At best I can gather, God that sounds lame, but as best as I know it, President Richard Nixon made the decision to coverup the Watergate investigation the day his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman gave him his first intelligence briefing about it. The day after the story broke or something close to that. The decision might have been made by President Nixon to coverup the investigation the day the President found out that people from his reelection campaign were involved in the break in. But the Nixon White House made the decision to coverup the story fairly early on in this story. So Dick Nixon sealed his fate and presidency early on in this story because he’s on tape officially deciding to coverup the story. Without the taping system we wouldn’t have known that.
Assuming that this is true that Richard Nixon was negotiating with North Vietnam, the Communist Republic of Vietnam back then, as a private citizen without the permission of the Lyndon Johnson Administration, then you can add that to the long list of charges and real felonies that any other American would’ve done at least twenty-years on in prison for. Assuming the prosecution decided to prosecute Dick Nixon on all of those charges. And if this is true, then Nixon became a criminal before he became President of the United States.
And this is two or three years before Watergate and a couple of years before the plumbers unit was installed in the Nixon White House. The plumbers and the criminal operations inside of the Nixon White House was the real crimes of the Nixon White House. What Watergate did, well actually what the Nixon coverup of Watergate did, was to blow open all the illegal operations of the Nixon White House. That would’ve gotten President Nixon impeached by the U.S. House in 1974 and most likely convicted by the U.S. Senate in the same year as well.
What the Nixon campaign did in 1968 and then of course the plumbers unit in the White House in the early 1970s, there’s no way they would’ve gotten way with that today. And probably not in the 1990s and perhaps not the 1980s as well. Because they were holding so many secrets and trying to plug so many holes. And those holes would’ve broken in the information revolution of cable news and the internet. And people in the White House quite frankly, trying to save their asses.
What I don’t think that S.E. Cupp gets that is of course President Obama was taking a victory lap last night. Which is his right, because the economy is finally moving and moving well. No longer are we talking about one-percent economic growth and creating somewhere around a hundred-thousand jobs per month, with unemployment still well over seven-percent. We are seeing real job growth around three-hundred-thousand jobs per month and economic growth 3-4% and wages finally growing again. And all of this happened under President Obama’s watch and any Republican president would’ve taken the same credit.
The whole point of the State of The Union, well just look at that phrase State of The Union, the President explains the situation of the country. Where we are doing well and things that we need to work on and things that we could be doing better at. And then giving some ideas about what he would do in those areas and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Which is what President Obama did with his version of Morning in America, which was about a year late for a lot Congressional Democrats who are no longer in Congress. He said he believes he can work with Congressional Republicans. He pointed to trade, tax reform and infrastructure.
The President said we meaning Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Barack Obama himself agree for the need for new infrastructure investment. But disagree on how to pay for it. Both sides want to pay for it, but differ on how to pay for it. Which is true and that is why we haven’t had any infrastructure bills come out of Congress since the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President said they agree on the need for new free trade and that he’s waiting for Congress pass new trade bills. Which is also true that Congressional Democrats, not Republicans especially in the Senate will fight him on.
The President said there’s bipartisan agreement on tax reform. Lower rates and eliminating loopholes, which is also true. The disagreement is where tax reform should be revenue neutral or not. Should rates be lowered to make up for every single tax loophole elimination, which is what revenue neutral is. The President did issue some veto threats and why would that be any surprise to any smart Republican. I mean are they really expecting him to say yes to legislation he disagrees with. The job of the President is not to everything that Congress wants. And for Congress to give the President everything he wants. Whether government is divided or not.
Another part of the State of The Union is to layout what the President wants to do in the coming year and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Especially in areas where they know there’s already agreement on. Infrastructure, trade, tax reform and criminal justice reform are the issues that President Obama has found agreement with Congressional Republicans on. And in the next year or so we’ll see if he has any success with working with them on. Or will this be about 2016 with each party giving the country their agenda. With Americans having the opportunity to give one party a united government.
I’m just going to give you the classical definition of conservative and conservatism and how you believe that relates today, that is up to you. Because I’m not so much into classical or modern when it comes to conservative, but what it actually means to be a Conservative. And I go to Abraham Lincoln and look at least some of our Founding Fathers. Up to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Robert Taft in the 1940s, Dwight Eisenhower at least to a certain extent in the 1950s, Barry Goldwater from the time he entered Congress in the 1950s, until time Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987. And then I would go to Rand Paul today and the conservative libertarian wing of the Tea Party.
If words are going to matter, than so have to definitions, otherwise words are just words, sort of like a politician giving a speech, but not really saying anything. So when I look at the word conservative, I look at the word conserving. I know! Shocking right, the nerve of me, but that is what conservative means, someone who believes in conserving. And the other way to look at conservative, would be someone who believes in moving conservatively. “Not so fast, Joe, lets take another look at this before we decide where to go from here”. John Boehner Speaker of the House, fits that definition like a glove.
So now take conservative up to politics and how does that relate and especially the role of government. Okay, so I’ll give you the political conservative how that plays to role of government.
So a Conservative is not going to want to expand the government. At least not quickly and again they believe in conserving. So a Conservative won’t vote to repeal someone’s individual rights. And that gets to property rights and one’s money like with tax increases. Where a Conservative will tend to be against. But that also gets to things as it relates to personal issues, like the Right to Privacy. A Conservative is not going to support limiting or subtracting those things. Why, because that fails two tests of being a conservative. Subtracting instead of conserving and expanding the role of government.
If you have heard Barry Goldwater’s line about big government, I suggest you do because it a must get as far as what it means to be a Conservative. “I’m a Conservative because I want big government out of my wallet, bedroom, boardroom and classroom”. So a Conservative is not going to support taxes hikes, property rights restrictions and regulations that put government in charge of running private organizations. But a Conservative is not going to support at least ay the federal level laws that tell Americans, consenting adults who they can sleep with, who they can marry, what they can do in the privacy of their own home and how they can spend their own money.
If you call yourself a Conservative, because you are against big government and believe in individual freedom, then you are against big government as it relates to both the economy, but personal lives and personal issues. Otherwise you’re not a Conservative, perhaps You are half of a Conservative, Perhaps you’re half of the loaf. “I believe in individual freedom when it comes to economic policy and big government because it comes to our personal affairs. Because Americans are smart enough to know what to do with their money. But not smart enough to know how to spend it on their own, or manage their own personal affairs”. Now you’re not a Conservative, but a pandering politician and propagandist. There’s what conservatism means to a non-Conservative.
President Nixon killed his presidency, at least his second term the day he decided to tell his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to order the FBI to drop their Watergate investigation. Once Dick Nixon learned that members of his own campaign team and people who also worked for his White House were involved in Watergate, he decided that the way to handle this investigation was to cover up. But covering up Watergate is like trying to stop a river that is flooding, with a mop. You know, good luck and I hope you don’t drown trying to mop your own floor.
Again Watergate by itself, minor league baseball perhaps even rookie ball for players who just graduated high school and looking for a job in the summer. A typical job done by, quite frankly assholes who don’t know what the hell they’re doing. Perhaps are high on Red Bull or something and looking for something to do at around 3AM. But Watergate was a coverup in its own, because it covered up the real scandals in the Nixon White House. The organized crime operation done at the expense of Nixon political opponents.
If Watergate broke and people know the truth behind Watergate, the Nixon presidency goes down as well. That was President Nixon’s calculation. Not something that a politician of Dick Nixon’s talent, skills and intelligence would assume. They would say, “look we’re not involved here, let the Washington PD and FBI needed do their jobs and let’s get back to national affairs”. And that would be the cynical attitude. The good public servant would’ve said, “this is a Washington police story, let them do their jobs and we’ll do ours”.
One of the sad things about Watergate, is that a lot of the men involved were good moral men. Gordon Liddy, a conscience short of being a good person and a case of beer short of being a sane person would be an exception. But most of these men were career lawyers and good family men with wives and kids. And had they never of worked for Dick Nixon, they never end up in a scandal like this. Hell, had Dick Nixon not of become President, he probably ends up running his own New York law firm, or a college professor. A very talented man.
One of the followers of this blog is a big fan of JFK assassination conspiracy theories and is currently reading a book that has its own theory of the JFK assassination. So I think he might like this and is welcome to comment on this post and let us know what he thinks about this. As far as Dimitri Logothetis about Sam Giancana ordering the assassination of President Kennedy, before anyone calls Mr. Logothetis a whack job or anything like that, he’s only putting a theory out there. And admitted in this interview that the only people who know how many people are responsible for the JFK assassination are all dead.
Again these are theories, some of them are nutty and baseless in fact. Like the fact that Far-Right racists and radicals in Dallas murdered Jack Kennedy and did it by themselves. Or that Vice President Lyndon Johnson murdered the hit on Kennedy. Or the CIA and perhaps the FBI as well ordered and perhaps even did the hit themselves. But at least one of them has real hard evidence around it and that is the one I’m going with about the Italian Mafia and that they had a lot to gain with President Kennedy being killed. They had the motive, the opportunity and the people to do it. And the fact thatJack Ruby was connected with them and that Ruby was also connected with the JFK killer Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination, just backs this theory up.
Dimitri Logothetis is not saying that he knows that Sam Giancana and his crew murdered President Kennedy. What he’s saying is that based on all the evidence that he’s seen, that he believes that is the most likely scenario. And who better a patsy than Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby. I mean who would miss those two people. Oswald hated Kennedy and didn’t have anyone around to miss him. Ruby was one of the Mafia’s men and who associated with them, hung out with them and did business with them. And plus he was already dying before being sent to prison for killing Oswald. So these things add up and are worth considering as far as how many people may be responsible for the JFK assassination.
I’m surprised with Ronald Reagan’s great sense of humor and not all of it being political, that after his b-movie acting career dried up like fresh dirt in the desert in the 1950s, that he didn’t go into comedy writing and perhaps take that writing which he did anyway on the stage. And try a career as a comedic actor, or a standup comedian, hosting his own late night talk show, which is what Jack Parr, Jack Benny and later Johnny Carson did. That type of format would’ve been perfect for him. He obviously wasn’t a great actor, but someone with intelligence, who could also act and with a great sense of humor.
To sort of build on Ron Reagan’s daughter Patti and what she said about her father in the video, Reagan had a rough childhood. He didn’t have an absent father, but he probably saw his father drunk as often as he saw him sober and that made things difficult for him and his family. And then you look at his broadcasting, entertainment and then later political career, you would almost have to have a great sense of humor to get through those experiences. Out of work in your early forties or so in the 1950s when practically everyone else was working in the 1950s, must have been rough on Big Ron.
Reagan had the GM Theater show, which was similar to what you see now with Turner Classic Movies. Where there would be a host coming out and giving a little preview of the movie and then they would go to the movie. And then after that is was basically straight into politics. First campaigning for Barry Goldwater when he ran for president in 1964 and starting his own political career in 1965. When I think he probably could’ve been successful pre-politics as a comedy writer, or even political satirist. And writing satires and articles and perhaps even books. Telling people what is funny and what he thinks Americans should be thinking about politically as well. Source:CBS News
I like how Walter Mead put it about liberalism that there have been different stages of liberalism, but I would put it differently. And that the Liberals that Mead was talking before America and the Federal Republic was put together with its federal system and the Liberals are of the eighteenth century were the real Liberals in America. Mead used the term real liberalism, I’ve used that myself as well, but I tend to use the term real liberals instead. I don’t buy the notion that if you call yourself a Liberal, Conservative or whatever, than that is what you are. That if you want to be part of those clubs, there are certain values you have to believe in and practice.
I would’ve love to of seen our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America and what they would’ve thought of today’s so-called ‘modern liberals’. I seriously doubt they would’ve seen people on MSNBC talk, who watch MSNBC talk, who read or write for The Nation and what now has become The New Republic, after apparently it was hijacked from Socialists, I doubt they would’ve viewed these leftists as Liberals. You have writers for The Nation and TruthDig supposed to be Liberals, who identify their own politics as democratic socialist. John Nichols and Chris Hedges, respectfully. Certainly on the Left, but who make Liberals look very conservative in comparison.
I’m a Liberal, a proud Liberal at that and have always identified my own politics as liberal. Tom Jefferson perhaps the Founding Liberal in America and Jack Kennedy are two my political heroes. Jefferson for the idea of the Federal Republic, individual rights and freedom, a real individualist, who also believed in responsibility. Yes he owned slaves, but his vision for what America should be and could be for everyone, even if he didn’t include Africans and women of all races, still stands as this great liberal democracy where is freedom can be achieved for everyone.
Except for slavery and racism Jack Kennedy believed in the same things as Jefferson. A bit more progressive than Jefferson when it came to the idea of a public safety net. But Kennedy believed in individual freedom both personal and economic for everyone. He believed that all Americans should and have equal rights under the law. You can be a Liberal and believe in individual freedom and also believe in the public safety net for people who fall on hard times. A public insurance system for people who are going through rough economic waters. What separates Liberals from Social Democrats lets say, is that Liberals believe in insurance. Social Democrats believe in welfare and government dependence regardless of income level.
Jack Kennedy believed in the public safety net, but again a social insurance system for people in need. That would help them in the short-term be able to survive, but would also empower them to be able to get themselves on their feet and live in freedom, not of government. Thats the main difference between a Liberal and a Socialist. Between a Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton and a Bernie Sanders. Limited government to help and empower people, vs an unlimited government designed to take care of everyone for an indefinite period. The real Liberals believe in opportunity and freedom. Good opportunities to achieve freedom in life. Not the freedom to live off of a welfare state and take no responsibility for one’s own affairs.
I agree with some of what John Marini was talking about as far as the Progressive Era as far as Progressives back then wanting to change the country and put in public social insurance that people could use when they are in need, that we as a society a collective would all contribute to finance those services. But where Marini and I separate is that Progressives back then wanted to change the U.S. Constitution, or even be more radical and do what today’s so-called Progressives, who aren’t real Progressives, but that is a different subject, but today’s so-called Progressives are much more radical. And if anything would throw out the U.S. Constitution and replace it with something a lot less individualist and more collectivist.
The Progressives of the Progressive Era were radical back then and even through the New Deal period and perhaps even as far up to the Great Society era of the 1960s. But today they would be pretty mainstream, especially compared with Occupy Wall Street or the so-called Coffee Party movement from the New Left that came about in the late 1960s and all through the 1970s and we now see their sons and daughters carry this movement through today. People who support Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders and want them both to run for president in 2016. And these people are Social Democrats that don’t like our federal republican form of government with our individualist constitution. And would like to see more a a social democratic collectivist form of government. That perhaps doesn’t even have a Constitution.
What the Progressives of the 1930s and before that, what they were actually were moderates more mainstream leftists. You had Communists and Marxist Socialists who wanted to the U.S. Government to respond to the Great Depression by creating what is known in Europe, especially Scandinavia as a superstate or welfare state that would make the New Deal look like a child in comparison. Because there would be a boatload of new federal social insurance programs that would be designed to provide most if no all the human services that people need to live well. Education, health care, health insurance, banking, housing, childcare, pensions, unemployment insurance, energy and perhaps even more. To go along with nationalizing major sectors of the American economy.
What the New Deal Progressives wanted to do was to create a public social insurance system that people could take advantage of when they needed it. Unemployment insurance for people who are out of work. Welfare insurance for people without the skills they need to get a good job and who also have dependents. Food assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed themselves adequately and feed their kids. Public housing for people who do not make enough money to even afford an apartment. These are social insurance programs which is much different from a welfare state that is designed to take care of people and are universal so that people regardless of income level would be eligible, if not required to take them.
Now in the last years of Franklin Roosevelt’s life he even moved further left as President and proposed something called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which would’ve been the next phase of the New Deal and perhaps gone as far as creating that superstate that Socialists in the 1930s wanted. But that is not what he was talking about in the 1930s and what Teddy Roosevelt Progressives were talking about at the turn of the 20th Century. Progressives tend to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and even things like individual freedom, just as long as it is not used to hurt and prey on innocent people. Its today’s so-called Progressives, Social Democrats welfare statists in actuality, who tend not to be fans of the U.S. Constitution and American individualism.
The whole time that Charles Kesler and William Vogeili were talking about what they would call liberal compassion and that anyone who disagrees with them must be either immoral, ignorant, or hates poor people or something, gave me the idea that they didn’t know who they were talking about. This is why we should never link the Left or the Right under one ideology. That if you are on the Left, you must be a Liberal no matter how far to the left that you are. And if you are on the Right, you must be a Conservative no matter how far to the Right you are.
I wish the Left was just made up of Liberals, well not really, because then it would get kind of boring over on the Left always talking to people on the Left who always agree with me. And we would stop thinking as a result because we always believe we have all the answers and stop coming up with new ideas, because we always agree with each other. You should think of the Left the way you think of the Democratic Party. As a broad coalition of different political and ideological factions. Liberals such as myself and many others who are Center-Left New Democrats. Progressives who are a little further left, people like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. And then you move Far-Left and you’ll find Bernie Sanders Social Democrats and Socialists.
The people who Kesler and Vogeili were talking about are the people who would make of up Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party. Social Democrats who believe government always has the answers to the nation’s problems. “Especially the Federal Government and that nothing else is needed to fix the problems of the country. That is government is not completely running something and that there might be a public/private partnership, or taxpayer subsidization of private sector programs to address certain needs of the country, than those programs don’t go far enough and aren’t substantial”. People who think like this I call Social Democrats or welfare statists, but certainly not Liberals.
I notice you don’t see many books critiquing the Center-Left in America, again Liberals and not people who believe in unlimited government at least as it relates to the economy. Why, because Americans tend to either be center-left or center-right or in some cases dead-center. And like the idea of public assistance, especially education and job training for our low-skilled adults who are currently trapped in poverty, to help people in need get themselves on their feet and live in freedom like the rest of the country. They like public education and infrastructure investment. Americans like smart regulations to protect individuals and consumers from predators that would prey on them. They like both economic freedom and personal freedom. And these are all liberal values that most Americans support.
The people who Kesler and Vogeili were talking about are leftist radicals on the Far-Left in America that came about in the 1960s and 70s. Because they didn’t believe Liberals and Progressives went far enough with the New Deal and Great Society. “And that we needed a superstate that is common in Scandinavia to manage people’s affairs for them so they would make fewer poor decisions with their money and lives that society as a whole would have to pay for”, in their view. And these are the people who watch MSNBC talk, read The Nation, AlterNet and unfortunately now The New Republic since it is no longer a great center-left liberal magazine. Who are part of Occupy Wall Street and want Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders to run for president in 2016.
I’m already there as far as believing that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy. I don’t know that is the case, but I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that is the case. But as far as who actually shot President Kennedy, we already know that and that person is Lee Oswald. And for anyone who believes the shooter wasn’t Oswald, or there was another shooter, they have an obligation it seems to me if they are going to make those views public to produce evidence that suggest they are right.
We’ve heard conspiracy theories suggesting Lee Oswald was not only the shooter, but someone from the CIA or organized crime shot the President. But have yet to hear who those people might have been. We’ve ever heard theories that Vice President Lyndon Johnson was behind the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. But haven’t seen or heard any evidence to back that up. The reason why I believe the theory suggesting that Oswald wasn’t the only person in this plot goes to Jack Ruby and who he was connected to and the fact that Ruby shot and killed Oswald. And that organized crime also wanted President Kennedy dead. Source:Bibleo Traditions
The only tragedy I believe of Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald, is that if destroyed a possible great opportunity to figure out how many people were involved to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Was it just Lee Oswald that was part of this murderous plot, or did he have help from Dallas organized crime factions and perhaps the Italian Mafia in America. That is the real crime that Jack Ruby is guilty of, at least as I see it. I don’t see Oswald being killed as a tragedy in any other sense. I don’t enjoy seeing people being killed. But was Oswald was garbage and he assassinated a U.S. President.
I don’t think it is a stretch to say that since Lee Oswald was killed by someone with organize crime factions and if anything a mobster himself who works with Italian and Jewish mobsters, that he was also put up by the Mafia to assassinate the President. And that since he was caught in the crime, that now he’s a threat to bring down the people who put him up to the assassination. Because he has his own life to save and doesn’t want to take the fall for this murderous plot all by himself.
The problem that I have is that I just have a theory, an educated theory, but still a theory. And one person that could’ve shed light on this was killed himself, before he had much of an opportunity to share with the rest of us, was he meaning Oswald alone in this. Or did other people put him up to it and paid him to do the operation and financed the assassination themselves.
I’ve seen this movie a couple of times in the last week. And there really isn’t a slow or dull moment in it. Sure some of the writing is kind of cheesy, at least by today’s standards, but is a very exciting, entertaining and at times a very funny movie. Sort of like a funny soap opera where a very successful movie financier played by Dan O’Herlihy who is a widower with a young adult daughter, is about to get remarried and to a very successful gorgeous veteran actress Adriana Roman played by Lana Turner.
The Dan O’Herlihy character’s daughter Lisa, played by Karin Mossberg, doesn’t like her future stepmother, but grows to like her. And without her new boyfriend John Allen played by George Chakris, the two women probably would’ve gotten along very well. But John wants Lisa’s father’s money and sees Lisa as his ticket to get the money. And he has other ideas and uses Lisa throughout the movie to get what he wants, which is Lisa’s trust fund and whatever he believes Lisa is entitled to financially.
What makes this movie even more interesting, is that Dan O’Herlihy, well actually his character dies in the movie. In a boating accident with his new wife when they are caught in a big storm in the water. He drowns trying to save his wife who gets knocked off the boat. She somehow makes it to shore and suffers a serious concussion from the accident that is effecting her memory and other things. Lisa’s boyfriend John sees this as an opportunity to get what he wants. And the fact that he’s a former medical student, gets him what he needs to carry out his plan.
This is where LSD comes in and John convinces Lisa that her new stepmother, will never allow for them to be happy and get married. One of the conditions of Lisa’s trust fund an inheritance is that she can’t marry John or anyone that Adriana disapproves of. So John hatches a plan to drive Adriana legally insane with LSD and with Lisa and John coming into her bedroom late at night and forcing her into nightmares with different special effects. They almost succeed, but Lisa breaks it off when Adriana is almost killed during one of the stunts.
This is a ninety-eight minute movie without any slow periods and pretty exciting almost the entire movie. Richard Egan has a big role in this movie as perhaps a screenwriter, director, informal agent and adviser of Adriana’s and perhaps her only real friend in the movie. And he helps bring her out of what she is suffering. Someone with memory loss and trying to hide the nightmare of the boating accident that killed her husband. As well as helping her come back from what Lisa and her boyfriend put her through in the movie.
The Jack Ruby case had to been fascinating and one of those cases that I bet just about any hard-working good defense lawyer would want to take. Because it was not clear if Ruby was guilty of actual murder, at least not first degree murder and for at least a couple of reasons. One, Ruby didn’t kill and innocent person. He killed Lee Harvey Oswald, but he killed the man who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. It is clear now and perhaps even when Ruby Killed Oswald, that Oswald at the very least had something to do with the JFK assassination. Not saying Ruby is innocent here, just saying it is not first degree murder. And I believe you could’ve easily of gotten it down to second degree murder, twenty-five to life. Or first degree manslaughter is twenty-years, twenty to life. And you could’ve made a pretty good case for temporary insanity on Jack Ruby’s part.
Tony Spilotro was one of the worst pieces of garbage and I’m being nice here, that was ever produced by the Italian Mafia. I’m not even sure he cared about his own family, wife and kids and people who are supposed to be close to you. If the man had any conscience, it was as tiny as a flea and you needed a telescope or something, perhaps super vision in order to see it. He wasn’t one of the worst killers in American history. He was one of the most successful as far as the amount of murders that he’s responsible for. Either doing them personally, or ordering people to be murdered.
Spilotro leaving Las Vegas for Chicago, was a Chicago blessing and Las Vegas hell. Because The Ant who was a giant among serial murderers for the amount of people he murdered, but he was never caught for any of them and never did anytime for them. To the point that Las Vegas Mafia saw The Ant as a threat and did everyone involved a favor by whacking him in 1986. Not the most successful and dangerous mobster of all-time. But that might only be because The Ant was killed in 1986.
Roy DeMeo in New York might of actually been worst than Spilotro. But that would be like comparing Ted Bundy with John Gacy when it came to serial murderers. You can’t really lose there, but Spilotro dying actually benefited everyone involved. And serial murderers like Tony Spilotro are why America has a death penalty. Whether you are in favor of the death penalty or not, it is for people who murder. Murder multiple people and have no feelings or remorse about their murders.
