Blogcritics Comments on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Comment by Leo on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:20:56 EST

Where can I lead medical health insurance companies, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, Unicare, Anthem, Carefirst, and more! Thanks. WBR LeoP

Comment by jimothy J. Jones on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:45:50 EDT

Allawi is referred to as "the butcher" he is a puppet. Chalabi tricked the CIA, the pentagon, and the administration(the only thing is..they wanted to be tricked) Where are the WMD? Where is the justification? CAN ANYONE ANYONE GIVE ME THE CRITERIA ON HOW WE JUDGE THE IRAQ WAR IS OVER. Bush keeps telling us the war is over -mission accomplished -sovereignty transferred but when confronted with a negative take on the war, the rhetoric changes from "we've already won it" to: "to pull out before we've won would be embarassing for us and disastorous for Iraq" So anyone: have we won the war? -if yes then: can we get the hell out of the country? -if no then: Bush lied to us by telling us mission accomplished and sovereignty transferred also: at what point have we won the war? seriously someone please send me an email or post a comment on my site PLEASE i am desperate NOT A PERSON ON THE PLANET CAN ARTICULATE WHAT THE CRITERA ARE TO JUDGE WHEN THE WAR WILL BE "WON". If you can't then this is 1984, this is not some future chance of totalitarianism, RIGHT NOW WE ARE CONTROLLED BY NEO-FACIST IDEOLOGUES. The rampant nationalism, the dehumanization of minorities(homophobia, the racist drug war/justice system), centralization of power in the executive branch, destruction of judicial review(evidenced by the guantanimo case and the lack of judical review of the clearly unconstitutional patriot act), militarism, appeal to religion to maintain popular support, the links between civilian and military have been removed(my congressman Mark Kirk is currenly in the military[unconstitutional] and has as well as continues to work for the CIA[scary, right? or should i say....SPOOKy], and one that particularly bothered me the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. American soldiers will be tortured worse than anything you or I can ever imagine for as long as the United States of America exists, because of those photos and videos(now everyone believes the US does not follow the geneva conventions). The individuals in the administration and the pentagon that deliberately flouted the geneva conventions should be summarily executed for war crimes, to serve penance for the millions of US soldiers that will be tortured in our future military conflicts by enemies. Every day you and I do nothing we have personally killed an american soldier and a few more Iraqi civilians, keep that in mind when the jingoists tell you they support the troops. -Jimothy J. Jones http://www.iheartimperialism.blogspot.com

Comment by Bruce Senator on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:50:36 EDT

Bush Statements "EMBOLDEN" Terrorists September 23, 2004 (Editors may edit for space & time constraints) During the press conference September 23, 2004 with President George W. Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the president stated that the "terrorists have an effective tool" in terror. During the August 30, 2004 interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show President Bush spoke what 'his heart' knew was the truth when he clearly said "I don't think we can win it", referring to the winning the "War on Terrorism". Of course in the days that followed there was a nation-wide effort by the conservative caucus to white-wash what these words really meant. Taking what President Bush says regarding Senator John Kerry's comment "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it", ... isn't it clear that when you state "I don't think we can win it", you MEAN JUST THAT. Do people talk that way in Missouri, in North Carolina, or elsewhere that when you say "I don't think we can win it", you really mean "We can win it"? Also during the September 23, 2004 press conference the president gave a COMPENDIUM OF WAFFLING on a report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The president went from explaining the report meaning from "possibility" to "probability", to where he, the president should have used a better word such as "estimate". Didn't we go through this SHEER CRAP a few years ago when former president Clinton remarked "That depends on what the definition of "is" is". And we come right back to the months-long use of Senator John Kerry's statement regarding his vote "for" and then "against" the $87 billion package which included procurement for the troops. The fact remains that this president and vice president have LIED AND LIED AND LIED to the American people, as in WE THE PEOPLE, from the very beginning. From the run-up and drum-up to this DIVERSION WAR in Iraq, the war that took our military and intelligence resources away from the task at hand, that being tracking, engaging, and destroying terrorists and their networks, AMERICA HAS BEEN DECEIVED. AND THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. The fact remains that when George W. Bush made the statement August 30, 2004 regarding winning the war on terrorism, "I don't think we can win it", 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS KNEW HE MEANT IT and WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT. The fact remains that when George W. Bush stated September 23, 2004 that "terrorists have an effective tool" in terror, 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS ARE EMBOLDENED BY IT. The fact remains that when George W. Bush made the statement April 14, 2004 during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Palestinians should be absorbed into a future Palestinian state "rather than in Israel", 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT. How in God's earth can any person who claims to be a person of god, a person of values, hold to such while telling families that their ancestral homes, lands, farms, etc., are to be lost forever. Where are the values, the morals in that position. Where is there a potential for peace in that position. The fact remains that when George W. Bush wrote "The United States remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, and its implementation as described in the road map. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan," 1) HE MEANT IT, and 2) TERRORISTS WERE EMBOLDENED BY IT. Here again the president impugns the integrity of all others not committed to his administration's narrow, rigid mentality. Here again the United States is seen as forcing its will against that of self-determination. George W. Bush just does not GET IT. LEADERSHIP IS DIFFERENT THAN LEADING. Anyone can LEAD a nation into war, and into war after war, crisis after crisis. It takes LEADERSHIP to do so meritoriously, at the right time and place, and to do so with a broad coalition of support. Even if not actual broad-based participation, at least broad-based support. George W. Bush has FAILED THIS TEST OF LEADERSHIP ... for THREE LONG YEARS. AND HE WANTS FOUR MORE YEARS TO DO THE SAME, TO "STAY THE COURSE". WHY CONTINUE WITH FAILURE? The facts remain that under Bush-Cheney and their "Boxed-In" mentality where they cannot see or work "Outside Their Box", there is no manner whatever that their administration can bring peace to Iraq, or make sustained gains in defeating the root causes that spawn extremism and terrorism. They have NO "LEADERSHIP" CAPABILITIES TO GUIDE THE WORLD IN A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM. This president and his administration want FOUR MORE YEARS to STAY THE SAME COURSE. A COURSE OF "GO IT ALONE", "US VS. THEM", "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY". A Course of LEADING ... WITHOUT "LEADERSHIP". ARE WE CRAZY. WAS AMERICA SO BAMBOOZLED BY THE "NAZI-LIKE INDOCTRINATION" EXHORTED AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" WILL FOLLOW LIKE LEMMINGS OVER THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF? THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKING AMERICA RACING HEAD ON INTO A BRICK WALL WHETHER FROM AN ECONOMIC OR FOREIGN POLICY STANDPOINT. THE TERRORISTS ARE GREATLY MORE EMBOLDENED IN STANDING UP TO GEORGE W. BUSH THAN THEY WOULD BE WITH ANY OTHER SITTING PRESIDENT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY KNOW HIS HATRED. THEY CAN SEE AND SMELL IT. THEY KNOW HE WILL NOT GIVE UP AND WILL TAKE AMERICA DOWN WITH HIM. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT AMERICA TO STAY AND FIGHT ... AND DIE. THE TERRORISTS HAVE GEORGE W. BUSH EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT HIM. STAYING THE COURSE SO THEY CAN BEAT UP ON HIM AND AMERICA. WHAT MORE COULD A TERRORIST ASK FOR. A "CAUSE" IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. A FAIT ACCOMPLI FOR AMERICA. FreedomFocus.org

Comment by Bruce Senator on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:48:56 EDT

Why Vote on a President & V.P. Who Will Be Impeached or Removed Via Force? Why Are Congress & American Media SILENT ON CLEAR IMPEACHMENT ISSUES? September 21, 2004 (Editors may edit as necessary for space & time constraints) When ever were Congress and our bastion of American Media held hostage to a 'focus group' mentality? This has come to an astounding pinnacle here in election 2004. When we look at past history such as Watergate with Richard Nixon, and later Iran-Contra with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, both Congress and media were all over these issues like starving bees on honey. WHY HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN OUR CONGRESS and AMERICAN MEDIA LOST ITS VOICE? We have a situation with OVERWHELMING E V I D E N C E that the ENTIRE administration was directed by President George W. Bush AND Vice President Dick Cheney to MANUFACTURE intelligence data so as to mislead our Congress and our American people in the run-up and drum-up to the Iraq War. It is not an issue of faulty intelligence or faulty interpretation of intelligence. All the past and more recent explanations of such, spinning and re-spinning are SHEER CRAP. We have a situation with OVERWHELMING E V I D E N C E that the intent to remove Saddam Hussein was established at 'day-one', 'ground-zero' of the Bush presidency. We have a situation where, given the facts as known along with President Bush's statements that yes, he would want Saddam removed because he tried to kill his dad, that in fact this Iraq War was NOT part of the LEGITIMATE "War on Terrorism", but was in fact a guise for a ILLEGITIMATE "Revenge War". But no matter what the underlying reasons for bringing this war, the reasons proffered to the American people and the peoples of the world were MANUFACTURED under direct order and supervision of this president and vice president, and carried out via this administration. There is no basis in reality that with all the intelligence resources of the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and elsewhere, that EACH AND EVERY CLAIM BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TURNED OUT TO BE "FAULTY INTELLIGENCE", "FAULTY INTERPRETATION OF INTELLIGENCE". IN FACT, IT WAS TOTALLY FALSE INTELLIGENCE, MANUFACTURED LIES. NOT INACCURACIES, BUT CONTRIVED FALSEHOODS. EVERYTHING FROM THE GET-GO, AND CONTINUING. WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FOR AN "INDEPENDENT/SPECIAL PROSECUTOR"? Prior to the actual invasion in Afghanistan this administration stated they would hold to air power and use the Northern Alliance for the majority of ground combat. FreedomFocus.org clamored to place heavy troop concentrations along the border regions. This administration stuck to its strategies whereby troop concentrations were withheld from the border regions of Iran and Pakistan, allowing Al Qaeda terrorist-trained fighters to escape, merely walking away, to reconstitute, re-network, and fight another day. President Cheney recently said, "We killed hundreds of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan". But THOUSANDS ESCAPED to fight another day, and are doing so in Spain, Indonesia, and recently in Russia. We see the combination of Chechen-Islamic and Arab-Islamic terrorist-trained fighters launching well-coordinated and supplied attacks throughout Russia. Obviously the "terrorists" have reconstituted, re-networked, and are fighting another day because they were allowed to escape. Had our military NOT been hunkered down in Iraq and instead been tracking and engaging terrorists and terrorist networks, TERRORISTS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE, RECONSTITUTE, RE-NETWORK, AND FIGHT TO THE EXTENT AS WE NOW SEE. FreedomFocus.org had clamored to immediately beef-up troop levels in Iraq upon the finding of massive and widespread weapons and munitions depots after the initial Iraq invasion. This administration as in Afghanistan, refused to deploy necessary troops. This resulted in weapons and munitions merely walking away, to reconstitute, re-network, and fight another day as has been and continues to be the case each and every day killing American and allied troops, and innocent civilians. Ourmilitary had Al Qaeda TRAPPED in Afghanistan. Had we put sufficient troops along the borders, and then when these enemy forces were pounded from the air along with the advance southward from the Northern Alliance, it would have been a "turkey shoot". Instead, troops were withheld because George W. Bush had already decided HE was going to make WAR on SADDAM HUSSEIN. CLEARLY the strategies of this administration have only led to allowing terrorists to escape from Afghanistan, and for weapons and munitions to escape being secured and destroyed only to migrate throughout Iraq. These are not failed strategies, but intentional decisions to extend the "War on Terrorism" as a political tool. THESE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES HERE. WHY THE SILENCE? What makes this sadder is that in the past two months we have seen this administration and their party roll out NEWLY CONTRIVED REASONS for validating the Iraq War. None having any validity at all. Nothing proffered by President Bush, or Vice President Cheney, or Secretary of State Powell, or National Security Adviser Rice, or General Tommy Franks, or that TURNCOAT Crazy "Zig-Zag" Zell Miller is valid. More LIES and DECEIT UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and the peoples of the world. NO LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATION of the facts surrounding Iraq or the Middle-East itself supported going to war with Saddam Hussein in the "War on Terrorism". The only results were to: 1) Divert military and intelligence resources from tackling the REAL THREAT, that being Al Qaeda and other terrorists and their networks; 2) The evolution of ANOTHER FOCAL POINT for Islamic dissent; and 3) The destabilization of Saudi Arabia, where terrorist fighters transited the border in preparation for hostilities. The FANTASY that bringing down Saddam Hussein would in some manner lead to LIBERTY throughout the Middle-East and peace for Israel, is ludicrous. The only thing that will lead to peace and security for Israel is that nation coming to grips with the REALITY that those peoples of Arab descent who fled out of fear for their lives from Israel proper after nationhood in 1948, do have inalienable human rights to be repatriated with their ancestral homes, farms, and other lands. It is THAT SIMPLE. It is a matter of VALUES, a matter of MORALS, a matter of RIGHT versus WRONG. And for a president who CLAIMS to be of Conservative Values, you would think he would understand this, he would GET IT. President Bush made a disastrous move when, during Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit, he announced that the Palestinian Arabs would never be allowed to return home. That right then and there sealed the fate of ultimate failure for any Bush policy regarding establishment of "Liberty" throughout the Middle-East. These people want their ancestral homes, farms, and lands to live on. But George W. Bush DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. With his "Boxed-In" mentality he never will GET IT. The result is that he will drag this nation into war after war, crisis after crisis. The REAL global terrorists and countries that lend support are reeling in joy over America's predicament. Look at history from when nations attempt to install their cultures, their form and function of governments. In 1952 Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was forced to flee by the temporary rise of Muhammad Mussadegh, a militant nationalist. Shortly thereafter, with intervention of the United States via our Central Intelligence Agency, Shah Reza reclaimed his throne. In time the Iranian government began a broad program of reforms to modernize the country, notably changing the quasi-feudal land system. However the reforms did not greatly improve economic conditions and the liberal pro-Western policies alienated certain Islamic religious and political groups. In time the Islamic clergy, headed by Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini were becoming increasingly vociferous. In the early 1970s, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organization assassinated US military personnel and civilians involved in military contracts, seeking to weaken the government and remove foreign influence. In 1979 Khomeini returned, led the overthrow of the government and established the extremely conservative theocracy, nationalizing the oil industry and restoring Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were BANNED. WHY ARE CONGRESS and OUR AMERICAN MEDIA SILENT, A LAME DUCK? Then we come to the Republican National Convention. There has NEVER in the history of this nation been such a disgusting display of slanderous, unmeritorious, and UN-AMERICAN conduct on behalf of any political party, not to mention their political leaders. Each speaker and speech were fully 'vetted'. They cannot claim NO JOY in this instance as they did with the "Swift/Vets". The PRESIDENT is fully responsible for this wholesale LACK OF VALUES. The AMERICAN PEOPLE were treated to nothing short of a HIGHLY ZEALOUS 'INDOCTRINATION'. An indoctrination very similar to that put upon the German people by the Nazis in their unyielding goal of winning and retaining power. The spectacle of Karl Rove and other party henchmen stating immediately after the convention concluded that the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" was put forth, is Snake Oil. "Compassionate Conservatism" is a slogan, a cliché that is rolled out for the election cycle, then boxed up and kept under wraps immediately afterwards. Furthermore, upon taking office this presidency hung out a big "DO NOT ENTER" sign to any person or group that did not share its very narrow, rigid beliefs. They operate with a "Boxed-In" mentality, unable to see or work "Outside Their Box". Look at the theatrical demagoguery of the Republican National Convention. Moral? NO. Values? Value-Less. Lies, Deceit, Dishonor? From start to finish. A DISGUSTING example of politics OUT OF CONTROL. A DISGUSTING example of far right-wing, fringe zealotry. Dangerous to Democracy. THIS IS WHAT WAITS FOR OUR NATION IN ANOTHER BUSH/CHENEY PRESIDENCY. AFTER THE ELECTION SHOULD THEY WIN AND THE EUPHORIA WEARS OFF, WE WILL ALL BE IN THE SAME BOAT WITH THE SAME EXASPERATED LOOK ON OUR FACES YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. "MY GOD, WHAT HAVE WE DONE". "WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN". WHY HAS OUR CONGRESS AND AMERICAN MEDIA GONE WEAK IN THE KNEES? WHERE IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR CONGRESS AND MEDIA TO ALLOW SUCH TO GO UNCHALLENGED? TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE 'INDOCTRINATED' WITHOUT PUTTING UP A HARD-COURT PRESS? WHERE HAS AMERICA FAILED? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED OUR CONGRESS AND MEDIA BASTIONS TO STAND UP, NOT KOW-TOW. GET YOUR LEGS BENEATH YOU, AND GO FAST-FORWARD! IT IS ABSOLUTELY SICKENING THAT CLEAR UN-AMERICAN ANTICS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ITS LEADERSHIP, THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE BEING UNCHALLENGED WHEN THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, IN ADDITION TO DEHUMANIZING AND IMMORAL CONDUCT. AGAIN, WHERE IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR CONGRESS AND AMERICAN MEDIA? Do Americans have to invoke their "inalienable human rights" as CLEARLY EVINCED in the Declaration of Independence, so as to bring justice for these clearly unlawful, immoral, and un-American acts by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, their administration and political party? IF SO WE CAN AND WILL ACT. WE CAN USE FORCE TO REMOVE GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY, THEIR ADMINISTRATION, AND IF NEED BE, THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN HIERARCHY. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE NAZIFICATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS. MORE SO WHEN SUCH UNDERMINES LONG-TERM RESPECT AND SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FreedomFocus.org

Comment by Big Time Patriot on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:50:26 EDT

Glenn Reynolds is provacative, but it seems that too often he is provacative by being stupid. Too many of his arguments against Kerry and Democrats apply even more strongly towards Bush and Republicans, but that doesn't appear to be worth mentioning very often. He did respond to one of my complaints (I mean he answered my email, not that he changed his column) personally, so that is one point in his favor. But I give him thumbs down over all.

Comment by TDavid on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:44:34 EDT

Hilarious! If you really want to research this situation, Mac Diva, then you'll learn that third party stats are never completely accurate or reliable. In my studies and rigorous testing they are at best case *70-75%* accurate for a wide variety of technical reasons. But by hiding one's own stats (as you have chosen to do with your blog the last time I heard anyway), a person can claim to have whatever traffic they want :) Blogcritics on the other hand isn't hiding anything. Signed, Still empty and still a usual suspect

Comment by Eric Olsen on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:11:52 EDT

No one on earth follows our stats more closely than I do. The two key stats are pageviews vs uniques and time spent. Time spent has actually gone up as the traffic has gone up, in direct contradiction to the normal pattern, and pageviews have stayed the same as traffic has gone up, meaning the more involved readers have been making up for the search engine drop-ins. There are different kinds of "destination" sites, and we are certainly one of them. I will finally stop fighting the impulse and say: with your endless, ceaseless, bitter, ridicule and condemnation of the site, why on earth do you bother to waste your time here?

Comment by Mac Diva on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:46:44 EDT

Tell Site Meter, Eric. Their stats must be wrong. 'Destination' sites show a much different profile. A former Blogcritic clued me in months ago, and I've been watching the stats. Those people who mistakenly thought they were going to read an intelligible essay about political blogs written by (giggling) R.J. have learned their lesson about Blogcritics. They will not be back. Throwing up space fillers provides an opportunity for Amazon links. But, once people realize they will not find much knowledgeable material, they steer clear. So, the Amazon links become the reason the site exists. But, links to an advertiser can't make a site worth repeat visitation if one seeks information, not ads.

Comment by Eric Olsen on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:44:52 EDT

TD, yes, sigh. Our readers are very regular, loyal and number in the thousands. We have grown very organically via word of mouth and people finding the site one way or another and returning on a regular basis.

Comment by TDavid on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:18:39 EDT

And, visitors know it. Very few of them return a second or third time. Why would they? Server stats will factually refute this statement. Server stats include raw and unique visitors (based on IP) so if "very few" people were actually, realistically, factually returning the server stats would definitely prove this. Alas, this is just fiction being passed off as non-fiction. Signed, Usual suspect with usual empty entry

Comment by RJ on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:04:36 EDT

Here's a cite that backs me up: California's "Willful Exposure" Law The law makes it a felony punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment for an HIV-positive person to "willfully expose" another person to HIV through unprotected sex. The law is narrowly drafted, however, so that it only applies to individuals who intend to infect others with HIV through sex. It is designed to prosecute cases like one in New York, where one man infected more than a dozen young women, not to police every sexual encounter engaged in by people living with HIV. To be prosecuted under the law, you would have to do all of the following: Have anal or vaginal sex. You cannot be prosecuted for oral sex. As to anal and vaginal sex, the law applies equally to men and women; tops and bottoms. The law punishes exposing someone to HIV through these types of sex. Your sexual partner does not have to actually become infected. Know that you are HIV-positive. You cannot be prosecuted for sex that you had before you knew that you were HIV-positive. Fail to disclose your HIV status. If you disclose before insertion, you cannot be prosecuted. Fail to use a condom. Even if you do not disclose, you cannot be prosecuted unless you have "unprotected sex." The law defines "unprotected sex" as failing to use a condom. This means that every inserting penis has to be covered. Even if you are on the receiving end, you have a legal obligation to make sure that your partner wears a condom. Have the "specific intent" to infect the other person. Most likely, this element will prevent the statute from being used to harass people living with HIV. To be prosecuted, you have to engage in the sexual activity with the specific intention of infecting the other person with HIV. Just knowing that you had HIV when you had sex will not be enough. The law explicitly states that: "Evidence that the person had knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, shall not be sufficient to prove specific intent." Because of this specific-intent requirement, the law is narrowed in scope to only cover individuals who want to infect other people, and who are probably expressing that desire. If you slip up one time, it's unlikely that you will be prosecuted. However, the best way to stay clear of this law, and other legal liabilities, is to always disclose your status and/or practice safer sex. [emphasis mine] As usual, I'm right.

Comment by Justene on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:37:36 EDT

RJ, generally consent of the victim is not a defense to most crimes.

Comment by RJ on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:30:07 EDT

"An HIV positive man advertised for and got sex, unprotected, from among strangers." Strangers who KNEW he was HIV positive... "Trying to determine if he INTENTIONALLY tried to infect someone is moot." No, it's not. You're the guy who said his actions were "criminal." But they would only be "criminal" if he INTENDED to infect someone. Get it? "What you are trying to do is excuse his behavior, because you like his ideology." No, what I am doing is pointing out that his behavior was neither particulatly reckless nor criminal. I find it personally disgusting, but hardly illegal or even immoral. "This behavior is what he was judged on, and this is what he did: Advertise for and receive unprotected sex from strangers, WHILE positive, and WHILE condemning people who do such as being gays who give our cause a bad name." Did Andrew Sullivan really condemn HIV positive gay men who have sex? I find that rather shocking. Please provide a cite. See, what AS did was advertise for sex on the Internet. Hardly a rare occurrance within the gay community, eh Boom? And he openly stated in these ads that he was HIV positive. So, presumably, only HIV positive men would answer the ads. (Or disease-free people who are actively seeking a slow and painful death. Lots of those kind around!) And what's the worst thing that can happen when two HIV positive men have unprotected sex? One of them gets the clap? Gimme a break. They've already fucked their way into a death sentence. Let the little poofs have their fun while they still can.

Comment by Mac Diva on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:18:23 EDT

Having the usual suspects pile onto the usual empty entry proves nothing. [edited] And, visitors know it. Very few of them return a second or third time. Why would they? [edited] The site is earning its reputation as just an excuse to throw up links to Amazon every day.

Comment by TDavid on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:32:14 EDT

Where on earth have we heard dozens of times that this site is dominated by right wing racists? [sigh] Some people just never change with their diatribes. If one really, really feels this way then h/she should start their own group and own website and point, counterpoint all these authors and posts. Who knows, maybe it would result in good business for both sites! Otherwise I don't see any point in bashing people without concrete proof who are universally disturbed by racism and extreme political chest thumping. It is like shitting where you sleep and makes just about as much sense.

Comment by Doug on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:44:00 EDT

Hmm, I remember months ago MD posting a "farewell to BC". MD, what are you doing back? Eric speaks of not polarizing BC. The funny thing is that the ONE issue that ALL wingers (right, or left) seem to agree on is their dislike of MD.

Comment by Shark on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:28:39 EDT

[edited]

Comment by Shark on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:26:17 EDT

MacDiva: "In regard to Atrios, some of us sort of knew. People thought I knew for sure when I was his protege." This just screams some sort of deep psychological issue. [edited] Will it ever end? ffft. PS: Shark wasn't included in the 'liberal' list of Those Left [sic] on BC!? Oh, that's right; I'm a right-winger -- since I oppose MD's racist, paranoid, narcissistic views on many subjects hereabouts. Let her rant, folks. I'm takin' a nap. zzzzzzz

Comment by Mac Diva on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:48:00 EDT

My excuse for being here is that I actually blog. Anyone who wants to see what is on my blog is free to look at it. [edited]

Comment by boomcrashbaby on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:14:31 EDT

Quick question: Did Sullivan actively seek out HIV-negative partners to infect? Is there any proof that he would have knowingly had "bareback" sex with an HIV-negative partner? I didn't think so Certainly even middle of the roaders can see the absurdity of this ideal. An HIV positive man advertised for and got sex, unprotected, from among strangers. And here a right winger is trying to justify intent to infect. Trying to determine if he INTENTIONALLY tried to infect someone is moot. What you are trying to do is excuse his behavior, because you like his ideology. This behavior is what he was judged on, and this is what he did: Advertise for and receive unprotected sex from strangers, WHILE positive, and WHILE condemning people who do such as being gays who give our cause a bad name. Spin the 'intent' all you want, RJ, we still won't condone the practice. Steve, (Boom) a disappearance of liberals from the 'Net? Are they killing us off yes, with apathy, boredom and stupidity.

Comment by RJ on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:45:35 EDT

"If anyone should be throwing a tantrum, it should be me." Mac, you ARE throwing a tantrum. You're ALWAYS throwing a tantrum. "I was the one who was burdened with both being directly insulted by Stuart White (two \"assholes\" and an \'It\' that should have resulted in banning him)" You actually have the GALL to call for someone else being banned from this site? How many personal attacks have YOU had deleted in the past eight weeks? "others supported the \'slavery is a good thing\' argument.)" Can you provide a cite for this remarkable claim? Or is this another one of your all-too-common delusions of a Klansman behind every rock? "Furthermore, one look at White\'s site would have revealed him to be someone both ignorant and hateful." Pot..Kettle...African-American... "Even if he were discussing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich he would manage to turn it into an attack on feminists, gays, blacks or liberals." And you've managed to turn an old post of mine about good Weblogs into yet another race-war. "There was no excuse for inviting him here in the first place." Who invited YOU here, and what was their excuse?

Comment by Mac Diva on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:42:41 EDT

Steve, (Boom) a disappearance of liberals from the 'Net? Are they killing us off-:). Every person of color I've known at Blogcritics except Purple Tigress and Ol' Boxhead (email me for the name), who can't write a blog entry to save his soul, has left. Many of them told me why. Either we are all being effected by 'Circadian rhythms' or there is something awry here.

Comment by RJ on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:36:20 EDT

Boom, Quick question: Did Sullivan actively seek out HIV-negative partners to infect? Is there any proof that he would have knowingly had "bareback" sex with an HIV-negative partner? I didn't think so.

Comment by Mac Diva on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:34:41 EDT

If anyone should be throwing a tantrum, it should be me. I was the one who was burdened with both being directly insulted by Stuart White (two "assholes" and an 'It' that should have resulted in banning him) and refuting all that nonsense. (Yes, some other people helped refute, but others supported the 'slavery is a good thing' argument.) Furthermore, one look at White's site would have revealed him to be someone both ignorant and hateful. Even if he were discussing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich he would manage to turn it into an attack on feminists, gays, blacks or liberals. There was no excuse for inviting him here in the first place.

Comment by boomcrashbaby on The Five Best Political Blogs On The Planet

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:30:41 EDT

I don't feel that way at all, Eric, I enjoy this site. I have noticed a trend recently elsewhere, of a sudden disappearance of liberals. On a political message board on a gay website, I've been going to for years, just in the last few months, all liberals (which is 90% of the group) have disappeared and there are now straight guys for Bush all over the gay boards! (wanting of course, to talk about nothing but the swift vets) I figured that liberals just quit talking about the swift vets, because that's all anybody wants to talk about, and frankly no liberal cares about Vietnam. We care about all the important issues like the economy and Iraq, but we can't get a conservative to quit talking long enough, about the moral direction this country needs to go, based on a single line of text from a document thirty years ago, (except to maybe pour some right-wing ketchup on a burger brought to them by an underpaid, closeted minority, and cooked for them by someone who 'lost his green card'.). hehe. Anyway, my experience with Eric, Phil and Justene, as limited as it may be, has always been positive. There are some liberals who I miss reading here, but I can understand their frustration at the 'focus' of what the right wants to talk about. (Theresa's 'bitchy' attitude, partisan ketchup, the validity of purple hearts, Kerry's haircut, etc. geez, does no conservative want to discuss the issues worth voting on anymore?)