Posted: 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.
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
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 wrote:are you kidding?! i am literally rofl! how could anyone take this seriously.Parson wrote:i want a serious response to this.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.
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?
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.
What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....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.
ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!Dubsworth wrote:What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....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.
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:pompende wrote:ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!Dubsworth wrote:What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....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.
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.
Does that stigma get automatically attached in the US?When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...
I thought you could use anti-zionist as an ok term.pk- wrote:Does that stigma get automatically attached in the US?When do we get to disagree with foreign policy concerning Israel and not be considered Anti-Semitic? We being universal "we" for the US...
Got nothing against the Jews as a people but the state of Israel is a fucking travesty

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.bellybelle wrote: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:pompende wrote:ha haha, yeah i guess i should have been more specific!Dubsworth wrote:What about AIPAC homie, a huge pusher for the Iran war, to name just one....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.
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.
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.
nah i actually think that that ( as a brit ) we shud have gone into zimbabwe way before thinking about iraq - but no oil(suprise)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.
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.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.