PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary


The fact that under 25% of the electorate voted yesterday for the county seat’s most important municipal office illustrates the point THE PLANET has made in the past couple of days, both in writing and speaking: the democratic process is d-e-a-d in Pittsfield.

Should you care to argue the other side — that it is not dead, or worse, alive and well — requires you then to respect the majority outcome of yesterday’s contests. You will have to admit that NO ONE won. FACT: More than 75% chose not to participate. That is a landslide, again, for apathy.

“Apathy,” a derivative of “path” with a contradictory prefix, parses interestingly. My good friends, apathy does not necessarily indicate lack of concern or dispassion, though it often does just that

Actually, the languor of the electorate may be a reasonable reaction to:

— The paltry choices that each in election cycle present themselves.

— A corrupt political system that gives “insiders” and special interests profound advantages.

— Year after year of political bickering, gridlock, and partisanship.

— Indicted and convicted politicians (e.g., Bulger, Finneran, DiMasi)

— Challenging issues and problems that become intractable (for example, health care) because of political spinelessness.

— The continuing growth of government to cancerous levels.

— Less services for higher taxes.

— A combination of all of the above.

A conscious decision not to support a corrupt system, therefore, can be defended on ethical grounds.

Certainly, a percentage of those who don’t vote refrain from this privilege because of ignorance, stupidity, sloth, or a lazy “The world owes me a living” lifestyle. Those who don’t vote for these or similar reasons should be taken out behind the woodshed for special attention. If they don’t come back, society gains by the loss.

BIanchi Gets Behind the Wheel in the Driver’s Seat

As THE PLANET called it, Dan Bianchi finished first in the elimination round for the corner office in Pittsfield, with just under 50% of the 6,948 votes cast (3,427). Peter Marchetti placed with 40% (2,759). Joe Nichols finished a dismal third with 9% (641). The other two candidates were non-factors (121 votes combined). These results give the Bianchi campaign a full head of steam at it leaves the phantom (and torn down) Union Station gate for the final push to November.

Marchetti will be hard pressed to find support in the 762 (11%) votes garnered by the other three candidates, and he must make up nearly 10%. This suggests Marchetti’s best chance for a come-from-behind win will be to find new voters, “friendly” souls who didn’t come out to the polls on Sept. 27 but who, from his position, must be persuaded to vote. This population no doubt wears the pedigree of the GOB.

Do watch Marchetti’s backers. They may get desperate.

From the get-go, Marchetti has been associated with the status-quo, the special interests, and the GOB. He did nothing in the prelim to assuage fears that he offers change, which — reduce the sap to nectar — is what voters want. Marchetti acted tenuous and appeared uncomfortable, even scared, especially in confrontational situations such as the debate. He didn’t exude confidence, either in himself or his positions. His default attitude came off as defensive, even when there was no evidence of an attack. When the battle began, for instance on debate night, he wilted.

He may take solace in knowing there’s still time to turn it around, but his lackluster effort in the prelim dug a deep hole in the sand. Does Marchetti have what it takes to climb out, stand up, and run over? We shall see.


You have to understand that up to now, Marchetti has run, and won, at-large. The at-large fields in which he competed allowed a certain amount of cover in crowded fields. He has never run a citywide race, mano-eh-mano. On the other hand, Bianchi won five elections competing one-on-one in Ward 6. He’s used to hand-to-hand combat.

When THE PLANET contacted Marchetti to see if he would agree to an informal sitdown with Bianchi and Nichols in the prelim, Marchetti suddenly expressed Clara-Barton-like concern for Donna Walto and Steve Fillio, two political non-entities who had ZERO chance of winning. Had Marchetti wiped the rose-colored fog from his specs, he would have seen this for the blunder that it was, for Marchetti, despite what he thought, wasn’t the front runner. He therefore ducked a golden opportunity to assert himself against his chief (and his ONLY rival), Dan Bianchi, when he declined THE PLANET’s civic-minded offer.

The light went on. That’s when THE PLANET realized that Marchetti’s campaign was on life support. Marchetti wanted the extra people in the room so he wouldn’t have to be in the spotlight, especially with THE PLANET asking the questions. Bianchi, by the way, also thought Fillio and Walto should have been invited, but he gave off much more comfortable vibes. He acted like a man who knew he would win round one, and he wanted to keep his powder dry for the finals.


Well, folks, the finals are here, a five-week push to November to decide the future direction of the city. THE PLANET hasn’t quite fixed the plan, but, again — and especially now, with only TWO men vying for one job — we generally (and generously) offer our services as moderator to one … or a series … of forums.

We would even consider one a week for four weeks, each dealing with different issues. We will do them live, on radio, on TV, in auditoriums, on stages, in parks, or wherever the two campaigns want. We make this offer with only one tiny proviso: That the forums be of THE PLANET’s design.

We shall be contacting the respective campaigns for their views on this. THE PLANET will not, of course, serve as a stooge for the “typical” foam-peanut debates.

You know the kind: A stiff of a moderator wearing a tie and sitting behind a table or podium asks a series of canned questions that the candidates know in advance. The candidates, like trained seals, “oit oit” their responses in 30-, 60- or 90-second snippets — little more, actually, than truncated versions of their boring stump speeches. Such an exercise invariably proves as worthless as bull nipples and more embarrassing than a public piss shiver.

THE PLANET envisions our patented brand of forum:

— The two candidates, seated in chairs in close proximity to each other, so they can look each other in the eyes and address each other directly. No podiums, no desks, and no notes.

— No shot clock. The moderator directs discussion and keeps things moving.

— Candidates can interrogate each other, as the moderator allows.

— The moderator roams the stage, floor, or studio (if this is for TV) with a hand held mic. Questions and topics come quickly. Candidates must be alert and focused.

— If a candidate ducks a question, the moderator presses, hard.


You see, when someone runs for office, they’re coming hat-in-hand to We the People, the bosses, looking for work. Campaigns are job interviews. That’s how candidates should be treated: As applicants. Treat them professionally and with respect, but make them sweat a little. Put their feet to the fire. Elicit reliable information on important issues.

During the interview, questions are specific and pointed. On election day, the owners (the electorate) decides who gets hired.

THEY report to US, and not the other way around.


Both Bianchi and Nichols need to conduct themselves as if they realize this important fact. Thus far, Bianchi has done the better job of this. No one has thrown a perfect game, of course, and no one will. Human beings, not machines, make for politics.

The mayoral race will prove interesting, and the onus rests with Marchetti, who must declare, once and for all, who he is and what he stands for, specifically. He must jettison the ballast of his boring bromides. He has to stop dancing like Soulja Boy when tough issues show their inconvenient face. He must convince people that he’s not a GOB stooge. He claims he’s not. Well, then, let’s see it. Convince us.

In short, Marchetti must roll the bones. If he continues his baby steps into political manhood, he will be crushed in November. Contrarily, if he comes to life and begins to roar, he’s got a shot.

Marchetti’s had long enough to do this, but as THE PLANET said earlier, in his many previous elections, he could hide in the at-large forest. Now he’s locked in man-to-man combat, a position that, one would think, he’d find attractive. Instead, he acts as if he’s just seen Marley’s ghost.

In light of these comments, we again point out: THE PLANET has no dog in this hunt. We based our comments on the evidence, not on the presumptions or prejudices. We tell the truth.

Simple as that.






  1. Shakes His Head
    September 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    PM threw all he had today. His arm needs ice, the City’s threats to the FF’s to yank a contract got him support, as did the legions of half hearted folks waving signs, but that’s all it is. Halfhearted. No contest. Pete remarked that he had 12 people calling everyone that had confirmed Their support to vote for him, rides, signs, radio, and the dreadful stripes on stripes that his own mother criticized him for didn’t work. There isn’t another horse in this race as both Ruberto and Bissel have other elections to focus on.

    Poor, lonely Pete.

  2. Dusty
    September 28, 2011 at 12:58 am #

    You say Marchetti must declare once and for all who and what he is. He has done that most clearly already. Any new persona would be a shroud of a different deceit

    He got 2759 votes? If those are true votes and not some left in the machine from a past mayoral candidate then it gives you an idea of the size of the GOB base in Pittsfield, There is not one sane person who cares about Pittsfield who would have voted for this guy based on what he has and has not done so far as an elected official. As far as I am concerned, those 2759 people are among the apathetic ones….they are the ones who do not care about the city.

  3. rick
    September 28, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    24%.. way to go gobs and special interest, whats next no voters at all and you can do what you want…. this isnt apathy dan, this is the people of pittsfield flashing the finger to theses groups…maybe with new leadership (bianchi) , people will come back out and vote and actually feel their vote will mean something. i think the past 16yrs in local politics took the sail out of the voter.these past eight really sucked.. if ever your voice didnt matter it was with roberto…. its not a good thing week after week watching the city council come up with the same votes…we have a lame duck mayor and a lame council….its time to rectify this………

  4. Anytime
    September 28, 2011 at 6:07 am #

    agree with rick.the 24% is the voters giving the GOb the finger. Bianchi in a landslide, heard Nichols will be endorsing him.

    • Steve Wade
      September 28, 2011 at 8:18 am #

      Good bye Joe We gotta go me OH my OH. Son of a gun will have big fun on the Biou !

      • Steve Wade
        September 28, 2011 at 8:43 am #

        10 Bucks says Nichols runs a sticker campaign for Ward 7.and all you people that made fun of Pete White for doing it will say that its fine for Joe to do it.

        • Shakes His Head
          September 28, 2011 at 8:54 am #

          I’ll take that bet, Nichols stated yesterday he is not.

        • Jim Gleason
          September 28, 2011 at 11:33 am #

          I’ll take that bet. Joe has the class to lose with grace, unlike Mr White, and I doubt he will run on a write in ticket. You must not know Joe very well if you think this, you just have a big mouth mr wade.

          • Steve Wade
            September 28, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

            Joe will say that he got a lot of calls from ward 7 saying they want him to run a sticker vote. So he will do what the people want!!!!

          • Steve Wade
            September 28, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

            Joe is just too busy makeing pizza! Do you really think Joe was ready to be Mayor? He was a council member for 1 term.

          • Real Deal 2
            September 28, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

            Who cares that Joe Nichols makes, or for that matter owns a pizza joint. He is a hard working business man. More than we can say about you Steve Wade. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN REDACTED — THE WEBMASTER]

  5. rick
    September 28, 2011 at 7:16 am #

    i think we can close up some of those voting places and save some money there. i think we can combine them to 4 precincts.

    • danvalenti
      September 28, 2011 at 7:30 am #

      Interesting idea. It has merit.

      • Shakes His Head
        September 28, 2011 at 8:59 am #

        So in the same breath as expanding the period of time for voting we will shrink the geographic proximity of voting stations? I can see how this may go – placing polls at spots where people with mobility impairments or no personal transportation cannot get to them – off the bus routes, out of proximity to the lower income areas. Which voters are the one’s the Planet is concerned with?

        • rick
          September 29, 2011 at 1:18 am #

          with the few voters that come out there is no need for multiple voting stations…id like to see the use of the computer…..a week to vote…. telephone…and mail all with the use of a pin number….we have to find a way to make it a no brainer and no excuses to place a vote……………except of course for the none above vote.. people are either disgusted with the system or the candidates, its not just local its national.

  6. Richard
    September 28, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    If you want to save money make it so if you are elected to an office you must finish the term before you can run for another office. And no more life time appoints like what just happen.

    • rick
      September 29, 2011 at 1:29 am #

      im pretty sure that with larkin and speranzo that by getting re elected and then quitting it adds to their pensions… other words they dont have to serve the full term they just have to get in. you can thank the foolish voters for wasting tax payers money to re elect them, because in both cases there was enough heads up about what they were up to…. here is another reason why people arent comming out to vote, the good old boys ,special interest and stupid voters are keeping people away…think about placing a vote for some one who you know isnt going to fullfill his term…seems a bit retarded dont you think.

      • danvalenti
        September 29, 2011 at 10:13 am #

        Correct. They have to serve ONE DAY — ONE #$%^& DAY — to get a full year poured into the gravy boat. If both had quit one-minute into the new year, they would have added the full year. Those two, Larkin and Larded, are fat swine slurping out of the public trough. Larkin’s gone private, but it’s oink oink all the way.

  7. Steve Wade
    September 28, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    Just a reminder That 2 years ago Mr. Bianchi came in first in the primary. Ruberto was second. But if my memory is correct Didn’t Ruberto WIN the election?

    • danvalenti
      September 28, 2011 at 9:08 am #

      Yes. Jimmy won, but 200+ votes. Question: Has there been at least 200+ votes worth of erosion in his support over these two years?

      • Steve Wade
        September 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

        Dan Possible that Ruberto votes changed to Bianchi But up until about a month ago Mr Bianchi was never heard from in the last 2 years.

        • danvalenti
          September 29, 2011 at 10:16 am #

          True. Bianchi played it Cheshire Cat-like for two years. Good strategy, by the way, to lay low, take notes, knowing all the while this was what he would do. He’s a household name but, with the lengthy disappearance, he comes back freshened and (to the electorate) fresher.

  8. Larry
    September 28, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    I agree with the influence of apathy regarding the small percentage of registered voter turn out.
    A casual observation of active voters reveal two distinct profiles, however.
    Firstly there was the more agressive supporter that has either direct or indirect financial or special interest in a specific candidate, These include the more affluent voting blocks or wards, typically a two income household where one or more income or the income of a relative is dependent upon or has the potential to be influenced by their chosen candidate. This group often includes city workers, municipal union members, possible city contractors, large property holders, etc.
    Money talks, BS walks.
    A second group of supporters, simply are influenced by various peer pressures and get caught up in emotional contagion and a temporary sense of belonging to group, hopefully a winning group.
    At the polls yesterday, a pair of youthful sign carriers were asked why they supported their candidate. They responded because he will make a good mayor. When asked why ?; one of them retorted,” because he is a nice guy”.
    It appears this election was protypical for Pittsfield and simply part of an expected continum. This repetitive political expectation also discourages change, innovation, and new blood.
    Agree with him or not, but Joe Nichols for example, now retires from public service. Another young man lost, while the rage in the established special interests machine clanks on.

    • Steve Wade
      September 28, 2011 at 8:50 am #

      Joe should say that he only ran to see what it was likeand that he reallt didn’t want to win. Then he should write news paper columns and then start his own blog letting people he is alot smarter than them. Right Dan?

      • danvalenti
        September 28, 2011 at 8:58 am #

        He would have my blessings. And if he can make a couple million, so much the better!

    • Shakes His Head
      September 28, 2011 at 9:12 am #

      I supported a candidate yesterday. I was verbally assaulted later in the evening in public and responded is similar fashion- the candidate I supported is trustworthy and is concerned about fiscal integrity. On the flip-side, I did not believe that the other candidates are trustworthy or concerned with fiscal integrity, but rather than stating my position in a way that pointed out someone’s negative qualities, I expressed them in a way that pointed out my choice’s positive attributes. I chose a simple manner mostly because I didn’t know the assailant – really it was none of their business.

      Larry, it is the candidates’ responsibility to convince them why or why not, not the voters’ to express them. Consider the depth of statements instead of taking them for face value.

  9. Jim Gleason
    September 28, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Dan, you forgot ruberto in your list of criminals, he was found guilty of several ethics violations over his eight years. That’s not exactly criminal but should be. Joe gave it a good try, but the gob got one of their boys in, at least in name. Marchetti hasn’t a chance in hell to win, especially with Dan winning one precinct in Ward 4.

    • Steve Wade
      September 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

      Wow Jim He bought Red Sox Tix at face value for play offs Boy he will be going straight to hell for that!

      • Real Deal 2
        September 28, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

        You try and buy Red Sox World Series tickets for face value a day or two before the game-good luck!! Unless you are gonna sell your ass to your sugar daddy or one of his friends, Steve Wade will not be at the game in person. You make fun of Joe Nichols cause he runs a pizza place, but yet you sell your ass/dignity for some material gains?

      • rick
        September 29, 2011 at 1:42 am #

        he will meet the 2011 red sox team there……………..

    • rick
      September 29, 2011 at 1:56 am #

      it wasnt criminal jimmy, it was sleazy and thats robertos trade mark. hes a punk…

  10. beezer
    September 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    If you flashback to when Bianchi was on the city council, he routinely made mince meat out of Marchett,i to the point of making him look sheepish. Another asset is the Bowler endorsement, that is, huge!

  11. Hearse Driver
    September 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    bowler is no better than carmen….bowler said in the campaign that he would not make the sherriffs job political…he lied and i will not vote for him again. maybe bowler running for the sherriff job was just to get in office to give Dan a major endorsement. Although you should all remember endorsements dont mean jack.

    DV- if you are so concerned about the way people here campain then [REDACTED BY WEBMASTER] move to pittsfield, and you run for office. run for an at-large seat..then [REDACTED BY WEBMASTER] like Joe Nichols did.

    I was at herberg yesterday holding a sign for my candidate and Joe Nichols told Chris Connell he knew he wasnt going to win and hes glad cuz he doesnt want to serve anymore. He knew he would get re elected in 7 so he entered a race he knew he could not and would not win.

    • Payroll Patriot
      September 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

      Dan got one of the two write in votes. Dan has 50% of the write in votes, which as a percentage is BETTER than ALL 5 people on the ballot. Dan is in the percentage lead for mayor. By the way, the write in vote came from ward 7. Dan, don’t come to Pittsfield or you will become the mayor.

      • Allen
        September 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

        who got the other write in vote?

    • Steve Wade
      September 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

      Yea that makes alot of sense. He ran but he did’t want to win but he didn’t want to run for ward 7 makes alot of sense.

  12. beezer
    September 28, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    @Hearse Driver, you are correct, the Sheriff did say that. My statement was that his endorsement was huge.

  13. just saying
    September 28, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Mr. Jester has received a 100% rating from GOAL.
    To those who support gun rights, the ability to hunt and the right to defend your life and property, please look at Mr. Jester as your choice.

    • Steve Wade
      September 28, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

      I am a hunter, I know Mr Jester he is a fine man but you can’t run on one platform Im not worried about my hunting guns Im worried about why am I paying more in taxes than all of the multi millioniares?

      • scott
        September 29, 2011 at 6:28 am #

        if you are then you’re doing something wrong. Get a new accountant.

      • Silence Dogood
        September 30, 2011 at 4:12 am #

        which multi millionaire do you pay more taxes than?

      • Silence Dogood
        September 30, 2011 at 4:13 am #

        and who says Jester is a one issue candidate?

  14. Winchester 73
    September 28, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    @Jim G: No Ruberto is not a criminal. The ethics violations were not crimes in the sense of di masi, and crooks like that. Geez, lay off the guy will you?
    @ PP Is that true. Valenti got those write in votes for mayor? Or just making it up to get discussion?
    @ hearse driver: If valenti did that, he’d win!!!!! I kow that frosts your red buns!!!!

    • Jim Gleason
      September 29, 2011 at 7:26 am #

      I will NOT lay off ruberto, he is a lowlife and a liar. Until he leaves here for good this town will have one to many people in it. There’s a swell going around, started by a candidate for state rep., that if Marchetti wins he should hire ruberto as a consultant, much like ruberto did with barrett, because he is such an asset to the city. Speaking of barrett, did you all know ruberto fired a man with 16 years experience as head of BerkshireWorks to give barrett a job. Why no uproar over this?

      • Shakes His Head
        September 29, 2011 at 8:09 am #

        I’ve heard the same rumor, and after meeting with Barrett, the man is clueless. How can a politicial hire another mayor because he has better experience? If you dont have the ability to be mayor, than maybe you shouldnt run…

  15. Matthew
    September 28, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Voted last night at Reed Middle School with my Dad at around 6:00 PM. Should have been a prime time for people voting….uhm, no. You could feel the apathy outside the school from the people holding the candidate signs to the people inside working the polls. When we drove up there were about 5 candidates represented with supporters holding their respective signs. As we drove by, a Bianchi supporter waved, and all the others looked, well…. apathetic. I had never seen such disinterested supporters. I would think with such a light turnout that the supporters would be even more attentive to individual voters. Guess I was wrong. Inside the score was actual voters 5 and poll workers 6. Oops. Apathy wins. You are correct Dan. Oh well, just my observations.

    • danvalenti
      September 29, 2011 at 10:15 am #

      Excellent info. Many thanks.

    • Silence Dogood
      September 30, 2011 at 4:09 am #

      has anyone here ever voted for a candidate based on the enthusiasim of supporters at the polls?

  16. Jeffrey Turner
    September 28, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    apathy: Latin apatha, from Greek apatheia, from apaths, without feeling : a-, without ; see a-1 + pathos, feeling; see kwent(h)- in Indo-European roots

    path: Middle English, from Old English pæth; see pent- in Indo-European roots

    • danvalenti
      September 29, 2011 at 10:14 am #


  17. Dusty
    September 29, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    Dan, is there any way to get the average age of the actual voters? I voted late after noon and a sign holder said to me that I was the youngest voter he had seen all day. And I am over 60. This could be a clue to what is happening.

  18. scott
    September 29, 2011 at 4:37 am #

    I haven’t voted because I never really though about it or followed it and I do think the entire system is flawed. I also think it’s a waste of time for me because I would actually read and gain information on a candidate not just cast a vote by the number of lawn signs in my neighborhood. You can take me behind the shed but it may be me who comes back out then what is society any worse or better off? I think I will vote this time around Bianci seems like your typical cookie cutter politician and from what I have read about Marchetti and his career he seems more qualified. I do not care what any one’s sexual preference is. I don’t know if thats a topix rumor but who cares that’s the stuff about politics I can’t stand. People attack candidates on irrelevant issues mostly personal with out looking st what they can really do for the city.

    • danvalenti
      September 29, 2011 at 10:10 am #

      Well expressed. Thanks.

  19. Anytime
    September 29, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    Its not fashionable to say but there’s lots of people (voters) like me who have a problem with a man marrying (not a relationship or cohab but MARRYING) another man as if its the same as man-woman. Mr Marchetti is married to a man, I think that explains everything about why he always looks to be under great stress and trouble. we can’t pretend this isn’t an issue with many voeters, it is and its fair isuue for campaign.

    • scott
      September 29, 2011 at 11:36 am #

      Him being married to man has nothing to do with whether or not he would be good for the city. Did you vote McCain simply because Obama was African American?

      September 29, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

      People have the right to be against gay’s marrying if they wish, just like people can be for it.

      • scott
        September 29, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

        I don’t “like” it either but it doesn’t define a persons policy in office. Who cares there was a time woman were looked at this way.

  20. Steve Wade
    September 29, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    Anytime What do you think of catholic priest didling alter boys?

    • Joe Pinhead
      September 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

      The Priests are no better than a banker or say former City Council President. Is it ok to molest children based upon occupation? Like some in the church is it ok for the GOB crowd or the insiders to hide and cover it up? I suggest both positions (Council President and Priest) come with a degree of public trust, do you believe this as well? If so let’s ask anytime what he thinks about former City Council Presidents diddling little boys?

      • scott
        September 29, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

        Are you saying that there are child molestation allegations? Where’s the proof?

        • Joe Pinhead
          September 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

          Please read the question, Is there someone you feel falls into the catagory? You asked about Priests, I simply asked about Bankers. And I dont think anyone was in the park conducting some sort of research. Are you saying soliciting is ok? where does the line get crossed? Simply a question.

          • scott
            September 30, 2011 at 3:51 am #

            So because Angelo is allegedly a diddler that means all bankers are? I bet you could find more baseless bigotry and fear through his preference for men. Wait are all gays pedophiles too?

          • Joe Pinhead
            September 30, 2011 at 4:37 am #

            Scott: Not sure where your drawing your conclusions from, but you may want to take a minute to read the statements mentioned above. I was simply pointing out that another poster was using Catholic Priests as his whipping post. Focus dude Focus, take off the blinders and look at the big world out there. There is a lot more to the world than your narrow prospective, I guess you have a cause to advocate for.

          • scott
            September 30, 2011 at 11:33 am #

            How many priest molestation cases and allegations have there been and how many for bankers? Recently.

  21. Joe Pinhead
    October 1, 2011 at 5:44 am #

    Scott: The answer to your question is unknown, the newspaper does not report on those allegations regarding bankers. However when it comes to priests that sells papers, must be a lot of you bigots that love to see the sensationalism. Not sure where you came up with the other claim but it sure does speak to your thought process.

    • scott
      October 1, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

      This from a pinhead I think it’s pretty safe to say priest are more likely to molest your children more so then an openly gay man.

      • Joe Pinhead
        October 2, 2011 at 6:54 am #

        When did I mention openly gay men? I simply asserted that bankers molested children as well. Can you point to one post by me that says what your saying I said? If your not certain what someone else is commenting on you can scroll up and reread until you understand whats being said. Further proof that the MCAS is needed. Ahh but your agenda wont allow for discussion will it? If it did you couldnt play the victim card could you?