Which major American party is more Mafia Friendly?

Democrats:
Believes in keeping labor unions placing them there for the mafia but I'm sure they want a careful screening process making it hard for mobsters to gain top positions anymore

Republicans:
Sometimes considered to be more corruptible (not my personal opinion it's most other peoples) but they believe in strengthening Corporations making Extortion harder for mobsters

Nearly every single modern mobster I have ever found is a registered democrat. My guess is it relates to both being prevalent in blue states and sometimes with unions.

Democrats.

I'm not a political or mafia expert. But I have thought the unions and teamsters all support democrats, and with that support leads to returning favors after getting elected.

LMAO! I don't think either party will take money from known mobsters anymore, it's not 1957, the FBI knows who's who in the mob world. But you guys seem to think one party is uncorruptible. But here's the thing. All politicians have as their number one priority; first, get elected. To that end, they have to collect lots of campaign contributions. And contributors of said contributions want a return on their investment. Again, I don't think mobsters are giving money to politicians like they used to. But "legitimate" businessmen are contributing millions (to both parties) so who do you think the politicians are going to listen to? You? Or the billionaire?

I say democrats right but i know this in that last presdential race every gangster, wisegut whatever i know was going for romney AND this was alot of unions esp in thge pa,wv and jersey area that was petitioning for every union to vote the same. I dont know if they was tired of a black in charge or what but they was going romney all the way. It went as far as some coal miners union on wv and pa coming to boston in the north end speakiing with some local state reps and other union officials about it... TRUE STORY so I know its democrat but I also seen a big wave of republican support so who the fuck knows whats going on with the higher ups and the politicians

I say democrats right but i know this in that last presdential race every gangster, wiseguy whatever i know was going for romney AND this was alot of unions esp in thge pa,wv and jersey area that was petitioning for every union to vote the same. I dont know if they was tired of a black in charge or what but they was going romney all the way. It went as far as some coal miners union in wv and pa coming to boston in the north end speakiing with some local state reps and other union officials about it... TRUE STORY so I know its democrat but I also seen a big wave of republican support so who the fuck knows whats going on with the higher ups and the politicians

We aren't talking about contributions. They fact remains the vast majority are democrats, or at least registered that way. Whether they contribute, or like Obama or Romney- we don't know.

Another fact might be judges. Judge Eduardo Robreno in Philly hands out massive sentences on nothing (tough on crime, republican appointment). You might fare better as a mobster under a dem appointee.

Democrats hands down. Mainly because of the unions but also because of the more liberal stance on vices which creates an atmosphere the Mafia has always been ready to exploit. One could make an argument about Bobby Kennedy but it wasn't a coincidence that the real national push against the mob took place when Reagan was in office.

Neither one is. Some of the toughest Mafia prosecutors in history were Democrats, like Robert Kennedy on a national level, and former Brooklyn district attorney Elizabeth Holtzman. Republicans are tough on them too, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Cristie prosecuted Mafia cases, and Republican Rudy Giuliani made a name for himself going after the Mafia. Neither party is Mafia friendly.

That's any criminal, Nicky. Activist judges are a thug's best friend .

"Democrats hands down. ...but also because of the more liberal stance on vices which creates an atmosphere the Mafia has always been ready to exploit"

I guess it all depends on how you look at it IvyLeague. Democrats are more tolerant of vices, but that also means that they are likely to become legalized or to attract others who wont be afraid of watered law enforcement. On the other hand, puritans tend to ostracize things from mainstream society or outlaw them all together. This leads to black markets becoming more common and profitable and groups like LCN who are willing to get their hands dirty to get people what they want can thrive. Just think, which social movement was better for the mob overall: prohibition or the push to legalize gambling. The former lead to millions upon millions in earnings. The latter cut deep into their pockets.

You make a good point but, at the end of the day, history shows what it shows. The vast majority of crooked politicians tied to the mob were Democrats. The nexus between the two often came through the unions.

I'm neither a Democrat or Republican so this isn't an attempt to knock one party and compliment the other. I'm just looking at what history has showed us.

"You make a good point but, at the end of the day, history shows what it shows. The vast majority of crooked politicians tied to the mob were Democrats. The nexus between the two often came through the unions."

True. If we are sticking closely to the thread topic, the democrats have been more friendly. I was arguing about who I believe is BETTER for the mob.

I'm not going to go into specific parties etc, but I think that history shows that the moralist and the anti-vice campaigners are some of the best friends of those who provide those vices illegally. Of course, sometimes legalized vice can be partially or totally taken over by criminals, Like prostitution in Holland, but it is more often the other way. Also, the moralist is the best friend of the extortionist/blackmailer.

Republicans

"Like many businessmen of genius, he learned that free competition was wasteful, monopoly efficient.So he simply set about achieving that efficient monopoly"


The Godfather





Sounds like a by-the-book ,"no govt. regulation of business", fiscally conservative Republican.

=============================


Just a question though, for the ones who put it out there....how are rank and file mafia workers....presumed to be felons...registered Ds or Rs?

How do you know who mob guys are registered as? A lot of rackets guys are "on paper" and can't vote anyway. Why does the Mob give a shit anyway, no matter who wins, there going to see at least some of their life spent behind bars. (unless they flip)And I doubt any mob guy pays his fair share of taxes anyway, they probably don't kick up the right amount to their captain, much less to the government looking to put them away for life. I believe back in the day, they bribed any politician willing to do business, I am sure both parties had their hands out, politics is a dirty business.

Voter registration is public record in most states. You just need the right databases. Whether that registration reflects current beliefs, we can never be totally sure.

I'm not making a political statement but the vast majority of felons favor democrats (http://ann.sagepub.com/content/651/1/220.abstract). In some states, they still can vote after parole has ended (NM, North Carolina, New York). They could be democrats for perfectly legit reasons like maybe they favor better job training or something that democrats favor as public policy.

You're going by a passage in a book over the long history of the real life mob? C'mon. I get it. You're a Democrat but face reality, pal.

Mafia is criminal enterprise.......emphasis on enterprise.

Pure capitalists with no pretensions of morality.

On paper, the modern day Republican party is against government regulation of businesses, correct?


I didn't think that anyone could refute that the mafia (leaders) would favor platform and party that stands for industry and the market policing/regulating itself.




Now that I think of it, you didn't refute or challenge what I wrote.
Illegal business and money laundering into "legit businesses" stands to operate better under the "pro business..anti-regulation" platform.


If you can dispute that, I'd like to read it.






------------------------------------------------

Independent, by the way.

Refute with you wrote? You made no premises. You went on a long, strawman rant attacking positions that nobody has actually held.

Your little dialogue with yourself on regulatory policy and political economy is so laughable, so completely out of a 6th grade class that I would be embarrassed for myself. Seriously you might think about attending night school to learn basic economics, and then maybe a class on philosophy. Then you wouldn't be parroting retarded strawmen and actually understand your "oppositions" opinions. At least I understand Keynes and modern Keynesian theory.

Perhaps the more amazing thing is you think your bizarre theories about the world override the data that I posted above.

@Little Nicky

Before you attack me..you might want to read my post again. It's a clear response to Ivy.

I quoted a line from Godfather...He mocked me and joked that I must be a Dem. I then explained that the line summed up what I thought the mafia is about at its core. I even ended by saying that I am an independent.



It was VERY late when I wrote my response so I forgot to address it explicitly to Ivy..BUT it seems rather clear that the response was directed towards HIS post.




Why are you so defensive?
-------------------------------------------------------------

OK..in response to THIS post....thanks.

Interesting point about felons favoring policies that help then reintegrate into society, but if you're talking about mob guys I don't think this would apply. Maybe I just don't know that full scope of the mafia and its workers but I assumed that we're talking about career criminals who earn their living through criminal activities.

Pre 1970...no doubt Democrat, but after that there was a shift. Nixon commuted Hoffa's sentance in a deal with Fitzsinmmons and Detroit, LIUNA and the Teamsters started endoursing Republicans, and the white working class in general, LCN guys included, shifted to the right
1970s to the present, I would say it's a 50/50 split

In New York State, felons retain their right to vote as long as they're not presently incarcerated or on parole. You can even vote on while on probation (but like I said, not parole).

The mobs fucked if Hilary Clinton get's elected President bet they'll be supporting her rival's.

BTW what about the Libertarian party I know they haven't really gained any major power in the past but how do you reckon the Mafia would cope if they got the White House and some seats in Congress?

Democrat judge Jack B. Weinstein is very tough on Mafia cases, but goes in the other direction in all other cases. He is usually very liberal in his trial rulings and sentencing, but when it comes to mob cases he is tough. Republican and conservative groups have asked him in the past to step down due to a perceived bias.

Former federal prosecutor John Kroger worked for Bill Clinton during his presidential campaign, and is a lifelong Democrat. He was tough on Mafia, he sent one of the Persicos to prison. I think it's obvious both parties are tough on mob, I don't see either as mob friendly. I think the Democrats here will say that the Republicans are mob friendly, and the Republicans will keep saying that the democrats are.

I might also add, arguably THE most LCN UNFRIENDLY Attorney general of all time, was VERY Democratic Bobby Kennedy

What else is new?

You can make all the theoretical arguments you want. But real life history has shown vastly stronger ties between Democrats and the mob than Republicans and the mob.



Partisanship doesn't even have to enter into it. History simply shows what it does.

@Ivy


Thread topic isn't about which major party has more historical ties to American lcn, but about which party IS more mafia friendly today.

I'm no mafia expert but I am a student of history and we both know some of the reasons why your point about Dem.s having more ties to lcn may be true. We can discuss those factors separately.


Nature of what organized crime does and how they generate money has surely evolved though.Because of competition from other ethnic mobs, the lcn has expanded into all types of crimes..."white collar" crimes, cyber crimes,etc.I never knew about the "gas tax" mafia scheme before coming to this site...but that is one example of how the mob has expanded its scope....since lcn was established here decades ago.

In modern climate....policy of unregulated industry is more friendly to the thinking criminal.....mafia or otherwise.

pizza,
thanks. Maybe I'm viewing this thread question differently than others who have more knowledge of the mafia. To me, the LCN is made up of the actual members of the families..leaders, made men and official associates. Therefore, the American mafia has low numbers.

I'm looking at the question as which policies/platform would benefit THOSE guys...not the street guys who work FOR these organizations.

Like to me Staples is about the corporate side and the shareholders, not the people who work there.

Am I defining the mafia and its membership correctly?

Interesting that you bring up white collar crime. One change in our country that I have noticed is that these days everyone from the judges to the man on the street seem to have a permissive attitude toward white collar crime. Everybody wants to lynch beggars who steal a few hundred dollars of copper pipe from an abandoned building scheduled to be demolished, but steal hundreds of hard working people's retirements and no one bats an eyelash.

Exactly. People don't like small timers cause no one likes a loser. If you're gonna steal, you gotta steal big. Look at the price fixing case against American and Japanese car parts companies last year. The skimmed something like 1.6 billion dollars over a few years that, ultimately, came from consumers. Do you think they'll get sentences llonger Than a guy who holds up a gas station? There are probably libertarians out there who don't even think price fixing is a crime. White collar stuff beats dealing drugs any day.

I would assume that under a two party system, the politics of crime probably waffle semi-frequently. I think, one of the major downfalls, is the idea that all people can fit into one of two political philosophies when the truth is, even people who are partisan and align themselves with one particular party do not necessarily agree with the litany of "republican" or "democratic" dogma.

So, yeah, wouldn't surprise me if it was Democrat for a couple decades, then republican, etc. It probably really depends on who they stand to gain the most (or lose the least) from.

I think it's an interesting incongruity.

Democratic policies create an environment more appealing to OC with more opportunity for corruption (eg unions, govt program's) etc but Ironically (and credit to getthesenets) mafia ethos/attitude would I suspect be quite republican. That is, minimal taxation, regulation, free enterprise etc.

So whilst the mafia prefers liberal institutions it is only for the opportunity to corrupt them. Democratic policies are preferable, but only because it affords the opportunity for abuse.

So, whilst the democrats is the obvious answer, it is an interesting paradox deserving of a more in depth response.

Again, getthesenets deserves recognition for raising an interesting and valid perspective.

Even socially, Republicanism tends to hold true to its "old fashioned" perspectives, as is mafia culture.

That statement isn't true. I'm a union member in Philly and my father is a union official and on the democratic committee in New Jersey. They were all backing the Democratic Party.

If your a union member the Republican Party is a terrible for your livelihood. I grew up a democrat and live by the motto build union buy American.

F the republicans. Terrible in my opinion.

It's not a valid prospective, because there is nobody in the universe actually proposing doing away with the basic laws that protect individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Richard Epstein has written about it- these are the basic prerequisites to a civil society and a functioning market. What the mafia does (fraud, antitrust, force) has been recognized since the 1700s (Adam Smith talked about it) to be both dangerous to markets and not to be accepted by government that attempt to foster free enterprise.

It's like saying democrats are pro-choice, and therefore want mandatory abortion. It's nonsense and its moronic nonsense at that.

Even the night watchmen state of the 1800s, which can be said to be the most libertarian, the most minimal, the chief role of government is to protect individuals against force and fraud via various various civil service, prisons, the executive, the judiciary.

Now you talk as if questioning federal regulation in kind and scale now is paramount to effectively approving of mafia busines deals. This especially rich considering the fact that the government is double the size it was during the Clinton administration and the Code of Federal Regulation has gone from several thousand pages to 180,000+ over the past several decades. In fact when they asked the Congressional Research Service to compile basic crimes under the federal code and applicable regulation- they reported there are so many it is impossible to track them all.

If anything plethora of business reg help the Mafia, because it makes legitimate business hard to form and capitalize. The Mafia, by its nature, don't follow the law to begin with. Black market and corruption look more lucrative under high regulatory environments, and especially markets that feature state mandated monopolies. The windows fixing case could not have happened in a right-to-work state not giving out massive government grants.

Perhaps I did not explain myself well.

I was simply pointing out an interesting paradox that the mafia thrives moreso in a left orientated political sphere not out of support but quite the opposite, for opportunity for abuse.

Regards mafia political orientation I see vastly more commonality with a right ethos than a left.

When was the last time you heard a wiseguy happy for a tax increase.
Or even paid tax to begin with?

The Irony being that they thrive better in an environment contrary to their probable beliefs.

Hence the paradox.

No, you just watched David Chase's moronic Sopranos portrayal of mobsters as republicans and think its even close to reality.

Let me say this again, I never found a single republican mobster. There was a colombo that was suggested to be one, but I can't tell whether he has actually been in the life for the last 20 years. Those that register, and felons can in New York, are all democrats. And they are for very simple business and criminal justice reasons. Again, it also makes sense in the context of 7 in 10 felons being democrats. This tells us nothing about which party posits the correct public policy solutions. I think neither do. But they are just the facts.

The attempt to make up more "just-so stories", unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation of facts that don't exist is a worthless exercise.

What the fuck are you rambling about? Are you a phd or some shit

Well I guess I stand corrected.

(And my online dictionary hates you )

(And easy on the Sopranos Nick, James isn't even cold! )

Yea such a shame he died. R.I.P. Big guy

We and others here could argue over theory all day long. But I think the original question was in more real life, practical terms. And there shouldn't be any question about that.

Nothing wrong with exploring an interesting facet to the question Ivy.

And keep in mind 99% of everything on this website is theory.

Republicans let the waste management companies get away with more dumping, so I'd say it's a toss up

Mobsters usually go with whoever will help them the most and harass them the least

It isn't just David Chase. I think a lot of those guys are Republican these days...its not the 50's anymore

Also they are extorting money and not reporting all their taxes so I'm sure they are registering democrat so they can play broke and get that damn IRS off their asses...

good point IVY league

I don't mind if people branch out to historical Mafia/Government ties anyways it may give us more insight but yh definitely democrat anyways republicans probably hate the mafia cause they somehow ruin the lives of the 1% when guys like John Gotti portray themselves that way

I was thinking in real life practical terms.

If someone wrote..ok...mafia members come from a certain demographic (socio economic, religion, American region)and their voting patterns would tend to mirror other members of that demographic, I could buy buy that.

Other than that....every post is just another person's opinion.

We're dealing with speculation in every thread here. Every post is ALWAYS just another persons opinion.

I think there are about three reasons for this

-I'm not sure that many people can honestly understand some of the white collar crimes and may view them as victim-less crimes. A street crime is pretty simple to understand and involves the taking of a physical object People have short attention spans.
A crude ponzi acheme is easy to understand and there are identifiable victims. Harder to get people to see insider trading or junk bond fraud as clear outright crimes.

-Class. White collar crimes are associated with well educated and wealthy people..street crimes associated with poor and uneducated people. People aspire to be wealthy and think that relating to the wealthy somehow helps them.(Mental placebo)

I disagree just like your handle it comes down to having N*ts?

@Sonny

Yeah, that's the way I thought things worked here. State your opinion, corroborate and then another person can either agree or challenge your points and then back up their stance with points of their own.

====


@LittleNicky

I thought I would come back to this thread and read you apologizing to me like a man after you jumped to conclusions, but I won't hold my breath.

It's NETS.....as in NJ NETS....as in since the team is leaving..Brooklyn can get these nets.


But, you're saying Bernie Madoff had N*ts?

Sorry for jumping into the conversation late. I'm an independent too, but there's a wide range among us. Anyway, I have to dispute what you wrote about the Republicans wanting "no government regulation of business." That's closer to a libertarian position, but even the libertarians would have some regulation, such as regulation against fraud. The Republicans are not against ALL regulation, but are against OPPRESSIVE regulation and OVER REGULATION. So what you wrote was not only an exaggeration, but a straw man fallacy. It's a false caricature of what they believe. I'd like to know the source for this bogus claim that they want no regulation of any kind at all. Less regulation is not the same as zero regulation.

On the Mafia being capitalist, I would disagree with that too. How is the Mafia in any sense free market? Lying, deception, fraud, cheating, threatening, bullying, robbing and murdering are not capitalist. Having a criminal street tax is free market? Aren't Republicans known for wanting to lower taxes? This in itself contradicts your claim.

Admittingly, I have seen libertarian defenses of loan sharking. I could see a legal basis for a version of high interest loans without the violence. They do serve a purpose and normally people freely take the loans knowing the risk. Pay-Day Loans are a type of high interest loan that is legal and doesn't use violence when debts are not paid. However, criminal violence is never capitalist or free market.

In a free market there have to be a rational and moral set of rules that people/the market follows. Theft is an example of breaking this set of rules, whether it's an owner shorting her employees or an employee stealing property. Some have called Socialism theft since it involves the government confiscating the earnings (in an excessive way) of a worker in a way that is not morally justified. For the government to force a business to pay a lazy unproductive employee the same as hard-working one is not only unfair, it is coercive and it devalues the labor being done. Soon the hard-working employee will realize that it does not pay to be productive, so overall production decreases as incentive is taken away. Likewise, when the Mafia takes over a business the incentive of the coerced owner decreases and the company will collapse.

Again, I have to wonder where these straw men are coming from. If you want to know what a political party really believes, read its platform. For economics, I suggest starting with The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.

Pointless rhetoric. What party or political theory is in favour of OPPRESSIVE and OVER REGULATION?

You may as well say the republicans stand for good things and are against bad.



None of these things are Democrat either. None of these things are ANY political philosophy.




A street Tax is no Tax at all. It is simple extortion.
The purpose of Tax is to maintain public infrastructure, services, the military etc. The Mafia's 'Tax' serves zero public service and is no more a tax than in name. So this doesn't contradict any claim whatsoever.



Nor is it a political philosophy.



A free market SIMPLY and ONLY means the the economics of supply and demand determine market forces.
It has nothing to do with rationale and certainly any moral set of rules.

When I say "real life, practical terms," I mean actual history. The politicians in New York, New Jersey, Chicago, and elsewhere who have been caught up with the mob in the past have been overwhelmingly Democrats.

I can't believe this thread is still going, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway. Being that there's not much collusion going on between wiseguys and politicians today, you have to go all the way back.

It was the mob's political connections back in the '30s and '40s which allowed them to become the powerhouse they eventually became. It's the very reason no start-up ethnic crime group today can ever match what they accomplished: You just can't buy that kind of political protection in today's world.

And if you're going to talk about that time period, it begins and ends with Frank Costello and the crooked Tammany Hall Democrats. Now I'm sure that Republican judges and politicians took bribes, too. But Costello's bread and butter was his political allies in the Democratic party. It's no contest.

No, I quite intentionally jumped on you for another incoherent post that asked and answered essentially "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

The point is- all the wishful thinking and just-so stories in the world do not overcome the fact that vast majority of mobsters have always been and continue to be democrats. Unless you seriously deny this, there is no point to this thread. Move on, the question has been answered. If you do deny this, I would love to see some actual information.

The question in the thread is a empirical one. Not a lets invent stories game or one of evaluating "ethos" like Sonny. You can't actually assess or challenge something that contains NO FACTS.

Yes, i guess that's a valid point, historically. But I think the Genovese are (or were) down with at least one Republican. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/nyregion/24christie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

I remember seeing in Boardwalk Empire that Capone was trying to swing the Cicero election in the Republicans favour but that was nearly 100 years ago so both parties have changed agendas

Oh yea, they love former federal prosecutors.

I also love the article, pointing to vague family associations in attempt to smear someone. Somehow I think NYT wouldn't write such an article about a up-and-coming black candidate that had a distant cousin in the crips.

Tino died a free man, how many high ranking mob guys do that these days? No looking (honor system here) tell me how many Genovese men Christie put away in his stint as US Attorney? NJ is the Genovese Family's backyard.

did they check the mans birth certificate?

Its laughable because both parties are essentially the same with identical mercantilist agendas. Hence why elections in the last 30 years have mostly been about expounding on arbitrary social issues (abortion, gun control, stem cell research) as though they are worthy platforms from which to launch a political campaign.

In the last 20 years, privatized prisons have been a booming industry. The fed is chomping at the bit to throw people in jail for longer periods of time for lesser offences. This evolution of criminal justice has been going on seamlessly throughout republican and democratic presidential reigns. why? because the parties only pay lip service to their supposed differences. I mean, really, is Obama's presidency that different from Bush's? Not really. Same military industrial complex bullshit.

Nicky is probably (and I only say probably because I've never looked it up for myself) right but there's no harm in speculation. I wasn't saying I was right, just throwing out a hypothesis based on what I understand about politics.

Agreed. Both parties have moved far to the right on economic issues. Wall Street types have enormous influence over both.

Thanks to Pizzaboy for bringing this forgotten link to our attention.

Anyway, to respond to Sonny Blackstein's rant, nothing he wrote really disagrees with what I wrote earlier. I was writing about politically biased mischaracterizations put out by getthesenets, but Blackstein seems to think it was some sort of personal attack, which it wasn't. Pointing out facts is not pointless rhetoric.

Seems more like Democrats, which have always held some sort of corruption. Tammany Hall did employ Irish gangs for voter intimidation. Democrats have always "helped" immigrants, but mostly the bad ones.

My pleasure, buddy .

Overall, would have to agree with Paddy James. There are exceptions, of course. In the 1920s the corrupt mayor was Big Bill Thompson and the clean one was a Democrat. Thompson lost his last race to a corrupt Democrat, Anton Cermak, and it has been in the hands of corrupt Democrats ever since. In Atlantic City, the corrupt mayor was Enoch Johnson, another Republican. In New York City it was the other way around, with corrupt Democrats until Fiorello LaGuardia, who was an anti-crime Republican.

Individual cases of corruption aside, in terms of general policy, the Republicans are generally anti-union and strong on law and order, so less friendly to organized crime. If the Libertarians ever came to power it would be a different story. They would probably decriminalize all illegal drugs, legalize loan sharking (without the violence) and all forms of gambling and prostitution. However, they aren't too pro-union.

In my day there was no liberal Italians where I lived. But they definately did business with unions and democrates. Because liberal democrates believed and still do I think in the end justifies the means.

My normal part of me knows the end never justifies the means.

No one that I knew in those days voted I didn't.

You know what? Speak for yourself. My grandparents lived at 325 Pleasant for fifty years. And while they weren't very liberal themselves, that neighborhood as a whole, like every other immigrant stronghold, Italian or otherwise, had way more registered Democrats than Republicans. It's a matter of public record, if researching such a thing interests you.

But you don't strike me as the type who ever voted anyway, so what am I telling you for?

I know that my party affiliation is a democrate. But the democratic party is not same as I was a kid. It's the not same at all.

But some knuckleheads still vote for them any way.

I only started to vote in the last 15 years. I would never vote democrates. Not that I am a fanatic about voting. Got really pissed off my wife for voting for that great leader of men Obama.

Pizza do you vote for those liberal democrates now? Isn't their Idea that the end justifies the means or am I wrong about that?

Well, I actually just made a similar point in one of the other threads (yesterday, I think).

It's an indisputable fact that many Italian Americans who were Democrats while they lived in the old Italian strongholds, switched parties when they moved to the suburbs (which actually coincided with the Democratic Party going off the rails and becoming ultra-liberal ).

No. Check my initial reply just above this post.

So democrates Italian incidently were asking us to sign a petition for a democrat running for something. My wife was talking to them.

Then I come out and ask them what do you think about our president and our Mayor. It was not good. I said is this guy different they said he was very different. My wife signed it. They asked me why don't I sign it. I tell them because I don't know you so I don't trust you. How do I know your not lying to get me to sign.

I just answered no to this question, but I should really clarify. I don't vote for the loony tunes on the far right, either. I consider myself a moderate, which manages to piss everyone off. So I must be doing something right .

Far right are those the tea party mostly old people who think we should follow the constitution?

I frankly don't see how they are far right looney tunes.

Far right were invented by liberal democrates who had to demon the tea party.

Far left really dig the occupy wall street anarchists.

I went down there when they were demonstrating.

They were made up of a lot of young kids who knew nothing about anything.

They were lead by their noses by old fart anarkists communists white guys.

They would say something. These kids just repeated what they said word for word like machines who could not think for themselves.

During a low I told some of these kids. That those guys leading them are full of shit and to go home.

Two of those leaders came up to me both younger them me, and started to insult me. I stuck my fingers in their eyes and droped them both. Then oi told this kuds these guys don't care about you go home.

Funny never a cop around when they needed them

Lastly Germany plays Brazil in 15 minutes. Watch Brazil get knocked out of the tournament I hope.

Should be a good freaking game.

i'm sure bush the 2nd was a better president

obama stopped the bleeding which is all he could do with what he was given

america probably won't ever fully recover from what bush and the repubs did

Does that mean you won't be posting for a few hours?

Yes brazil 1 Germany 7. Could have been 10 -1. Holy cow.

Fucking shocking .

The young Bush was a pussy. But even that jerk off was better then Obama.

Do you think you are better off then you were 6 years ago personally now?

Oh, please. Like Bush didn't inherit a mess from Clinton. And Clinton didn't inherit a mess from Bush the First. And Bush the First didn't inherit a mess from Reagan. And Reagan didn't inherit a mess from Carter. You're pretty dumb, but even you have to see where I'm going here. Every administration blames the last.

I supported Obama in 2008 and I'm big enough to admit that he's the biggest disappointment since the New Coke. He'll be a pariah when he checks out of office. Not that he gives a shit. Not as long as he and his mutt wife can keep getting their pictures taken with Jay Z and and the other skank.

You want America to recover? Here's an idea: Get off your ass and get a fucking job, instead of living down to the most repugnant stereotype in this history of this once great country.

I think you'll find in said 'rant' I actually disagreed with everything you said.

Point by point.

you're talking about obama's wife but he's the piece of shit?

anybody defending bush needs to just admit that they're a racist piece of shit

there ain't any reason to like bush other than being a racist piece of shit

@cookcounty...

moses montefiore academy graduate?

Go through my pre-2008 posts. I thought Bush was an imbecile, and I said as much every day for most of his second term. And it's okay for me to say that without being classified a Lefty or some similar term. But the minute a White guy calls out Obama for his poor performance, he's automatically a racist piece of shit?

Fuck you, Cook. I know your story. Unemployed, living under the poverty line, yet you have money for a PlayStation and 300 dollar sneakers from your government check. The same government that you blame for all of your problems.

And you know what? I'm tired of fucking sugarcoating things in the name of political correctness here. I got mine, my kids are guaranteed to have theirs. Because I was raised by a strong mother and father, and so were my children. You, on the other hand, are a fucking mutt. And it's in no small part because of the lack of parenting that you received. But then again, you just did what your own father did. Which is nothing (if he was even around, which I seriously doubt).

You're a fucking lowlife who will still be waiting for the same government direct deposit and housing voucher next winter while my wife and I go back to South Florida for a few months to sit in the sun and play golf. So enjoy your video games and keep blaming Whitey, asshole. I'll be in Boca .

Oh, Michelle Obama is a fucking mutt. Let her put her own two homely kids on a diet and shut the fuck up about mine. As for her sissy husband, the man has proven himself to be spineless and completely ineffective in matters of foreign policy and dealing with our enemies. And as much as I didn't care for Bush, I have a feeling that history will exonerate him. And vilify Obama.

PB: Dont waste your time with Cook.

All he has is to get under your skin.

As they say, they best form of revenge is success.

There's no doubt about who wins here.

And with that, the thread is over. Congrats to Cook for managing to even get a nice dude like pb to lash out and own his stupid ass.

Respect Pizza.

Gets to the rescue in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

Thanks, Sonny. I'm fine now. But thank God for Dewar's 12 Year Old Special Reserve .

America needed a leader like George Bush when 9/11 happened. Imagine if Obama was President then.

Obama is in his comfort zone taking selfies with Norwegian princes, dressing up as Spiderman with staffer's kids, with all the stupid photo ops, going on Jay Leno, espousing vapid catchphrases "yes we can" and shooting hoops with Jay Z.

Bush provided leadership, composure and strength during the most challenging times any contemporary President presided over.

The only reason Obama beat Romney is because all the minorities voted for Obama because of his skin color and not any of his policies.

Everyone and their dog knows Romney was more of a man to take America out its tailspin than that cretin wannabe celebrity.

Romney was also a Morman and if you you anything about Mormans (Smith and his magic tablets) you would know that had Romney been elected President the USA would've officially become the laughing stock of the first world.

And just whilst we're on it, it was deregulation which lead to the 2008 crisis in the first place (De-regulation and OTC interbank trading. In the words of Greenspan, HIS one mistake was assuming individual entities were the best capable to ensure their own interests). Mitt Romney was a proponent of the very actions which caused the collapse.

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

That's why the Presidency should be one term and out .

Yes, the most interventionist fed chairman in history with among the most irresponsible loose monetary policy along with a set of major bailout actions (LTCM) was engaging in free market economics and deregulation. The incentives created by the regulatory system were the very incentives that created the crisis. Look into moral hazard. Look into Fanny and Freddie securitization. Look into the Fed government policy pushing banks into accelerating home ownership despite major credit risks. Look at the wild monetary policy post 9/11 that caused the speculative bubble.

You are also violently oversimplifying what occurred. Especially considering the size, scope and budget of the federal government has only grown during this period you describe as horrific "deregulation". The CFR doubled over that decade.

Absolutely.

And for a very good reason. It was not my intent to stir up economic debate.

Merely to to point out the nonsense of a Romney administration.

Then your rant wasn't clear. For example:

I wrote: "The Republicans are not against ALL regulation, but are against OPPRESSIVE regulation and OVER REGULATION."

A disagreement would have been: "Yes, Republicans are against all regulation" or "They are not against oppressive regulation and over regulation." Instead you wrote, "What party...is in favour of oppressive and over regulation?" That doesn't refute what I wrote at all.

I wrote: "On the Mafia being capitalist, I would disagree with that too. How is the Mafia in any sense free market? Lying, deception, fraud, cheating, threatening, bullying, robbing and murdering are not capitalist."

You wrote: "None of these things are Democrat either. None of these things are ANY political philosophy."

Since I didn't write anything about Democrats, how does that refute or even disagree with what I wrote? You second point, "None of these things are ANY political philosophy" actually agrees with what I wrote since the other poster said it was part of the Republican's political philosophy (which is pro-capitalism).

I think those two examples are sufficient for my point. Maybe you think you disagree, but really don't. I don't know. It's not up to me to figure you out.

That's a very racist thing to say. How about if we turn it around and say anybody who defends Obama is a racist POS?

Or a self-hating White guy .

A. It's Mormon, not Morman.
B. If we get a President who defends the Constitution and is overall good at his job, what difference does his religion make? The current President believes in Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist version of Black Christianity, yet he doesn't get regularly attacked for it. I don't have to agree with the religion of any given President for him to do his job.
C. Deregulation is NOT what caused the crisis that occurred at the end of Bush's administration. It started with the housing crisis, which began in October 2005, and which led to the credit crisis that followed. It was spurred by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was a Jimmy Carter policy that was rewritten by Clinton. The Clintons not only permitted lending to underqualified borrowers, it often made banks and mortgage companies do the loans under threat -- very Mafia-like. That created the housing bubble, and as we all know, it's only a matter of time before bubble's burst. Greenspan's lending policy didn't help, but it wasn't the primary cause. If there had been no housing bubble then the low-interest Greenspan years would have made little difference. In the middle of his term Bush tried to rein in the Fannie Mae, but the Dems defended everything chairman Franklin Raines did. Added to the blame are Senator Chris Dodd and Congresspersons Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. You can read about them elsewhere, but there are plenty of books and articles out there that correct this left-wing piece of historical fiction.
D. This is one of the most misused and misattributed quotes out there. It's usually attributed to Albert Einstein, except he never said it. The original quote said that it was a sign of addiction, not insanity, and that's because the source was Alcoholics Anonymous. The legal of insanity is "mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior." So on each point you don't know what you're talking about.

Again your argument is a NONSENSE. WHO is FOR Oppressive or OVER regulation? Who is NOT AGAINST Oppressive or OVER regulation?

If the Republicans are against Obsessive and over regulation are the Democrats for this? Of course not. So, again, pointless rhetoric.



Because you are comparing apples with oranges. My point was to illustrate that these actions are not political. Rendering your point moot. As I thought was wholly self evident.


Thank God for that.



If you dont think that what someone belives in I dont know what to tell you. If someone believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Zeus, Pagan gods, Atlantis or the Easter Bunny thats all good with you?
What someone believes is an intrinsic part of their character and personality. And should concern the shit out of me and everyone else if they were to become President.



Again I apologise for bringing economics into the thread. It was not my intent to open that can of worms.



Thanks for the history lesson but my version works just fine to illustrate my point and Ill stick with it.

A. Your whole response is nonsense. Did you read what I originally responded to? Man, I'm writing to a brick wall. I'll spell it out for you one last time. A previous poster made the claim that Republicans are against all regulation. I responded by saying that assertion is not true, it's a straw man. Republicans are against over or excessive regulation. I didn't write anything about Democrats. Get it now? Do you now understand? If you still don't get it, then maybe you need to repeat a few grades or check into a special education program.
B. The point isn't moot. Your response was moot. Again, a previous poster made the claim that the Mafia practices capitalism and I responded to it. What you wrote agrees with me, so there's no point to you writing anything on this issue at all.
C. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton said they believe in UFOs. Did that concern you when they were president? Every president before Lincoln (except John Quincy Adams) believed in slavery, so should we disregard everything they said and did? Obama believes in Black Liberation Theology, so are you going to run out and call for his impeachment? Are you going to advocate changing the Constitution so that only people who believe in some form of Christianity can be president?

Yeah, we're prob too far apart to ever see eye to eye.

Appreciate the personal attacks though. Mature.

Best of luck.

I think you two should work things out at a couples retreat in the Poconos. It's nice this time of year.

Walked straight into that one!

Okay,Pizzaboy, but he pays!

Politics does not mix well with any subject that's a fact.

I am on a few soccer sites. We all seem to love the game some more then others. That is what brought us together what we all have in common.

Bring politics in that discussion then you see how different we are.

Same thing here for what ever reason we all have an interest in this subject matter. Mix politics into it every goes bad.

On Mormons after Sandy hit my daughter who just bought a house near the Beach in Belle Harbour. After Sandy the beach moved into her house.

Everyone in her area tried to help each other. I tried to help her block where she lived. I go there one morning and their are two big trucks one with workers and one with stuff. These guys were Mormons why where they there? There religion says they should help people in trouble. For me it is hard to talk bad about a religion who believes they should help people who are in trouble. Then they do something to help.

Evidently, Romney also believes that so tell me again how he would have been a Bad president.

This is beautiful, one of the best rant's I have seen in sometime. Go PB!!

This topic in general seems like a topic that is just a trap. It ends up with people arguing about politics. Lol

I figured I would throw my opinion out now. They all suck! They are too busy kissing the ass of these special interests groups, or pushing bizarre political agenda's to care about people like you or I.

I thought Bush was incredibly bad, and still do. He made me completely turned off from Republicans. I am thankful for Obama, he showed me that none of them care about anyone from the lower to upper middle class. I am turned off of politics in general. They are just going to do what they are going to do, and hopefully it doesn't interfere with my everyday life.

They all suck.

Then spit it right at all of us!!

When George Bush was President, Rolling Stone magazine mocked and excoriated him in EVERY single issue.

After the Boston Marathon Bombings, Rolling Stone put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover looking like a rock star; giving him exactly what he wanted.

Go figure.

been saying it forever...i say any elected official should be one term...career politics isnt what it was designed for. do the best you can and then get out. will never happen

@pizzaboy


you're talking about the president's children

what kinda MAN talks about women and children.....the answer is a lowlife

i hope u talk that same tough shit when you're in hell

hate filled racist go to hell when they die......if there is a hell

Enough of this crap. Cut it out!!

In hindsight it was wrong of me to point out that his daughters are homely. That's on me, but you bring out the worst in me.


More man than you'll ever be. And I already acknowledged that calling attention to the homeliness of his daughters was wrong. But as far as his wife, are we talking about the same woman who wasn't "proud of her country" prior to 2008? The same country that undoubtedly picked up the tab for her Ivy League education? Fuck her.


See you there, Malik. Come heavy.

Stay on topic or this thread will be closed.

I apologize, SC. The guy just brings out the worst in me, and he does it on purpose. But shame on me for taking the bait. I'm done.

Well said pizza. Guess I'm a racist piece of shit too. Guess we're all heading to hell for hating the great Obama...

its not about black and white - its about rich and poor

no one asks where your money came from, they ask do you have it.

keep arguing about race while the middle class becomes obsolete, detroit becomes worthless, and every industrial town where thier are no more jobs.

reminds me of the wizard of oz.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

and the man behind the curtain isnt Obama and it wasnt Bush and so on.

the guy reading off the prompter isnt the one pulling the strings anyway. its a dog and pony show.

this isnt directed to anyone in particular just my two bits. (outsider reference

oh and cook - only you can manage to take the most respected poster and have have him blow up like that. good goin kiddo

Pizzaboy, Michelle Obama went to Princeton and was the top of her class. Do you have any evidence the government picked up her tab or are you just making an assumption?

Welcome to the board. But I'd just as soon let this thread fizzle out. And maybe I was wrong to assume that the government picked up the tab for her education, but it doesn't change what she said about not being proud of her country. And it doesn't mean that she hasn't had way too much to say about things like childhood obesity and foreign policy. I don't like her and I'm not apologizing for that. But again, welcome to the board.

Get back to us when you learn to spell "Mormon," jackass.

I know there are some pretty smart people on here.

Just a few questionsm are we propping up the Euro with US dollars so the Euro does not collapse now? Can we do that forever? What happens here if the Euro collapses.

We are printing money with nothing to back it up what is it a trillion a year. Is that weaking our dollar? Can we do that forever without it biting on the arse.

The national debt will never go down even though some people think it is not going up. That printing of money is that keeping the debt from going higher.

So 10 years from now will we be better off or worse off.

This is an economics question am I mistaken or are we in deep deep trouble?

No one seems to think we should worry about it now.

I think it is always the natural inclination of individuals to look at the rich and say "its your fault, you control everything'. This is nothing new.

Yes the middle class is shrinking, but so is the upper middle class and even the semi rich. The only people who stay rich are the super rich, those who run companies, inherit stock real estate etc. But the shrinking middle class and the shitty economy at large have nothing to do with them. They have always existed.

What has caused this situation is simply put, the automation of many industries through certain technological advances. What differentiates previous post recession recoveries from this post recession recovery is the fact that the jobs that used to exist that people could go get no longer exist. And even scarier, they are never coming back.

The only workers who have a bright future in this economy are union members and government workers, both with lifelong pensions.

That is why even though I have a fundamentally conservative value set, both fiscally and socially, I think it is inevitable that this country will be full blown socialistic. The jobs just don't exist anymore. So it is either have more and more people on the street or have the government support them.

On a lighter note Obama's Mom is white... do you guys know if he can still join the gangster disciples after his second term or do you have to be 100% black to get into their fraternal organization

I don't ever remember us as blaming the rich for us being poor.

I do remember wanting to be rich or die trying.

Now it seems some people are jealous of what other people have instead of trying to get some on their own.

Now the goal is not being rich. But just make it to middle class and they are satisfied. Some political people talk about protecting the middle class instead of trying to make it above middle class.

@pizzaboy

what kinda 50yr old man judges how chicks well under the legal age of consent looks

you judge how 13 year old girls look?

all your rants do is show that you're a demented person with hatred n your heart

Must have been one of her underlings that troll the web looking for bad things said about her, watch it PB!!

All I know is, I buy and sell you and your entire low rent family. Your mother, your father (if you can find him), and your dozen half-siblings by eight different men. Was it eight or nine? Maybe you better ask your Mom, if she's not still at the clinic getting off the Oxy.

You were born to trash, and you'll die trash. Now don't forget to have ten out of wedlock kids yourself and pass it on to the next generation. There's no escape for you. But if the best revenge you can take against Whitey is trolling on a message board, then good for you. Personally, I'm getting ready to get into my Lexus, and go have a dinner that would dent your government housing voucher by half.

I'm really surprised at you, pb, for taking this guy's bait.

THis thread is now closed.