Obama's Family Legacy: Slave Owners

[GeauxTo]

New Hollywood and media darling Barrack Obama has some serious ghosts in the closet...

A new twist to an intriguing family history - baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story)

[AUFootball24]

Gueax, how is this relevent to him as a person?

His mother's family owned slaves 200 years ago. So did every other white family in the south.

That doesn't mean he owned slaves, this doesn't matter at all.


Oh yeah, I forgot. He's a democrat. I see what you're getting at.

[timNem]

mine didn't..

Gueax, how is this relevent to him as a person?

His mother's family owned slaves 200 years ago. So did every other white family in the south.

That doesn't mean he owned slaves, this doesn't matter at all.


Oh yeah, I forgot. He's a democrat. I see what you're getting at.

[azamugg]

Gueax, how is this relevent to him as a person?

His mother's family owned slaves 200 years ago. So did every other white family in the south.

That doesn't mean he owned slaves, this doesn't matter at all.


Oh yeah, I forgot. He's a democrat. I see what you're getting at.

come on 24, you're usually fair minded...........to go with your logic how many white people today have owned slaves? or even actually discriminated in the hiring of a minority but yet is condemned daily by minority organizations?

I think both stories, mine and Geaux's are BS, you?

[AUFootball24]

mine didn't..

Whether they did or not, does it reflect on you as a person?

I don't see the connection. Does this make you superior to someone who's family members did own slaves?

[Bulldog Bry]

Geaux, is this a retort to the whole Strom Thurmond/Al Sharpton thing?

Are Thurmond's past issues "serious ghosts" and did they affect his congressional duties? What about all the rumors that he fathered a black child?

[JerryBeeds]

This story has the Clinton's fingerprints all over it.

[Seppeh]

Gueax, how is this relevent to him as a person?

His mother's family owned slaves 200 years ago. So did every other white family in the south.

That doesn't mean he owned slaves, this doesn't matter at all.


Oh yeah, I forgot. He's a democrat. I see what you're getting at.

QFT :thumpsup:

[azamugg]

This story has the Clinton's fingerprints all over it.

BINGO.......beeds is the winner!

[Yazzer]

Hillary the Heifer is really stirring the pot!!!!!!!---She is always on the offensive to prove hers is bigger than any guys! This campaign is going to become filthy low down dirty before it's over. My money is on the fat girl---she has many years of experience in political lying--had a great teacher in Bill

[timNem]

It definately doesn't make me any better but I am proud that none of my ancestors which have been traced back to the early 18th Century didn't own slaves but my point was in reference to your statement that all white families owned slaves which is totally not true.

Whether they did or not, does it reflect on you as a person?

I don't see the connection. Does this make you superior to someone who's family members did own slaves?

[timNem]

This story has the Clinton's fingerprints all over it.I think it was Dick Morris that said that nobody wants to go against the Clintons and the ones that do will get smeared to kingdom come.

[WayzUp]

I'm with Beeds & aza...this whole smear just screams HillaryBill. I can't help wondering though, does this mean Obama may someday have to pay reperations to himself? http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/think/23.gif

[GeauxTo]

Gueax, how is this relevent to him as a person?

Not one iota; however, he's in big-time politics now, and this will be made an issue even though you and I recognize that it has absolutely no relevance.

Beedsie hit it right on the head; Obama finds himself at war with the Clintons and they have perhaps the most ruthless political machine extant. This is only the beginning of ugly for the Illinois mulatto who has entered the ring against the most evil duo in politics.

[gatorunvrsty]

I agree with 24. I don't see how this affects anything, except for the millions of ignorant voters, whose vote counts just as much as the one from educated, informed Americans. If you go far enough back in history, wealthy families from the North and South had slaves. The reason they became more concentrated in the South is because of all the agricultural needs. In fact, if you really go back far enough in history, virtually everybody has an ancestor who owned slaves, serfs, or servants. Slavery didn't begin in the U.S.. The Civil War wasn't even primarily about slavery. It was just a component. The primary debate was whether a centralized government had a right to govern individual states. It was federal rights vs. state rights. Republic vs. democracy. Much like the political opponents today, without all the killing and maiming. And I disagree with the conspiracy theorists that say this guy has any affiliation to the Clintons. I also think it's naive to think the Clintons are any more ruthless than any other politician in this day and age. This is the IT era; and they're all using it to the best of their ability. Nixon, a Republican, proved how far politicians are willing to go to secure their positions. The only difference today, is that the information is readily available to anyone with a computer and a lot of time on their hands. Politicians don't have to actually recruit people to break into the HQ of their opponents to get seedy info.. Republicans have long been the heavyweight champs when it comes to smear tactics. It has cost the Dems. a lot of elections; and they're finally getting with the program. They can't afford to take the high road anymore, at a time when people are more likely to get their "news" off a blog or gossip page, rather than a reputable paper or news service. It's the dumbing down of America. Case in point: Dubya:blink: gets elected President. Need further proof? Dubya gets re-elected President.:wacko: :unsure: :nuts: :scratch_h :huh: :duh:

EDIT: BTW, my own family didn't move to this country until the '20's, except for a great grandmother who was Native American; which was 50 years after slavery. But, in the 17th and 18th centuries (when it's being reported that Obama's ancestors owned slaves), slavery was widely accepted in all of the colonies and territories. If my family had owned servants at a time when nobody thought it was wrong, I could hardly hold it against them. And I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to hold it against me.

[autiger1126]

I don't see it as a big deal. The majority of wealthy white families owned slaves and it was legal for them to have them. Just because they were their slaves also doesn't mean they were treated horribly. I say this is a no-story and that Obama will blow it off like it's nothing, unlike smoking but not inhaling (who cares, you were young and stupid, own up).

[WayzUp]

^Agreed, Obama's best defense at this smear job is to simply ignore it. Very telling though that this is how Obama's oppenents choose to spend their campaign fundage. :rolleyes:

[azamugg]

I'm with Beeds & aza...this whole smear just screams HillaryBill. I can't help wondering though, does this mean Obama may someday have to pay reperations to himself? http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/think/23.gif

as perplexing as damn funny!