thewestside wrote:Yeah, I just told you that you have sources on Albanian organized crime. Cherrypicked sources that is. And you're always happy to bring them out. But we're not talking about Albanians right now are we? We're talking about your BS claim that Mexicans have corrupted cops, judges, and politicians in the U.S. But here, you're not willing to put forth any sources. And there are two reasons. One, because you haven't even researched this in the first place but are simply going on pure assumption again. And two, because you know you would come up empty. You're content to just stonewall rather than admit you are wrong.
yes, they're cherrypicked because they proved you dead wrong. that's the only reason you refer to them as cherry picked. there is only one reason why i won't go and research who the mexicans have corrupted here in the united states, because i don't have names and sources on microsoft. if i did, i would happily give them to you. but as i said, you're simply not worth doing research for. you don't mean that much to me. you can think whatever you want.
LOL! Youre double talk just keeps getting better and better Johnny.
"The Mafia may have reached it's peak in the 1950's but the Italians reached their peak in the 1920's."
"You didn't prove me wrong. You proved yourself right."
i stand by both of them. proving yourself right is usually wrong. and the italians did hit their peak in the 1920's. however, the mafia hit their peak in the 1950's.
Doesn't mean it did happen either. But you're just happy to assume all sorts of things aren't you? And when you don't have any facts or sources to show, you pull out the personal anecotes, i.e. stories you claim to have heard, as if we're supposed to believe a repeated liar like you.
yes, it does mean it happened if officials are talking about non-stop. liar? what exactly have i lied about dick?
How many times do I have to tell you this you stupid Albanian refugee? Not all the families required a strict Sicilian membership. And much of that was done away with once the Mafia established itself on a national level. And once again, Capone and the Chicago mob became part of the Mafia after that. So your whole excuse falls flat. But we both know you are just grabbing at straws because you don't have anything.
al capone never became part of the mafia. al capone got locked up in 1931. he might have planned on becoming part of it but he wasen't. there were other gangsters (mostly non-sicilians) who weren't part of the mafia as well. al capone just happened to be the most important non-mafia member. albanian refugee? i love that title :D:D
Prohibition was the biggest part of what put organized crime on the map. But it wasn't the golden age, at least not for the Mafia, because they still were establishing themselves and weren't as sophisticated, entrenched, and powerful as they would become. Now fast forward to the 1950's and 1960's. The Mafia was the sole dominant criminal organization which was national in scope, the Irish and Jewish groups (except for a few) having fallen by the way side. There was no more infighting amongst the familes like during Prohibition. The Commission had national influence. The union movement was in full swing and they controlled all the major ones like the ILA, the Teamsters, the Laborers, and the HEREIU. They had the casinos in Las Vegas as well as the ones in Cuba before Castro took over. They still had just as much influence over politicians, judges, cops, etc. They controlled the lion's share of illegal rackets, including narcotics, in numerous cities.
they had all of this (except a few things) in the 1920s as well and they had prohibition which was drowning people in money. not as entrenched? okay, i've asked you before, name me one gangster in the 1950's which has the sway over politics and an american city like al capone. you CANNOT. nobody, except for maybe luciano had the power al capone had.
Once again you show your ignorance on this subject. Capone knocked down the mayor of Cicero - not of Chicago - during an argument and the cops didn't do anything. But if that's all you have to show Capone was more powerful, you don't have anything. Capone's organization wasn't nearly as sophisticated and expansive as it would become under Accardo and other Chicago bosses during the 1950's and 1960's.
yeah, sure. whatever you say idiot. accardo was more powerful than capone. ou, i messed up cicero with chicago. who could possibly make that mistake? :S:S i mean i read about it 3 years ago. please forgive me you dickheaded virgin.
But leave it to you to try and use something like this as an example. Kind of like your claim that just because Rudaj pointed a gun at the Gambinos, he and his group must have been a sixth family capable of taking on the Mafia.
he didn't point a gun at the gambinos. one of his bodyguards at the meeting pointed a gun at the gambino boss' head. another one pointed it at a gas pump. rudaj was just there probably smiling at the italians' stupidity. he probably told arnold he was going to eat him like he told those italians he threw out soccer fever lmaoooo. you and your eye-italians.