33 Responses to “Now That He’s In Trouble…”

1. angryclown Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 8:35 am

   Of course he’s a Democrat. He was busted for nailing girls, not dudes or children.

2. LearnedFoot Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am

   He was busted for paying to nail girls. Presumably because he couldn’t get it for free.

3. Yossarian Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 9:05 am

   Anyone who pays $4,000+ for a lay needs some time in jail.

4. BradC Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am

   …dudes or children.

   But enough about Barney Frank……

5. Tim in StP Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am

   Catch the party affiliation here?

6. Mitch Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am

   not dudes

   So are the Democrats the party that accepts gays, or the one that hates ’em?

   It’s hard to tell these days.

7. flash Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am

   “”one that hates ‘em?””

   Come on, ‘mitch’, The Cons are the hater party, but you knew that. I think you were just testing us!

   “”Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry Craig, failed.[5][6] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him.[7] This condemnation was not reflected in Frank’s district, where he won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.””

   Hmmmm, what’s Larry Craig up to these days, again!?

8. peevish Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am

   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/politics/washingtonpost/main3937715.shtml

   Check the party affiliation there? Someone tell Mitchey Clueless that 4 fingers are still pointing back at you.

   Whether we’re taking Kenneth Melmann, or Ron Ebensteiner – you know, the homosexual heads of the local and national parties, who engaged in rampant gay bashing.

   Or you talk about Mark Foley, or Bob Livingston, or Newt Gingrich – let’s see, rabid hyper-moralist, house speaker, and house speaker, who engaged in : child abuse, adultery and.. adultery, caterwalling about morals

   Or.. Bob Ney, or this dude… abusing finances (oh, and let’s not leave out ole Jack Abramov) yet here is Mitch, bitching about the fact that there happen to also be Democrats…

   The point is, don’t stand on a pedestal, especially one you don’t deserve and have NEVER earned or deserved.

   Instead, gee, maybe accept that this belicose partisan BS finger-pionting is worthless, helps nothing and accomplishes less.

   Perhaps, instead, as Flash has pointed out, maybe it’s time for your wing of the Republican party to join the rest of the human race, accept that all parties have feet of clay, and it’s time to be constructive, rather than destructinve?

9. Terry Says:
   March 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am

   Flash must be trying to make some point with his comment but damned if I can figure it out.

10. Mitch Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    The Cons are the hater party

    Tell that to any gay, female or minority Republican.

    4 fingers are still pointing back

    Could you please, please find another rhetorical device?

    Mitch, bitching about the fact that there happen to also be Democrats

    Actually, I never actually mentioned Spitzer’s party affiliation – if you actually read what I wrote (hahahaha) you’d have noticed that. I merely noted Yahoo’s “typo”.

    You do see the distinction don’t you? No? Just checking.

    Mitchey

    The name’s Mitch. Mr. Berg if you’re nasty.

    “Mitchy” if you never really got out of fourth grade.

11. Yossarian Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am

    “Mitchy” if you never really got out of fourth grade.

    Given Peev’s complete inability to grasp the concept of brevity, there’s a distinct possibility he IS still in fourth grade, giving a 3,000 part thesis on why he believes he should be able to go to his locker and retrieve his crayons.

12. Tim in StP Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am

    It’s tough not to pity the conservatives, especially when their own news outlets can’t get their candidate’s party affiliation
    right.

13. peevish Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/national/main3938577.shtml

    Perhaps, Mitch, rather than cackling with glee over the fall of yet another flawed human being – and furthering the mythology that there are those who aren’t flawed whom we’d then hold up and venerate…

    Perhaps, Mitch, it’s time to stop obfuscating, and discuss real problems. You backed this disaster of a President. The one who off-shored our jobs, who didn’t react when it was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that people were raiding their retirements just to live, who advocated that tax cuts would save the day – both in 2001 and now – and provide real stimulus and growth – well the ‘stimulus’ didn’t lead to more better paying jobs, in fact, quite the opposite (on a macro scale), and the ‘growth’ such as it was, just like in the late 80’s, was fueled by credit, by people borrowing against their equity.

    Perhaps it’s time to have an honest discussion about what really drives the economy, and no Virginia, it really isn’t tax cuts, those are short-term boosts of small value, which are offset by lower wage pressure leading to lower wage growth – and it’s time to have real discussion about the effectiveness of ‘ownership society’ economic orientation – and the distribution of profits among labor, management and ownership, which has magnitudinally changed since 2000.

    These are real issues – and deserve real and serious discussion. You will NEVER be rich or even close – due to tax cuts, unless you are already very wealthy (the effective tax rates on the wealthy have been cut in half since 1981, whereas the average tax payor has seen a cut of 5% – including Mr. Bush’s cuts) over that period (adjusted for inlfation). However, the consequence of the cuts of the early 80’s was that stock holders, business owners, saw a chance to GREATLY increase their holdings and wealth. The effect has been things like how Jack Welch slashed employee benefits and wages at GE, and that while the percentage of taxes the richest 5% pay has DOUBLED since 1981, that’s only because the percentage of income has QUADRUPLED. The tax cuts didn’t create that wealth, but it allowed for the much more rapid accumulation and retention of it, and so it was pursued (no fault to them, the situation allowed for it).

    Unless real entitlement programs are slashed, no meaningful cut in the effective tax rate for the vast majority of americans will ever occur. And, even if it did, because on a macro scale, wages are set by wage pressure – the loss of pressure due to higher take home due to lower tax – would, in a very short period of time, eliminate the net gain to the average tax payor. It is onlly those who can DIRECTLY set their portion of of profit (i.e. the owners/stock holders – via pressure on the C-level staff) that have the ability to dramatically change up or down, their share of profits, who had and have the chance to lever the changed tax codes to allow for more rapid wealth accumulation. Even changes to capital gains, considering the holdings of the average american are under 100k, make very little real difference, becuase the VAST majority of income for the average american is from wages, not stock – for every Microsoft of Home Depot glory story, there are also an equal number of Global Crossing, MCI stories, and stock generally will only appreciate a certain amount over time. Even stock invested in 1981 (let’s say you had 100k THEN which wouldl be a HUGE sum then, WAY out of bounds with what the average american had) would still only mean having about 800,000 k today – which seems like a lot, until you start knocking it down in retirement at 80-100k per year (or more depedning upon where you are in the country) – just to live. It’s enough for retirement – maybe – which should be the goal (when combined with Soc Security) but no where near enough without it AND remember it represents FAR more than the average person had in savings or stock in 1981. However, you have to live for 40+ working years prior to that. Is it our intent to make sure that the average worker lives hand to mouth for 40 years just so they MIGHT have some money after 65, for that matter, is it our intent to make sure thye have so little that there is no possible way they can save enough to buy stock in the first place?

    Prior to 2002, labor got 78% of the share of profits during an economic recovery, during the 2002 recovery (as it was called) they got 38% – half as much – if you are looking for a culprit to why people were using their equity to fund their standard of living (achieved during the wage growth of the 90’s) you don’t need to look a lot further. Wages were flat during this supposed ‘recovery’, and, just like you personally Mitch, people were only trying to live as well as they had the year before, not way beyond their means, so they took out equity loans, or cashed in their 401k, or IRA’s, in the form of loans to themselves…. and so, here we are, no savings, and a housing market that is AS MUCH about the equity loans, as any effect of sub-prime, and is why the problem is far more vast, because people don’t have discretionaly spending money any longer, and no, 1200 bucks won’t make a hill of beans difference… you MUST fix the level of wage distribution to do that. So yes, Virginia, there are enormous, structural problems in our economy, problems this chuckel head of a Pres doesn’t grasp, never grasped, and only made worse.

    It’s actually time to start fixing them, and if instead, you insist on wasting your time and EVERYONE’s time with this kind of drivel.. that’s a damned shame, because you’re a decent writer, and you could be part of the solution. I think making stock purchase (or some sort of purchase of retirement equity) is part of what should be on the table – though we already have that in Soc. Security in many ways. It doesn’t earn at the market rate, but then again, there is very low risk, and extraordinarily low admini costs as compared to private financial advice and management – but it can’t be the only solution. Tax cuts remove needed programs by and large, can’t be large enough to really matter without doing so, and because they are part of the picture of macro wage pressure, in the end wind up a zero sum game for labor (for the most part). For ownership, once they saw the opportunity to accumulate wealth more rapidly, tax cuts in fact became a negative pressure to share with labor, not the other way around. So, this unversal ‘solution’ to all ills – isn’t anything of the sort. It’s at best a short term, very very weak shot of cash, and that’s all, it in no way addresses the underlying structure. If it did, we’d not be in a crisis 5 years after enacting a HUGE tax cut. WE’d not be faced with MILLIONS of solid, hard-working americans looking at massive debt in equity loans, because the tax cuts would have resolved that – but they didn’t, because they were nowhere near big enough to do so, they were far more than offset by increased eneryg costs, let alone health care, or even just inflation unrelated to energy costs.

    It’s time to start looking for real solutions… You’re smart enough to help, I’d ask you to try.

14. justplainangry Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Al-Reuters is a conservative news outlet? Who knew?

15. Yossarian Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am

    AGH! KILL IT WITH FIRE, ALREADY!

16. Loren Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am

    *raises hand* (twice!)

17. Mitch Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am

    cackling with glee

    Please show me any “cackling” on my part.

18. Troy Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    peevish, “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow”.

19. LearnedFoot Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Ouch! Ouch ouch ouch!

    I just sprained my finger using the scroll wheel on my mouse to get past peev’s dissertation. Prick.

20. Yossarian Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Please show me any “cackling” on my part.

    Channelling Peev:

    If you look at the original meaning of the word cackle, which was derived from the Middle Low German word, kakeln, meaning to “lay an egg and make a sound,” you’d clearly see that you, “Mitch,” cackle all the time. I believe it was the Middle Age philosopher, Theodocious Cackleton III, himself a world renown cackling enthusiast, who said: “let thee who lays the largest egg cackle loudest.”

    Which is exactly my point. You and your little army of Mitchketeers here at “Shot in the Cackle,” are more than happy to live in your little cackling worlds, cackling away while mortgage foreclosures–which were a direct result of Bush’s ill-advised tax cackling five years ago–are poised to cede most of the West coast to China, and a whole host of other half-baked bullshit that rolls around in my skull, in what is only marginally considered by most doctors to be a brain.

    Because, as any longwinded commenter with absolutely no concept of what a pathetic and obsessive/compulsive ass he is, like me, would know, all the cackling that goes on here is exactly that: cackling. You ask me to show where you cackle, “Mitch,” and I say to you, right here, in this extremely meandering and off-topic comment, that everything you write is a bunch of cackling. My comments, on the other hand, which sometimes border on creepy in their neverendingness, are anything BUT cackling. Indeed, my comments, as rude, unnecessary, thread-jacking, wrong and laughable as they may be, represent a lone voice of un-cackleness in a sea of cackle-addled Mitchketeers who are in love with their own cackling voices. Not like me, though. My novella comments have nothing to do with my own preening sense of self-importance and misguided belief in my own mental superiority to all beings short of God Himself.

    I labor under no misconceptions here, “Mitch,” that any of this will make sense to you, let alone sink in and actually be considered, because you and your ilk are incapable of thinking along the enlightened plane on which I exist. But, if you do suddenly evolve and see, however briefly, the world as I do, that everything is broken and in need of repair, well, I’ll welcome you to the world of the non-cackler. I’ll even deign to help you up the last couple steps so that you may stand beside me on my truly enlightened existential plane. Together, we can look down at the world of our cackling lessers, and we can pen the kind of endless, pseudo-intellectul, alarmist twaddle that will keep people ignoring us until the end of time.

21. PaulC Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    peevish, my man.
    We’re talking hookers and scandal here, my brutha. It’s Friday. Chill.

22. flash Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    “”Tell that to any gay, female or minority Republican.””

    I do and they, without fail, agree, even the minority Republican

23. BradC Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Channelling Peev:

    Yoss,

    Brilliant!!!

24. Troy Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Actually, Democrats are far more hate filled than any Republican could even be, they just aren’t conscious of it.

    They remain blissfully ignorant of all the hate coursing through them as they go about subjugating and meddling in the lives of others, even making each other miserable. It is sad that these, the hating-est haters in the world of hate, need to project their hate onto those that oppose them, perhaps trying to suppress the awareness that they themselves are the source of all the hate they see in others.

25. lwindels Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    I counted 22 clicks on my scroll wheel…I think he can do better….c’mon Peev, we know you can do it!!!

26. Troy Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Just kidding. Gross generalizations may be fun, but they are not a worthy tactic, flash.

27. flash Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Troy, Mitch started it *grin* He would have to go back and actually use rational thought again if he had to stop using gross generalizations

28. Badda Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    For the love of Christ, it’s a damn feast day, Peev. With that in mind, focus, man… foooooocuuuuuuuusssssss!

29. Badda Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    And St. Joseph’s is observed tomorrow, too.

30. Badda Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    By the way, isn’t Spitzer (or Swallowzer) the guy who wanted to crush and bury folks with his POWER?

31. Mitch Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Don’t mind Flash. He’s working on trying to be the Walmart version of Angryclown.

    Keep practicin’, pallie. Keep practicin’.

32. Terry Says:
    March 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    I always imagine that peev is an intern or something like that and that he pounds out his screeds in an unused office computer. His patients need their oxy bottles replaced or they have have ruptured a suture and are frantically hitting the call button. Peev mutes his pager and furiously types out things like:

    “…. and so, here we are, no savings, and a housing market that is AS MUCH about the equity loans, as any effect of sub-prime, and is why the problem is far more vast, because people don’t have discretionaly spending money any longer, and no, 1200 bucks won’t make a hill of beans difference… you MUST fix the level of wage distribution to do that.”

33. buzz Says:
    March 15th, 2008 at 12:52 am

    “You will NEVER be rich or even close – due to tax cuts, unless you are already very wealthy ”

    Really.
    “until you start knocking it down in retirement at 80-100k per year (or more depedning upon where you are in the country) – just to live.”

    Just to live? Just to live? Are you freaking kidding me? What planet are you living on? I would love for you to break that down for me. What are you spending 8 grand a month on to just get by?

    Jesus, If I have the equivalent of $800K in the bank when I retire, my only fear is how to keep Peev’s party’s hands off of it. And I bet Peev’s party will think it is a huge chunk of money too. That will be their reason to screw me out of my social security money.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.