georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 10:04 am
teenyboone wrote:
Here's one link to the theory that aids was created in a laboratory:

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/AIDS_Contract.html

and this one, for starters!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories

There are others, but this is but 2 of many. I don't make this stuff up!
I investigated this years ago, after hearing a lecture during a Black History Month lecture, given by Dick Gregory, in the late 80's. I had never heard of this theory, until HE mentioned it in his talk on how Blacks should empower and safeguard themselves against government intrusion.
It had long been thought that Blacks were being used for illegal experiments, for different diseases, but when the cover was blown off the Iexperiment at Tuskegee Institute, in the labs at Aberdeen, Md., where most clandestine experiments are funded by the US government, on germ warfare and other ways, like the gas, Sarrin, (don't know if this is the correct spelling), was used in the subways of NY, unbeknownst to the users of the subway system. Now, I can only write on what I've heard and investigated through this internet.

I don't work for, are is interested in, clandestine operations of the US government, but much has been chronicled over the decades on similar operations. The stories haven't varied much over the decades, but new information on whether it was a lone Frenchmen, who had sex in Africa, heaven forbid, somehow got transferred to african monkeys, go figure, and wound up in the US! Sounded farfetched to me, like a crazed person wrote this crap. With me, anything's possible, as far as I know.

If a man can go to the moon, the sky's the limit, so I don't discount anything. A lot of undercover experimentations are done with our tax dollars and we are lulled into a sense of security by catch phrases! I an still a sucker for American jingoisms, because I want to believe that this is basically a good country, with good people in it; that everyone, given a decent chance, can make it here! That we are inherently free, whatever free, is. I was taught to love and honor this country! A country that has treated my people to a history of enslavement! Freedom for everyone, but US! So, if I hear theories of this type, why should I sit on my hands?

Okay, here's 2 links. Don't know if they are true or fiction. Believe what you want, all you "doubting Thomases", out there!


I note your links (actually read most of the ramblings in the first one), with their now rather thoroughly discredited suggestions that the HIV virus was created by the U.S. and, probably deliberately, released to wipe out Africans, homosexuals and drug users, and your ultimate protestations that, as a "sucker for American jingoisms", you "still want to believe this is basically a good country".

Mostly I am curious to know why you posted it, and, in particular why you posted it here on a thread related to Barak Obama's candidacy for president. This canard is, of course one of several that the Rev. Wright asserted or merely suggested (depending on which of his repeated statements you use) perhaps in support of his Black interpretation of Christianity. It is also something that Barak Obama specifically rejected. Its repetition was apparently one of the reasons Obama later disassociated himself from Rev Wright, saying that he (Wright) was no longer acting as the the person he had previously known.

I can partly understand and perhaps even sympathize with your doubts and fears on a subject like this, but can't figure out what might be your purpose in posting it. Are you suggesting that Obama was wrong (or even being deceptive) in his rejection of this slander and others Wright has made? Alternatively, are you suggesting that Wright may be right ( :wink: ) and Obama wrong? In either case this would not appear to influence a reader to further support Obama.

Parenthetically, your second link pointed to a much more clearly verifiable government misdeed that really did lead to the needless death and infection of hundreds of thousands of African people - that is the denial, indifference and inaction (including even rejection of generally accepted and proven low cost public health measures) of the ANC Government of South Africa in dealing with the early HIV epidemic there. Neighboring and distant African countries like Botswana and Uganda sharply reduced their infection rates using the recommended measures, while the South African government did nothing, and even belittled the motives of the international; groups recommending them and the effectiveness of the measures themselves. The result of course is one of the worlds highest HIV infection rates and the continuing early deaths of a fairly substantial fraction of the population.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 10:17 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No; it's done. It's over. If for no other reason then the media decided last night that it was over.

My god

I can't wait for the general. I can't f*cking wait. If the Republicans think that they can win off of character assassination, they're idiots.

Stephanapolous reported today that s-d's are going to be coming out in batches for Obama to seal the deal.

Cycloptichorn





Lack of expierence should be McCains approach as the way to beat Obama. I think he will let the media and other loudmouths talk about "character assassination".


People don't vote for experienced leaders for President with any regularity.

In 1992 a less experienced Clinton beat Bush.

In '96 an arguably more experienced Dole lost.

In '00 a less experienced Bush beat Gore.

In '08 the less experienced candidate will win also. There is a massive level of unhappiness with the current administration, and the Republican candidate is promising to continue each and every program of that administration. This is not going to go well for them.

Cycloptichorn


Not only that but someone would have to be there for McCain to help him remember who is who and where he is at from time to time.


Quote:
For a moment Tuesday, McCain appeared confused about where he was, saying, "I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virginia," then correcting himself to say Wake Forest as the audience laughed.


source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 10:20 am
Quote:
Its repetition was apparently one of the reasons Obama later disassociated himself from Rev Wright, saying that he (Wright) was no longer acting as the the person he had previously known.


Actually this statement is a false statement of the reason (or one of) why Obama distanced himself from Wright. It was Wright's suggestion that Obama was merely being political when he said he disagreed with some Wrights views which led to the break.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 10:28 am
That and that Wright took the opportunity to defend and amplify his own most controversial statements. He chose to do so knowing full well that it would damage Obama further at a time when he (Obama) was just finally emerging from the whole flap. Such an act was purposeful aggression, and needed a strong response.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 11:06 am
sozobe wrote:
Such an act was purposeful aggression, and needed a strong response.

I agree it needed a strong response, but I disagree it was a purposeful aggression. Wright had been attacked all over the nation's TV channels for his controversial remarks. Why shouldn't he get, and take, the chance to explain and defend his remarks all over the national TV channels? That's not aggression, it's fairness to Wright. Yes, it hurt Obama, but the world isn't all about Obama, you know.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 11:08 am
Thomas wrote:
Yes, it hurt Obama, but the world isn't all about Obama, you know.


Dangerous words here.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 11:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No; it's done. It's over. If for no other reason then the media decided last night that it was over.

My god

I can't wait for the general. I can't f*cking wait. If the Republicans think that they can win off of character assassination, they're idiots.

Stephanapolous reported today that s-d's are going to be coming out in batches for Obama to seal the deal.

Cycloptichorn


Lack of expierence should be McCains approach as the way to beat Obama. I think he will let the media and other loudmouths talk about "character assassination".


People don't vote for experienced leaders for President with any regularity.

In 1992 a less experienced Clinton beat Bush.

In '96 an arguably more experienced Dole lost.

In '00 a less experienced Bush beat Gore.

In '08 the less experienced candidate will win also. There is a massive level of unhappiness with the current administration, and the Republican candidate is promising to continue each and every program of that administration. This is not going to go well for them.

Cycloptichorn


Well considering the track records of all the inexperienced people we hired, maybe it is time to get someone who is experienced.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 11:23 am
sozobe wrote:

Oh that reminds me -- one thing I did see last night before having to turn off the TV is Donna Brazile all but outing herself as an Obama supporter. A republican dude, Alex something, had said something odious about Wright (I forget what, but I said "oh come ON" before I saw that Donna had jumped on him too; "Now that's just small, Alex." She was pretty peeved and continued that exchange for a while and then the moderator at the time tried to pin her down -- so, sure sounds like you're an Obama supporter...? And Donna was pretty wink-wink nudge-nudgey about it, though she didn't say anything definitive.

(Donna Brazile is an undeclared superdelegate -- though she's said a few times that she's not unDECIDED, just undeclared -- who is also on the DNC committee in question.)


Yep, Joan Walsh talks about it here.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 12:02 pm
Of course Wright had the right to defend himself -- the Moyers interview was a good example of both defending himself and stopping short of actively hurting Obama.

The NAACP comments were just self-caricature.

It's not all about Obama of course, no -- but I think it was appropriate for Obama to respond strongly to that.

The context was, why did Obama distance himself further from Wright last Tuesday as opposed to earlier? The answer is, because of what Wright did last Monday.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 12:08 pm
Oh, thanks FreeDuck!!

I never seem to find transcripts of TV exchanges I find interesting. That's it exactly, thanks. (Though I evidently missed the whole first part of it -- came in shortly before the Castellanos comment.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 12:24 pm
sozobe wrote:
The context was, why did Obama distance himself further from Wright last Tuesday as opposed to earlier? The answer is, because of what Wright did last Monday.

Yes. That was the part of your comment I agreed with. Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 12:26 pm
OK... ;-)

Wright's a smart guy. He knew what effect his words and actions at the NAACP event would have and went ahead anyway. While he has a right to defend himself, I think he went overboard there, and I think going overboard + knowing the likely effect = purposeful aggression, at some level anyway.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 12:33 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
High Seas wrote:
The boy Jonathan and his whole kin should be grateful for that fate - if he had been, say, Iranian, he would have fried; no question about it. Yet Iran never spied on the US, bombarded a US ship, or spent the last 60 years on the beg-borrow-blackmail-steal program. And in the immortal words of Sherlock Holmes: "There is nothing lower than a blackmailer."

Some "elements" (as you put it) in the US are getting so fed up with this monstrous, costly, and cumulative catastrophe in the near East, that Obama, whatever his faults, sounds a lot better than his Republican opponent because he grasps that one single element of foreign policy (and domestic counterintelligence).

That was the point. Sorry I wasn't clearer before.

I believe that the Administration has gone too far in publicly criticizing the government of Iran and in calling for sanctions over their nuclear weapons program, while, at the same time, refusing to speak officially with them -- a self-defeating combination. Their critics here have a real point in noting the contradiction inherent in these two positions and its bad effects. I can also think of many good reasons for avoiding unnecessary public associations with the present government of Iran, whose president has such an evident appetite for theatrics and thumbing his nose at us. It is a complex situation that requires a more complex and subtile policy than what we have done so far.

In contrast, the Administration has very effectively managed a complex dialogue with China, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea; occasionally involving a one-on-one dialogue with Pyonyang, when that was crucial, but otherwise sticking to the five-party talks which have been the key to our strategy. It is unfortunate that this level of skill and subtilty has not also been applied to Iran. (It is possible that the political "third rail" of the Israeli lobby may be involved here. Certainly there is plenty of evidence th believe they have an excessive influence on the Bush Administration.)


Thank you for this reply - this thread goes past so quickly it took me a while to find it!

Obama seems certain to be the nominee, as per calculations of The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11323318

Quote:
Mr Obama endured one of the worst weeks of his campaign, as his raving, anti-American former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, appeared before the press repeatedly and reiterated a number of his loonier comments (that the American government might have, for example, invented AIDS). Mr Obama finally denounced Mr Wright and, unlike in his broader speech about race a month previously, sharply distanced himself from the man. The story continued to dog him. That Mr Obama triumphed during such a personal nadir may convince many superdelegates that he is tougher than he appears. Mrs Clinton appears to be out of arguments about who can withstand Republican attacks come November.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 02:12 pm
sozobe wrote:
OK... ;-)

Wright's a smart guy. He knew what effect his words and actions at the NAACP event would have and went ahead anyway. While he has a right to defend himself, I think he went overboard there, and I think going overboard + knowing the likely effect = purposeful aggression, at some level anyway.


I agree that Wright had every right to defend himself, but went overboard as Soz suggests in the sense that he (deliberately or inadvertantly - I don't know which) did nothing to provide Obama any space in which to separate himself over the key issues Wright was defending. This is important because the "Liberation Theology" or "Black Christianity" or whatever you want to call it, theory is itself directly contrary to the character and theory of Obama's politics - at least as he has so carefully portrayed himself. I suspect that is what prompted Obama to so firmly dissassociate himself from Wright.

Obama is either the transcendent figure with respect to the racial issue as he portrays himself to be, or he advocates the permanance of the different world views and values of Blacks and the permanent need for special treatment for them as so earnestly advocated by earlier Black politicians such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. (I'm not necessarily trying to make a political point here - only to clarify the the concrete differences implied in Obama's chosen strategy: it is a good one in my view). If Obama can be portrayed as merely a new generation, upgraded and more sophisticated Jesse Jackson, he will lose the November election. I believe he knows that well and acted accordingly.

It is very likely the Republicans will attack Obama on that issue, and, equally significantly, likely that the increasingly overwhelming support (as the various state primaries went on) of Obama by Black voters (and pointedly reported in the media) may engender a reaction among undecided or uncommitted White voters. This could help ignite the racial aspect of the contest even independently of the above question. This was the question to which I was referring in what I termed the "unfortunate" (for us all) "racialization" of the campaign. Perhaps a matter hard for some to understand and deal with, but almost certainly an important factor in the campaign, and one I find very difficult to forecast.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 02:15 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
sozobe wrote:
OK... ;-)

Wright's a smart guy. He knew what effect his words and actions at the NAACP event would have and went ahead anyway. While he has a right to defend himself, I think he went overboard there, and I think going overboard + knowing the likely effect = purposeful aggression, at some level anyway.


I agree that Wright had every right to defend himself, but went overboard in the sense that he (deliberately or inadvertantly - I don't know which) did nothing to provide Obama any space in which to separate himself over the key issues Wright was defending. This is important because the "Liberation Theology" or "Black Christianity" or whatever you want to call it is itself directly contrary to the character of Obama's politics - at least as he has so carefully portrayed himself. I suspect that is what prompted Obama to so firmly dissassociate himself from Wright.

Obama is either the transcendent figure with respect to the racial issue as he portrays himself to be, or he advocates the permanance of the different world views and values of Blacks and the permanent need for special treatment for them as so earnestly advocated by earlier Black politicians such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. (I'm not necessarily trying to make a political point here - only to clarify the the concrete differences implied in Obama's chosen strategy: it is a good one in my view). If Obama can be portrayed as merely a new generation, upgraded and more sophisticated Jesse Jackson, he will lose the November election. I believe he knows that well and acted accordingly.

It is very likely the Republicans will attack Obama on that issue, and, equally significantly, likely that the increasingly overwhelming support (as the various state primaries went on) of Obama by Black voters (and pointedly reported in the media) may engender a reaction among undecided or uncommitted White voters. This could help ignite the racial aspect of the contest even independently of the above question. This was the question to which I was referring in what I termed the "unfortunate" (for us all) "racialization" of the campaign. Perhaps a matter hard for some to understand and deal with, but almost certainly an important factor in the campaign, and one I find very difficult to forecast.


Sort of a 'all the black voters are going straight for him - they must know something we don't about his true motive?'

I think that there will be people looking for a reason not to vote for a black guy for President, even though they wouldn't admit it out loud - or, more importantly, to themselves.

McCain has made noises about running a more reserved campaign in these terms. Let's see what he does.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 02:19 pm
That stuff cuts both ways, Cyclo. I'm not an advocate of conspiracy theories (and am inclined to take Obama at his word), but do have a pretty good sense how human beings (of all skin textures) tend to behave on such matters.

Even in a "reserved campaign" it is entirely in keeping with normal practice (in both parties) to seriously question their opponents' goals and values with respect to the political applications of the ideas that Rev Wright espouses, and which because of Obama's long association with him, and likely elements of the Democrat party Platform, are already on the table. "Reserved" doesn't mean silence on the issues.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 02:57 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
That stuff cuts both ways, Cyclo. I'm not an advocate of conspiracy theories (and am inclined to take Obama at his word), but do have a pretty good sense how human beings (of all skin textures) tend to behave on such matters.

Even in a "reserved campaign" it is entirely in keeping with normal practice (in both parties) to seriously question their opponents' goals and values with respect to the political applications of the ideas that Rev Wright espouses, and which because of Obama's long association with him, and likely elements of the Democrat party Platform, are already on the table. "Reserved" doesn't mean silence on the issues.


It all depends on how much emphasis is placed on Wright, and/or, Black vs. White issues. McCain is in dangerous territory. He cannot afford to come off as heightening racial divisiveness; that would sink him further then he already is going to be beaten.

He must figure out a way to hit Obama on Wright, without seeming to. To question his motives and values, without implying that he is questioning Black motives and values. It's a fine line he'll have to walk. And he's too damn old to walk it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 03:02 pm
McGaffe can't say a damn thing about Wright after trying to get the NC GOP Wright commercials squashed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 03:04 pm
Brand X wrote:
McGaffe can't say a damn thing about Wright after trying to get the NC GOP Wright commercials squashed.


I agree. It will be held up as YET ANOTHER example of himself flip-flopping.

I've heard various suggestions that the third-party groups, the 527's, will be doing McCain's dirty work for him. I'm fine with that; it will give Obama a great wedge to drive between McCain and them, as he forces McCain to denounce his own supporting groups or be revealed as a hypocrite.

Lack of foresight on McCain's part...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2008 03:08 pm
This would be a slam dunk to beat Obama if we had a good candidate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 825
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 07:35:50