-gun, pro-abortion, and the author of government controlled health care. This is why the left is praying for him to get the nomination.

As you are usually as conservative as I am, I find your cheer leading for Romney very perplexing.

Johnny Rico said...

Sark,

Mass has some of the very strictest gun laws in the nation. Romney says he won't chip away at laws that steal our liberty. This disturbs me. I will vote for Romney if you can convince me to. I still need more convincing.

Right now, Romney is the lesser of two evils. I've been voting on that premise my entire life and it has gotten me nowhere. This includeds RINOs and Democrats. I was not a fan of either Bush but voted for them as I felt they were better than the far left liberals running against them.

John McCain is what did it for me. He was such a RINO libertard who was supported by the establishment. I realized after that election, the McCain was more of a problem than a solution. I didn't vote for him.

As of now, I won't vote for Romney. Like Faulks says, let it burn down and we'll rebuild from the ashes.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist sheep povs,

You idiots got kicked off the site again yesterday didn't you. What a bunch of lemmings you idiots are. Same ole liberal spew.

Any of you idiots want to take a shot at the title?

Speaking of shooting, do you remember how you called Jared Loughner a Tea Party Activist before the bodies cooled? Come to find out he was a nanny state advocate (like you idiots). I remember you dunces wouldn't post for over a month after your were called on your glaring stereotype. LOL!

Why is it that liberal socialist sheep (you tards) always classify and steretotype and name call? Tough question aint' it.

Have a good un

Your ole pal

Sammie Johns

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- "As of now, I won't vote for Romney. Like Faulks says, let it burn down and we'll rebuild from the ashes." The problem is, this is becoming all too possible. And it will be real ugly. For me, I would rather not experience it, but would instinctively jump right in the middle of it. I don't want the old (older) folks or the women and children to have to experience the reality of a "burn down". Would I want the country to "burn down" if Romney became President? Not even close. Would I if Obama gets another term? It won't be my choice and may well happen. The second people my militia would come after is those that helped Obama get re-elected by not voting or Peroting their vote.

Mike D. said...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Assault weapon bans are unconstitutional. Any attempt to distort the 2nd Amendment into a statement about hunting or petty crime deterrent is an assault on its true meaning. If the Cuban people had a 2nd Amendment, there would be no Castro, and Cuba would be our friend and economic partner.

Frankly, I am stunned that some in this forum, given their professed ideology, would interpret the 2nd Amendment in terms that are different from the simple, plain, blunt speech in which it was written.

I am a strong supporter of hunters' rights as well, within the framework of conservation that has been set up, not by PETA vegans, but by hunters who understand nature. But if you want to argue hunters' rights from a Constitutional perspective, pass a freaking Amendment. Don't try to piggyback on unrelated law! Do so, and you undermine, render impotent, the actual law!

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- The 2nd was not written to ONLY give the citizens the right to bare arms against a tyrannical government. It doesn't say that, as you suggest. It includes the mindset of the Founders towards arms. Self-defence, hunting, weddings, and arms against tyranny.

Sarkazein said...

"No one is allowed to use their guns for anything but rebellion against tyranny. You must leave them in your closet, unloaded, until tyranny happens."- George Washington

guy faulkes said...

MikeD, hunters do not have to pass an amendment. The Second Amendment covers them. Read the writings of the founders and you will see.

It does not matter in any case. Mike, the Bill of Rights does not grant anything. It affirms rights granted by God. So far it has worked as the founders intended and kept the country from having to correct it's own government with the use of force.

You really need to study this issue.

Blogger said...

Johnny, you wrote: “Liberal Socialist sheep povs, You idiots got kicked off the site again yesterday didn't you?” Johnny, we don’t kick off Liberal Socialists or anyone else for that matter. (unless they don’t follow the rules in the blog’s banner and those rules are to protect people from litigation not for any political reasons.) As I have said many times, when one knows he or she is right there is no reason to censor those on the other side. As Reagan said “Liberals have lots of ideas. The only problem is that they are wrong.” We do block one person, Liberal POV, after years of carefully explaining to him that he had to stop trying to sabotage the blog with his many dirty tricks.

NewGuy said...

"He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."
Samuel Johnson

Johnny Rico said...

Blogger,

I know, I know, I was just rubbing it in. I know pov can't help himslef, and when he see me calling him out he can't stand it. It probably takes years off his pathetic, welfare using life! Good job Blogger, you are making that quack of an idiot conform to rules for once. Funny how liberal socialists like pov love to make rules for the rest of us (usually at taxpayer expense), yet when he is subject to rulemaking he whines like a petulant child.

LOL!

Pov - have a good weekend using my hard earned taxpayer money for your personal leisure. LOL!