And a Brief Update on Our “Are We All Commies Now?” Stance on Bain Capital

We stand by that we should be vewy, vewy careful (if we are indeed to call ourselves “free market conservatives”) about attacking free market businessmen engaging in free market capitalism.

But in the MittBot camp, that perfectly defensible point of view has apparently morphed into “you can’t criticize anything an individual does under the banner of free market capitalism.”

Let us make one thing clear here: Free market capitalism sometimes leads to bad results. It’s the nature of the beast when you’re talking about anything “free.” Being free to do good also means being free to do bad. What makes it still the best way to go is that every single one of the alternatives being several orders of magnitude worse. Just like democracy is a horribly inefficient way of running a country, yet it remains infinitely preferable to each and every one of the alternatives.

With the exception of the wise, benevolent, absolute rule of His Imperial Majesty, Misha I, of course. But we digress.

What His Majesty is defending against the attacks on Bain is not every single individual action of theirs, we’re sure there were some pretty questionable whoppers in there as is always the case where imperfect, flawed humans are involved, we’re defending the practice of free market capitalism. We’d be surprised if one couldn’t find at least one, and probably numerous, examples of Bain Capital screwing somebody over royally for no good reason other than to line their own pockets, and those individual instances are, of course, very much legitimate targets depending on one’s personal point of view.

That’s not the same as being “anti-capitalist” overall.

Let us not forget that Hugh Hefner is a pretty damn successful capitalist too, just to name one. Does that mean that we have to defend every single thing he built his fortune on? Try to convince us. We’ll be only too happy to unleash the full fury of the Imperial Sarcasm Star on you. But we will defend his right to use the free market to succeed, and we will happily point out that his success would have not been possible if there hadn’t been any buyers for his filth. For that is how capitalism works and should work. No matter what your product, its success relies and should rely entirely upon there being a market for it, so the ones who buy your product are every bit as responsible for your success as you are.

And, of course, from a purely pragmatic point of view (and aren’t we always told by the MittBots to be “pragmatic?”), no matter what the actual circumstances and merits of each individual Bain case, perhaps running for president in the worst economy in living memory with a background of having killed jobs isn’t the best platform you can stand on. No, I don’t really think that any amount of Power Points and spreadsheets, no matter how much they speak the truth, is going to drown out the cries of “people lost their JOBS!” in an election where jobs are the top concern on every voter’s mind.

First we had McCain.

Now we might end up with McBain.

Fucking great.

Thatisall.

25 comments

  1. 1
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    I’m not thrilled with Mittens work at Bain, but Mitt and Perry reduced to using Obama’s talking points? Can’t they do better than that?
    :em07:

    Well, here’s hoping for a brokered convention. I would love to see a draft Palin, Jindal or Rubio floor fight. In fact I think a Jindal/Rubio ticket would be Just the ticket!

    Or a Rubio/Jindal ticket..

    Or a Palin/Jindal ticket

    Or a Palin/ Rubio ticket

    I think that created a new section on the ballot.

    ALL of the above!!
    :em01:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..Member of the greatest generation shows his greatness againMy Profile

  2. 2
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Sure, people lost their jobs with Bain Capital, but the circumstances (at least in the video that the Obama News Network or whatever has put out) lead to no other good business decision. A company that’s going broke because of very generous union contracts and Bain takes it over to try to turn it around. They get zero cooperation from the unions, and in fact the employees go on strike. A venture capitalist will take a risk on a company in trouble, try to restructure it to fix what’s wrong, and sell it at a profit. But when the union drones in a company that’s already in trouble are told that, well, the alternative is to reduce your benefits or lose your jobs completely and they choose to go on strike, that’s sort of akin to putting a gun to your own head and saying, give me what I want or I’ll shoot.

    Three hundred people lose their jobs and it’s a tragedy. But when Ogabe causes three million to lose theirs it’s a statistic.

  3. 3
    LC Old Dog growls and barks:

    Mark12A @ #:
    Wish I had time to do some research! The two examples that Perry is using in his big punch are from South Carolina.

    Born and raised in NORTH Carolina I know that South Carolina is a Right to Work state. Thus how did Unions cause the problem.

    Are we all falling for a Disinformation Campaign? If so by whom?
    LC Old Dog recently posted..Ideal WomanMy Profile

  4. 4

    Companies that are “too big to fail”, won’t. If they do, they weren’t. Any product that people want/need will be provided by someone, thus more companies are created.
    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..“Welcome, fellow terrorists”My Profile

  5. 5
    KArnold growls and barks:

    I do NOT get it. I simply to not.

    Per Drudge, Gallup is reporting that “Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.” Forty percent of all Americans; seventy-one percent of all Republicans (20% “very conservative,” 51% “conservative”). So explain to my precisely how Romney, arguably the leftmost candidate in the field of Republican candidates, is becoming the putative anointed nominee? And those attacking him are attacking him for his left on Bain?

    Someone make some sense of this for me.

  6. 6
    LC Random Numbers growls and barks:

    I don’t think it is anti-capitalist to suggest that someone who repeatedly ran up debts for companies he controlled in order to generate fees for his own company, without any intention of repaying said debt, is the type of person the GOP should have as it’s standard bearer.

  7. 7
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    KArnold @ #:

    Per Herr Goebbels “Tell the lie enough until it becomes the truth.”

    They did it with the two previous dinosaurs that the RINOs giddily put up for slaughter (it was their turn you know) and they’re doing it again. I don’t think we’ll even get lube this time, we’ll just have to take it…dry.

  8. 8

    If you are so desperate that you are attacking and sounding like a OWS fleabagger, then it has more to do with ego than it does with love of country, and maybe you should just piss off.

    There is plenty of obvious stuff to go after Mitt for without doing something that plays right into the rhetoric of people who believe in collective salvation and the gospel of other people’s earnings.

    Perry should only be angry with himself for not running like he meant it.

    Newt needs to be headslapped until his ego bleeds out and he starts to aim before he fires again. Someone with an obscenely large bill with Tiffany’s doesn’t need to be knocking how an opponent made his money and Monday morning quarterbacking transactions he had nothing to do with, and doesn’t do for a living…especially when his money came from the government.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..Overshadowing OpportunityMy Profile

  9. 9

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @ # 8: Precisely. Damn that was good!
    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..Tonight’s musical entertainmentMy Profile

  10. 10
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    I really do like Perry. But he has run his campaign like another GOPer from 2008, Fred Thompson.

  11. 11
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    I kinda like the term coined by Rick Perry when it comes to Bain Capital: Vulture Capitalism.

    It is one thing to take a risk, invest in a company for the purpose of turning it around and building it up, then running it to turn a profit. It is another thing to collateralize debt, buy up a company, suck out all of the assets including worker’s pension funds, attach the debt of previous ventures and then file for bankruptcy on what’s left.

    Legal? Sure, it’s part of that “free market” thing that you love so much, and the inevitable result of such a system. Profits outweigh the common good, and sociopaths end up taking over.

    Mitt Romney is a sociopath. He may pretend to “care” about people, but like almost everything about Willard, it is a facade. But that’s alright, sociopaths are people too, and they have a right to try and take whatever they can from you — as long as you let them.

    You can’t blame Willard for being a sociopath. You can’t blame him for his need to suck as much money he can out of something and discarding the husk (at someone else’s expense) when he is done. He’s a “capitalist”, and it is all about the quest for the dollar and damn everything and everyone in his way.

    After all, what is there to blame him for? For making money? With a few exceptions, he stayed within the law as he did it. There were a few times when his group ran afoul of the rules and ended up paying some hefty fines — but that is the cost of doing business. (and apparently that “cost” is tax deductible also)

    “Free Market Capitalism” is a large banner for an entire spectrum of systems. One assumes that if you attack one, you are attacking the entire spectrum — as you pointed out, Misha. There is a huge difference between someone who uses capitalism to build, grow, and operate a business with the eye towards producing a product or service for a profit, and a person who buys up businesses in order to break them up by ripping out the assets, piling debt onto the hulk, and then bankrupting what’s left at someone else’s expense.

    Willard and his Bain Capital engaged in those practices. Sure, they took some businesses such as Clear Channel and built it up (after all, if you own one of the largest media sources, you can literally control the messaging).and made a go of Staples by hiring a staff of part time minimum wage workers with zero benefits and imported all of its goods from Communist China. (yes, you ARE supporting a communist regime)
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..America ~ Simon and GarfunkelMy Profile

  12. 12
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Meanwhile as we bitch about Romneys Bain;

    Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T
    in One Term—More Than All Presidents
    from Washington Through Clinton Combined
    Cybercast News Service, by Terence P. Jeffrey

    President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury. That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-pace-borrow-62t-one-term-more-all-presidents-washington-through-clinton-combined

  13. 13

    I kinda like the term coined by Rick Perry when it comes to Bain Capital: Vulture Capitalism.

    Of course you do. It’s tailor made for the left. Short, so it doesn’t tax the average lefty’s three functioning brain cells to remember, and clever, in a 3rd grade penis joke sort of way, so it will also make the average lefty think that they are funny when they say it.

    You can’t blame Willard for being a sociopath. You can’t blame him for his need to suck as much money he can out of something and discarding the husk (at someone else’s expense) when he is done. He’s a “capitalist”, and it is all about the quest for the dollar and damn everything and everyone in his way.

    After all, what is there to blame him for? For making money? With a few exceptions, he stayed within the law as he did it. There were a few times when his group ran afoul of the rules and ended up paying some hefty fines — but that is the cost of doing business. (and apparently that “cost” is tax deductible also)

    Fuck. Me. Running.

    I have no love for Mittens. I really don’t. I’d have a hard time even stoking the urge to piss on him if he were a flaming Taliban corpse, and the burning goat hair smell was in my eyes, but its this kind of shit that actually makes me defend the guy.

    You don’t like how he made his money. I get that, and it isn’t shocking in the least. But you pretty much nailed it: What he did was within the law, and that’s where the inquiry needs to end. Because if you going to start criticizing people for lawfully making a living, then why bother even having laws? We’ll just convene our own little committees and decide who we’re going to beat up today because they’re doing something we don’t like.

    As for your characterization, it ignores the fact that even when a company is purchased, and the pieces are sold off (which isn’t always what happened.), someone BUYS those pieces and does something else with them.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..Overshadowing OpportunityMy Profile

  14. 14
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    LC Old Dog @ #:

    Can’t help you with the names of these companies, but there are even unions in right to work states and they do dumb things. I’ve had the same thing happen in my experience…one of my suppliers was costing themselves out of my market anyway but they wouldn’t budge due to union rules. So I fired them and got someone who would do the same job for a lower price. Cut off your nose to spite your face, I guess…

  15. 15

    That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.

    And who says he doesn’t like to work? He certainly is putting a lot of effort into destroying the dollar.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..Overshadowing OpportunityMy Profile

  16. 16

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    Fuck. Me. Running.
    I have no love for Mittens. I really don’t. I’d have a hard time even stoking the urge to piss on him if he were a flaming Taliban corpse, and the burning goat hair smell was in my eyes, but its this kind of shit that actually makes me defend the guy.
    You don’t like how he made his money. I get that, and it isn’t shocking in the least. But you pretty much nailed it: What he did was within the law, and that’s where the inquiry needs to end. Because if you going to start criticizing people for lawfully making a living, then why bother even having laws? We’ll just convene our own little committees and decide who we’re going to beat up today because they’re doing something we don’t like.
    As for your characterization, it ignores the fact that even when a company is purchased, and the pieces are sold off (which isn’t always what happened.), someone BUYS those pieces and does something else with them.

    Damn, you always say it so well!

    Gosh, what IS an “acceptable profit margin”? As much as you can get. How’s that? Those who have, want more. They invest what they’ve made to MAKE more. It’s a clinically proven fact that the whole “sharing the wealth” shit DOES. NOT. WORK.

    I’m going to buy more ammo for the upcoming party. And it WILL happen if we don’t SWEEP the entire DC cabal this year.
    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..The AAC Honey Badger.My Profile

  17. 17
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    If you’re on a government contract, they’ll tell you what an acceptable profit margin is. But outside? How about however much you think you can get away with. Of course, the higher your profit margin, the higher your cost is. And that leaves you vulnerable to someone who’ll be happy to take a little less profit from a lower price and take your business away from you. That’s capitalism. It may suck, but it sucks WAY less than the alternatives.

    The only organization around that doesn’t worry about cost is the government.

  18. 18
    Cannon Fodder growls and barks:

    I live in South Carolina. We do have some unions here. Just not a massive amount of them. Personally think they were outlawed. At least their present form.

  19. 19

    Mark12A @ # 17: Exactly. That’s how it works.
    Mark12A says:

    And that leaves you vulnerable to someone who’ll be happy to take a little less profit from a lower price and take your business away from you. That’s capitalism. It may suck, but it sucks WAY less than the alternatives.

    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..I am currently most of the way through Book 4My Profile

  20. 20
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    There is an excellent article on Bain and Mitt Romney’s work in Bain posted on the PowerLine Blog. “What is Private Equity All About, Anyway” see:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/what-is-private-equity-all-about-anyway.php

  21. 21
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    Of course you do. It’s tailor made for the left.

    It is tailor-made for everyone. It is the dark side of capitalism that nobody wants to talk about. It is where the sociopaths gather to take advantage of saps like you and your only response is to say “thank you may I have some more?”

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    What he did was within the law, and that’s where the inquiry needs to end.

    Yes, it IS within the law, and that is the problem. And no, that ISN’T where the inquiry needs to end. It NEEDS to be brought out in the open and talked about.

    What Willard and Bain Capital have been doing isn’t representative of capitalism as a whole, but it demonstrates a part of it that while legal, isn’t exactly moral. Especially if one wants to pretend that his work as a “businessman” isn’t a destructive force for the thousands of lives he leaves in his wake while he rakes in millions of dollars by financial trickery.

    And that is exactly what it is — financial trickery. Companies like Bain Capital turn businesses into financial instruments, load them up with debt, sell off the assets, and then bankrupts them while collecting millions of dollars in the process. Meanwhile, the people who have worked for these businesses are out jobs, the other businesses and vendors who have been providing goods and services to this business are suddenly without payment. It is a highly destructive version of capitalism and those who practice it should be exposed.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    Because if you going to start criticizing people for lawfully making a living, then why bother even having laws? We’ll just convene our own little committees and decide who we’re going to beat up today because they’re doing something we don’t like.

    Now there is a fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

    Two things.

    First, I liken this to the guy who runs the sleazy strip club and peep show. Sure, it is legal, the guy is a “businessman”, but would you want him to be president? (Yeah, some of you might) Is it not okay in your world to discuss (and criticize) another person’s career?

    Picture an attorney, only defended middle-aged child molesters who like young boys, and worked tirelessly to try and get them acquitted, a reduced sentence, or released from prison, do you think that attorney should be exempt from criticism or even scorn? After all, the attorney is working within the legal boundaries. He is even providing a Constitutionally protected service to an accused person. He’s probably even a real nice guy, good husband and good neighbor who goes to church every Sunday. It’s just that he only takes child molester cases.

    Do you think that maybe he might warrant being talked about? Maybe question why he chooses to defend only child molesters?

    Second. Just because a practice is legal doesn’t mean it should remain legal. Look at abortion. It is legal now, but there are many who are working hard to make it illegal.

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    As for your characterization, it ignores the fact that even when a company is purchased, and the pieces are sold off (which isn’t always what happened.), someone BUYS those pieces and does something else with them.

    And that means what? That Communist China now has that equipment?

    If you haven’t already, go watch When Romney Came To Town. I don’t know if Newt intended it, but it IS starting a frank discussion about these kinds of practices, and the character of Romney himself.

    Here is the thing: I am not against capitalism at all. What I am against is unfettered capitalism, where it is the law of the jungle and every man for himself.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..America ~ Simon and GarfunkelMy Profile

  22. 22

    It is tailor-made for everyone. It is the dark side of capitalism that nobody wants to talk about. It is where the sociopaths gather to take advantage of saps like you and your only response is to say “thank you may I have some more?”

    Deej, you aren’t talking to goober here. You’re talking to someone who has been in the practice of law for 15 or so years, and advising businesses for 10 of them. If I owned a business that had to go to a private equity firm, I know:

    1) That means either I couldn’t get conventional financing, or I couldn’t get it at terms I could be comfortable with, and therefore I already know that I’m surrendering control, but maybe it might save my company, and I even get a better run business from the exercise.

    2) If I couldn’t get conventional financing, that means that my business was likely in trouble, which means that I may already be headed for bankruptcy, and my company may already be loaded with debt, and may be sold off piecemeal at auction in bankruptcy anyway.

    So save your “sap” idiocy for the person who is likely to already be persuaded by the class envy that is being peddled already. I know better.

    What Willard and Bain Capital have been doing isn’t representative of capitalism as a whole, but it demonstrates a part of it that while legal, isn’t exactly moral.

    Gee, and here the left has been telling me for years that “morality” has no place in law. I guess that needs an asterisk and the notation that says “Unless it is OUR morality, or it is otherwise convenient.”

    And that is exactly what it is — financial trickery. Companies like Bain Capital turn businesses into financial instruments, load them up with debt, sell off the assets, and then bankrupts them while collecting millions of dollars in the process. Meanwhile, the people who have worked for these businesses are out jobs, the other businesses and vendors who have been providing goods and services to this business are suddenly without payment. It is a highly destructive version of capitalism and those who practice it should be exposed.

    Deej, if you are dealing with a private equity firm, it is either because your company is already in the shit, or you want to sell, and that is the option you have chosen for a buyer (which is rare, but not unheard of). That means that assets are likely already for sale, and many employees never know, or only certain employees know ( a great local example would be when Weyerhauser sold off its paper products division to International Paper. I know for a fact that 98% of the W’s employees knew NOTHING about the fact that the division was even being shopped around, and although the deal required IP to take the division’s employees, it didn’t require it to keep them indefinately. And they didn’t.)

    The other option for many of these companies, as I stated previously, is for the companies to drown in debt, go into bankruptcy, and the assets be sold off, while employees become former employees. Sometimes you can save a business, sometimes you can’t, and YES, sometimes the pieces are worth more separately than they are together as a going concern. A great example of this is Kodak…a failing American company that holds some very valuable digital patents, but has been suffering from piss poor managment for much of my life. They have been hemmoraging jobs over the last few years, and haven’t been able to garner interest in auctioning off their patents in order to raise cash to stay afloat, so their savvy competitors will likely pay much lower prices for those same patents at the bankruptcy auction.

    What happens when these companies fail, or even when failure is engineered may strike you as immoral. That’s fine. Like they are assholes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sometimes, they are even informed. My opinion happens to be that you do not have a “right” to employment. If you accept employment from someone else, then you subject yourself to the decisions that they make, and if you do not have an ownership interest, then your right to bitch about the results of what the owner decides to do with that business, including taking help from someone who’s interests may not always be the same as the owner’s at all times in the relationship, then you suck it up, and move on. If you have a minority ownership interest, then you try to persuade others to dissuade the board of directors from taking that course of action. After you exhaust your legal options to try to stop it, then you use other rights available to you under the law, such as dissenters rights, or you sell to a third party…but even in closely held companies, ownership doesn’t entitle you to employment.

    Picture an attorney, only defended middle-aged child molesters who like young boys, and worked tirelessly to try and get them acquitted, a reduced sentence, or released from prison, do you think that attorney should be exempt from criticism or even scorn? After all, the attorney is working within the legal boundaries. He is even providing a Constitutionally protected service to an accused person. He’s probably even a real nice guy, good husband and good neighbor who goes to church every Sunday. It’s just that he only takes child molester cases.

    Do you think that maybe he might warrant being talked about? Maybe question why he chooses to defend only child molesters?

    Hel-looooo? Did you forget who you are talking to? Aside from not tailoring your analogy to your audience, you failed to think it through.

    No, I really wouldn’t question it, but that is probably because I wouldn’t do this job if I wasn’t committed to the idea that everyone deserves representation in criminal matters, and that the law is very specific about what must be proven to a jury or judge if you are to obtain a conviction. What this means very clearly, is that if I undertake to represent someone, I damn well better be giving it my all, and whether you know it or not, child molestation cases are VERY complex, so if your hypothetical attorney is really good at such defense, and I know a handful of people who really are, then MORE POWER TO THEM if that is where they think their calling is. Criminal defense can be a bitch. I know from personal experience, but if you are successful, that means that someone else DIDN’T DO THEIR JOB. It might be the cops screwing up the evidence, it might be shitty witnesses, it might be an incompetent prosecutor, but you are NEVER going to convince me that it isn’t a good thing that there is a high standard of proof, and sometimes bad guys walk because it wasn’t met. That said, I have turned down cases and clients. Sometimes because I didn’t like the facts, sometimes I didn’t like the client, sometimes I believed I couldn’t competently represent them, but never because I didn’t like what they were accused of. Accusations are easy; proof is hard.

    I liken this to the guy who runs the sleazy strip club and peep show. Sure, it is legal, the guy is a “businessman”, but would you want him to be president? (Yeah, some of you might) Is it not okay in your world to discuss (and criticize) another person’s career?

    Well, this comes right to heart of the morality question that we’re talking about doesn’t it? You look at Mitt at Bain, and see someone who was financially successful for his company (which is where his LEGAL duty lies, but then you already knew this), and because not everyone got a prize, and because some failures were controlled, rather than a slide into bankruptcy without their involvement, and determined that he was an evil son of a bitch because people lost jobs. You would likely even try to characterize it as “victimization” because employees lost jobs. In contrast, the sleezy dude’s living is made from a clear case of victimization. The “stars” are frequently mistreated, and considered as little better than chattel, and the lion’s share of the money will go to agents and club owners. Add the other vices that are often hand in hand, that are illegal, foster violence, and prey on people’s weaknesses, and it isn’t really isn’t a reasonable or equivalent comparision at all.

    And that means what? That Communist China now has that equipment?

    Read the Kodak link above.

    If you haven’t already, go watch When Romney Came To Town. I don’t know if Newt intended it, but it IS starting a frank discussion about these kinds of practices, and the character of Romney himself.

    What Newt (and Perry) both did was let the egos and their desperations cause them to say things that lend a veneer of respectability to OWS, institutional progressives, and the envy that is the constant undercurrent in BOTH as they carp about the greed of others and fundamentally and purposely distort the features of capitalism that they despise.

    I have no interest in participating in it. I want to see the interference by third parties who seek to impose their notions of “fairness” and “morality” formed from jealousy, envy, and bitterness, without any of the effort to make possible what they would regulate, limited as much as possible.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..Overshadowing OpportunityMy Profile

  23. 23
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Picture an attorney, only defended middle-aged child molesters who like young boys, and worked tirelessly to try and get them acquitted, a reduced sentence, or released from prison, do you think that attorney should be exempt from criticism or even scorn?

    Aw comeon DJ…John Edwards is a sick man /s

  24. 24
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @ #:
    Blackiswhite, for accuracy such as that we would call out “Shack!” in bombing competitions. Dead center strike.


Other websites that have referenced this:

(Always a sign of good taste -- especially since they bothered to link to us) Go Check them out
  1. And so ends the New Hampshire primary « Musings of the Angry Webmaster