Why I'm afraid of Obama.....

drksteppa · Post by **drksteppa** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:35 am

I dont trust anyone, period. i only trust some in my family. NOT ALL deserve to be trusted.

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:35 am

pompende wrote:
Parson wrote:
Parson wrote:President Bush's Famous Family Tree
NEW YORK (CBS News) ¯ It was revealed recently that Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama are distant cousins.

This week, thanks to a New York Post story about genealogy, we're getting a glimpse at the rather surprising family tree of President Bush himself, reports CBS News Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith.

We all know who the president's father is, but what about his cousins?

Thanks to research done by Ancestry.com, we know that Cheney, the man who's only a heartbeat away from the presidency, is actually a blood relation to the president. He's Bush's Mr. ninth cousin once removed.

Cheney's cousin, Obama, is also Mr. Bush's 11th cousin, and the ninth cousin of actor Brad Pitt.

But we're only getting started: Abraham Lincoln was Mr. Bush's seventh cousin, five times removed.

And Mr. Bush shared more than just a ballot with John Kerry in 2004 -- that's right, they're ninth cousins, twice removed.

There's also royalty in the Bush bloodline. Princess Diana was Mr. Bush's 11th cousin, twice removed.

And then there's this bombshell: Marilyn Monroe, known for wishing John F. Kennedy a happy birthday, is Mr. Bush's ninth cousin, three times removed.

He's also related to Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, Native American princess Pocahontas, and Vlad the Impaler.

Trace the family tree far enough, and you get Madonna, Celine Dion and Tom Hanks -- which shows that genealogy can sometimes be like a box of chocolates: You never know who you're gonna get.
i want a serious response to this.
are you kidding?! i am literally rofl! how could anyone take this seriously.
first off you dont have to be related to anyone in particular to bought off and secondly, you would have to be retarded to give a fuck to care about this shit.

btw, do you know who YOU are related to via your great grand-mother's great grand-father's great-great-great-grandmother?

Let's keep it together and not personal please. There are connections of wealthy families who have attempted to keep power within a small group of wealthy families. That is not even denied pompende. Sorry but name calling is nothing but fallacy when it comes to discussions like this.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:36 am

Parson wrote:the only thing i know about north carolina is that they twirl their t-shirts around over their heads (like a helicopter). beyond that, my best guess is they're all like pompende.

exactly like me! for instance, dubstep is massive here! oh and everyone is liberal too, that whole jesse helms thing was a big inside joke... the kkk shooting too. big joke.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:53 am

anyway, i'm off this one, parson, i've let you troll me too much already. I should have just not given you that compliment and let it be. i have read like 3000 of your posts at least so i do know what you are about.

to briefly summarize my original post:

i dont think obama woud live up to any of his promises but i think it is good that any serious presidential candidate is at least saying he will put an end to special interests in the white house.

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:53 am

there is no reason for this to develop into something petty.

There are good discussions happening here. Let's keep this from getting too personal.

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:02 am

pompende wrote:
to briefly summarize my original post:

i dont think obama woud live up to any of his promises but i think it is good that any serious presidential candidate is at least saying he will put an end to special interests in the white house.

What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:09 am

Dubsworth wrote:
pompende wrote:
to briefly summarize my original post:

i dont think obama woud live up to any of his promises but i think it is good that any serious presidential candidate is at least saying he will put an end to special interests in the white house.
What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....

ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!

but yeah that is a great example of how obama is already having to talk in two directions at once: saying he will withdraw troops from the middle east but still having to fulfill our nations "obligation" to israel.

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:42 pm

pompende wrote:
Dubsworth wrote:
pompende wrote:
to briefly summarize my original post:

i dont think obama woud live up to any of his promises but i think it is good that any serious presidential candidate is at least saying he will put an end to special interests in the white house.
What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....
ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!

but yeah that is a great example of how obama is already having to talk in two directions at once: saying he will withdraw troops from the middle east but still having to fulfill our nations "obligation" to israel.

Here is a question I would like to pose in some relation to this and though the topic is controversial, I am really not trying to incite a negative reaction and if anyone is offended by my question, I apologize:

When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...

Case in point: Not every person who is against EOE is racist or coming with an overtly racist agenda.

I mean, surely we have enough sense to be able to separate the two, though it doesn't seem so...I would hate to think that we are bound by the obligation of social rectification without giving heed to the contemporary state of affairs and Israel's resultant conduct..

as an aside, I love political debates. <3 That is all.

badger · Post by **badger** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:56 pm

i'm scared of him because i heard he's got a killer monkey in his closet

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:11 pm

When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...

Does that stigma get automatically attached in the US?

Got nothing against the Jews as a people but the state of Israel is a fucking travesty

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:14 pm

pk- wrote:
When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...
Does that stigma get automatically attached in the US?

Got nothing against the Jews as a people but the state of Israel is a fucking travesty

I thought you could use anti-zionist as an ok term.

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:16 pm

Yeah, there's a very clear difference between anti-Zionist and antisemitic.

as these chaps will tell you. interestingly enough, a couple of guys i work with (one from algeria, one from pakistan) had no idea that there was such a thing as an anti-zionist jew til they moved to this country. they're all tarred with the same brush apparently.

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:18 pm

by the way, nice self-moderation a couple of pages back ninjas

another excellent discussion without anyone's nose being put out of joint

samsupa · Post by **samsupa** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:08 pm

Yea I really think Obama is a breath of fresh air. He still has diplomacy as a tool to use in his shed of hope!!

jah wobble · Post by **jah wobble** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:48 pm

i ain't afraid of no obama.

cursedc · Post by **cursedc** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:20 pm

bellybelle wrote:
pompende wrote:
Dubsworth wrote:
pompende wrote:
to briefly summarize my original post:

i dont think obama woud live up to any of his promises but i think it is good that any serious presidential candidate is at least saying he will put an end to special interests in the white house.
What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....
ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!

but yeah that is a great example of how obama is already having to talk in two directions at once: saying he will withdraw troops from the middle east but still having to fulfill our nations "obligation" to israel.
Here is a question I would like to pose in some relation to this and though the topic is controversial, I am really not trying to incite a negative reaction and if anyone is offended by my question, I apologize:

When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...

Case in point: Not every person who is against EOE is racist or coming with an overtly racist agenda.

I mean, surely we have enough sense to be able to separate the two, though it doesn't seem so...I would hate to think that we are bound by the obligation of social rectification without giving heed to the contemporary state of affairs and Israel's resultant conduct..

as an aside, I love political debates. <3 That is all.

We are tied to them forever since we do have a lot of powerful members of the Jewish/Zionist community in sectors of government, business and of course religion. They want to keep a Zionist state at all costs, the U.S supplies Israel with the weapons it needs because the Zionists are surrounded by countries that do not like them. An old hatred stemming back thousands of year ago between Israel and the Arab Nations leave them with basically nothing for allies in the region. Without the Western Nations (UK, US, etc) the Israeli state would be nothing. Good for the Palestinians, not so good for the Zionists.

We could just hand over Israel to the Arab nations and let the Palestinians run the show, but that would just lead to another country that doesn't like westerner for involving themselves in their domestic issues. Its a lose, lose situation.

The Western Governments would care if the middle east didn't have the holy lands and oil. Look at Africa, the western government could care less if everyone on that continent was killing each other(which the warlords are doing at this very moment). If Africa had LARGE amounts of oil, it would be a totally different story and their would be Iraq situations happening all the time there.

fuagofire · Post by **fuagofire** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:48 am

CursedC wrote:
bellybelle wrote:
pompende wrote:
Dubsworth wrote:
pompende wrote:
Look at Africa, the western government could care less if everyone on that continent was killing each other(which the warlords are doing at this very moment). If Africa had LARGE amounts of oil, it would be a totally different story and their would be Iraq situations happening all the time there.

nah i actually think that that ( as a brit ) we shud have gone into zimbabwe way before thinking about iraq - but no oil(suprise)
i dont think you would have the same objections(terrorists) if that had been done.

the uk gov dfo has more responsibility in that area (historically) and i think it wouldn't have been nearly as complicated as its not a religios issue.

bellybelle · Post by **bellybelle** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:06 am

fuagofire wrote:
CursedC wrote:
bellybelle wrote:
pompende wrote:
Dubsworth wrote: nah i actually think that that ( as a brit ) we shud have gone into zimbabwe way before thinking about iraq - but no oil(suprise)
i dont think you would have the same objections(terrorists) if that had been done.

the uk gov dfo has more responsibility in that area (historically) and i think it wouldn't have been nearly as complicated as its not a religios issue.

These cats need to get with the program...

showguns · Post by **showguns** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:17 am

fuagofire wrote:
CursedC wrote:
bellybelle wrote:
pompende wrote:
Dubsworth wrote: nah i actually think that that ( as a brit ) we shud have gone into zimbabwe way before thinking about iraq - but no oil(suprise)
i dont think you would have the same objections(terrorists) if that had been done.

the uk gov dfo has more responsibility in that area (historically) and i think it wouldn't have been nearly as complicated as its not a religios issue.

the british government has a historic responsibility in every corner of the globe if you want to put it like that. it's division of countries in the middle east is still pretty relevant today.

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:32 am

Wow, had to pull this one back out because I wrote it when the election was on. Looks like so far, Obama has lined right up with my suspicions. TONS MORE WAR, STILL LOSING ALL OUR RIGHTS, ECONOMY CONTINUES TO DRAIN, IRAN WAR PROVOKING IS ON! yikes.

Peace and love though, keep spreading good information. This thread provoked some good responses initially and I was pumped on how open minded most people were at a time. At election here in SF back then, it felt like blasphemy to question Obama.

Why I'm afraid of Obama.....

Re: Why I'm afraid of Obama.....

Who is online