If you read too much, you'll hurt your brain.

I realize the prosecutor did write a brief stating he thought that the law ought to apply to delay and that the new law was just a 'clarification'. But what is he supposed to do, just say "yeah, I guess that was pretty stupid of me." DeLay is still a money launderer, but here Kos goes ahead and has to try to twist reality. This is just another example (among many) showing how Kos prefers political expediency for 'his side' above truth or reality.

If you read too much, you'll hurt your brain.

That's certainly true if all you read is partisan BS.

One of my favorite collection of words that represents a legal principle: ex post facto. But yeah, partisanship on both sides = stupid things.

The charge was a conspiracy charge.

The prosecutor's argument (hardly novel) was that he could charge DeLay under the general law against conspiracy.

DeLay's lawyers argued that the charge should be dismissed, because the alleged acts took place prior to the passage of a law specifically against political conspiracy.

So I don't think it's outrageous to call it a technicality.

DeLay is of course innocent until (and unless) proven guilty, but the political point is that DeLay's lawyers didn't argue DeLay hadn't done what is now illegal, only that it wasn't specifically illegal when he did it. That's going to cost DeLay among his fellow Republicans.

A lot of conservatives of DeLay's ilk, of course, make a point of kvetching about "criminals" who "get off" on technicalities (like suppression of illegally gotten evidence.

Sauce for the goose.

DeLay's lawyers argued that the charge should be dismissed, because the alleged acts took place prior to the passage of a law specifically against political conspiracy.

Maybe not. I'm not sure.

A lot of conservatives of DeLay's ilk, of course, make a point of kvetching about "criminals" who "get off" on technicalities (like suppression of illegally gotten evidence.

Yeah, DeLay gets no sympathy from me, but it really grates on me to se a so-called 'liberal' pull this obvious BS. All these people think about is 'framing' and spinning, they want to beat republicans at their own game, and I think it's important to point that out. The only reason the democrats aren't screwing us over is because they're not in power.

It's a mere technicality that the act wasn't against the law. Idiots. "Technicality," of course, isn't a legal term, and you'll never hear a decent lawyer use it. The basis for dismissal of claims is always the law, whether it's substantive or procedural.

You're puffing and sputtering for no reason.

I'd say that it's a technicallit, based on the fact that what DeLay did was wrong but was not yet illegal.

It wasn't a legal technicality, but certainly an ethical technicality.

it was too illegal--conspiracy was illegal before they made the political conspiracy law, even in Texas. They better get him on the laundering charges, or there's no justice in this country.

or more clearly--conspiracy to violate the laws of a state or locality or country is a crime. it doesn't have to have a special law making it a crime for it to be a crime.

Don't read it. I've never read "Kos" and I'm still alive. It's J.A.B. (Just Another Blog)

I was always confused about Kos. I never read the blog or anything about him, but it seemed like he was liberal, but a bunch of liberals hate him anyway. I always thought that was odd.

How can a rational person make that claim?

this is kos we're talking about. i used to think only the righty's were moonbats. but in fact, they all are.

Kos is the most collossal of douchebags. His purpose is not analysis or commentary. It is to subvert any possible datum to support his completely inflexible positions. The fact that his politics align more closely with mine makes him no less a douchebag than any of his counterparts on the political Right. Persoannly, I find him more distasteful because he provides so much ammunition for hardliners to use when preaching to moderates.
Seriously, I'm your everyday, run of the mill socialist/pacifist. Whenever I get a chance to put down political affiliations on surveys or whatnot, there's always a moment where I quive between Democrat and Sandinista. But I still think Kos is a tool. Or I should say was: I do not read him anymore.

Sauce for the goose.

Oh god I so heard that in a Leonard Nimoy voice.

Hey, this is Metachat. I don't have to be on topic if I don't want to.

/me flags George Spiggott as "fantastically offtopic."

There was no golf clap flag. =(

I dunno, aren't "technicalities" the things that Republicans always accuse of Democrats of inventing so that criminals can walk around in society scot-free?

Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to bait here.

So, why are you reading it? The big outdoors calls. You know, the world wide world? The big blue room with the really great resolution?

You'll be arguing with televisions next.

It wasn't a legal technicality, but certainly an ethical technicality.

That's a totally reasonable point of view. DeLay is a slime ball.

I was always confused about Kos. I never read the blog or anything about him, but it seemed like he was liberal, but a bunch of liberals hate him anyway. I always thought that was odd.

I'm sure there are lots of conservatives who hate Rush Limbaugh.

Don't read it. I've never read "Kos" and I'm still alive. It's J.A.B. (Just Another Blog)

That's the thing though, I really hate Bush and kos could be described as an anti-bush hate site. Perfect for me, right? But if there's one thing I hate more then Bush it's dishonesty. In fact, one (and pretty much just me at that) could say that dishonesty is the pure essence inside of bush that make me hate him so much, he's just so full of it.

In other words I'd prefer it if there was less propaganda in the two-minute hate. There's plenty of real stuff for like three or four minutes.

Kos is the most collossal of douchebags. .... The fact that his politics align more closely with mine makes him no less a douchebag than any of his counterparts on the political Right.

In fact, I think it makes it a lot worse for me. I think there's a psychological model about 'balance' between any thee things. If you hate two things, and those two things like each other, you're balanced. Similarly if you like two things. But if you hate one thing, and like another, and the thing you hate shares taste in the thing like, the 'triangle' is out of balance and you suffer cognitive dissonance.

or more clearly--conspiracy to violate the laws of a state or locality or country is a crime. it doesn't have to have a special law making it a crime for it to be a crime.

Sure, but we're talking about a specific statute here. If the law said it's illegal to commit conspiracy to do X, Y and Z specific things, and you do Q then you're not breaking that specific law even if Q is illegal.

The Idea behind the conspiracy law is to bust people for planning to do certain things before they actually do them. It would suck if you couldn't bust someone you know was planning to murder someone before they actually murdered them, right?

The law might say "It's illegal to conspire to commit any crime" and was then changed to say "It's illegal to conspire to commit any crime, including violating election law." But I kind of doubt that.

I'm guessing the law said something like "it's illegal to conspire to do..." and then listed a few specific things, which was updated to include election law. If DeLay only conspired to break the law but didn't (and it might not be possible to prove that he actually broke election law, but that he did talk about breaking election law) then I don't think DeLay should be charged with conspiracy under that specific law. I guess we'll have to see the law in question or the briefs or the decision. I haven't been able to find that stuff.

Yay! Politics on metachat. Way to piss in the fountain.

Have you read the relevant statutes, delmoi, and Earl's reason to bring the charge, and the judge's reason to dismiss?

Because it seems to me you are making just as big a douche-bag move as you claim Kos is (to use your languange, not to be a dick). Kos didn't even make the claim of a technicality in the beginning -- someone else pointed it out to him, and he made what looks like an off-hand comment about the ruling being shit. Earl felt the charge should be brought, so there is AT LEAST one very weighty opinion that this was legit.

You're mad at Kos for other reasons, and using this as a fake bat with which to beat him up, it seems to me. And I say that in a nice way -- I am not a lawyer, and don't know dick about the statute in question. I'm pretty sure such things are murky enough to be open to MANY different interpretations.

This judge made his ruling, another judge could have very easily ruled differently. I am certain it is not nearly so simple as "law not passed" == claim completely bogus. If that were the case, Earl would never have brought the charge. He had LEGAL reasons to do so -- the judge disagreed with him. Another judge could have agreed.

And unless you have some sound legal reasoning to show why Earl was way off (rather than just the soundbite version of the judge's ruling), I don't think you can say Kos's position is bullshit. I know I can't, and it's not worth the brain cells to figure it out.

Jeez, I hope politics (or other serious/important discussion) aren't outlawed here. The problem in the other place is the assholes, not the topics. Or should we be all lovey-dovey, all the time? Maybe I'm having a bad morning, but count me out. I'm not here for the fluff, I'm here for the discourse (okay, I'm here for the fluff, too). Discourse which is yet elevated here, even as it grows contentious.

I'm not allergic to saccharine, I don't hate sweets, and I like the friendliness here. But if you want me to tear out half my tongue because it tastes bitter and salty sometimes, you will do me and others here a great disservice: you will remove me from a place I love.

"Technicality" is exactly what it is, in legal terms. Most rulings are based on technicalities, and not straightforward constitutional law, as far as I know. Kos is generally mendacious (he's a receiver of wisdom, but received wisdom is often dangerously false) and is thus a threat to so-called liberals, but some of the shit he throws sticks to the wall, and, like Michael Moore, he does a net good by doing so. So it sucks, really -- those I had hoped to agree with turn out to be untrustworthy, and because they misrepresent views I might carelessly define as my own, I'm lumped with folks like Kos. So I have to dig myself through a pile of shit to make myself clear to my conservative interlocutors.

All lies are ammo for demagogues, whether they're told by the good guys or the bad. Truth is the only way through.

Courage!

Jeez, I hope politics (or other serious/important discussion) aren't outlawed here.

I think it's pretty clear that almost nothing is outlawed here. Talking about people behind their backs will be strongly discouraged; stuff that belongs in metatalk will probably be strongly discouraged, and if people really want to talk about politics here... Well, go for it, I guess. What will be, will be, I suppose... and if most users feel that it's that important that it needs to take up every bit of possible space on the internet, smothering and choking any other form of discussion... well, okay then!

But I, personally, will be bugging out of here in that case. It won't be the first time.

What will be, will be, I suppose... and if most users feel that it's that important that it needs to take up every bit of possible space on the internet, smothering and choking any other form of discussion... well, okay then!

That's a pretty binary way of looking at it, taz. I think there's probably some grey area. But I'll take that as discouragement. I'm here to have interesting discussions, not to fight with anyone.

Maybe I can come up with some good fluff to counter the deeply nasty and personally acrimonious politics contained in this thread.

I'm getting very sleepy....

... metachat might be fluff, yes - but I'm a hundred times more interested in what you had for lunch today than I am in seeing the same posturing and flaming and sneering that happens in every politics thread I've ever seen.

I like you, hugh... and I know a few things about you, and if you have something to talk to about, I definitely want to hear it... but this is a state of being that never would have come about if metachat wasn't fluffy. For me, there won't be any point at all to this place if it becomes a poli/news site.

And I'm getting depressed that you seem to be getting bitter about it not being a news site, or that I don't want it to be {though that doesn't matter much, since I'm not going to dictate what people can post about).

I might just have to just get offline until sometime after 2008.

I think we should talk about politics here, but only as a hypothetical discussion of what some of the more novel forms of government would be, we can set a thread, pick a leader (or leadership, streamlining where neccessary) and a form of government and then let er rip. We would then of course have to stop right away because it would suck, but we would learn something, something on the level of an afterschool sitcom set in southern California, where a bunch of stereotypes hash out a simple moral dilemma and return to zero at the end of every episode (every second episode should the moral dilemma involve drugs or losing the virginity). Hey Ho, Status Quo!

Please will both Hugh and Taz remind themselves that neither are bitter towards each other, if I may:
Hugh does not want to self-censor or be peer censored, taz doesn't want to hear about why Tom Delay is such a horrible zit constantly, both things are allowed and no one is embittered.

Politics is way overdone and mostly way boring and there is more than enough of it elsewhere, but the natural tendency of Mecha to shy away from the heated posturing kind of political to and fro will correct itself. Mecha is like the market except it works and doesn't exploit 4/6'ths of the world to do so.

Yes, you're right, dear Wino.

But I just want to say for the record that I love hugh, because he's a stone romantic, and because he's whimsical and funny, and a guy who would always stand by you as a friend.

but I only know this because I met him here, instead of some current affairs blog

I feel all those things as well, he's also teddibly handsome and reminded me that Jack and ginger ale is a fantastic drink.

(not as good as captains and ginger, but then again, I like bad alcohol)

Bourbon and Bourbon analouges mix really well with ginger ale (rums do too, but not in the weird complementary way of jack and ginger, it's like spinach sauteed with garlic, made for each other).

And you know I like bad alcohol!

Hugh does not want to self-censor or be peer censored

Spot on, my friend!

taz, mecha is all I have. Except for spofi, I don't post anywhere else, and for good reasons. Here, I engage in any of the discussions I'm interested in, and some I'm not, but I figure, what the heck, let's play. So when people are in a discussion that isn't nasty or poo-flinging (because the poo-flingers generally don't show up here) but is about politics, and I want to throw in my two cents, I am annoyed and alienated when people say

Yay! Politics on metachat. Way to piss in the fountain.

because that's not what we're doing and it's far ruder (and closer to fountain-pissing) than even insults within the context of the thread. Which rarely show up even in these political threads because mechanisms still breathe rarefied air.

(And if the insults do fly, that should be okay, too. Better than passive agression).

And believe me, my *yawn* thread was something I've been cooking up for days (yeah, I know, lotta time on my hands), not a response to our discussion here. Sometimes my tone seems more strident than I mean, and sometimes my jokes seem more pointed than they are. Please believe me.

Of all the reasons I have for loving metachat, it's the fact that the mods are here playing with us, making the chat better, and that they will discuss policies (or lack thereof) with an open ear and I never end up feeling belittled. So thanks, taz, and all you guys, for making a place this worthwhile.

And if Jamaican ginger ale and Myers' rum ain't made for each other, then I don't know what.

Funny, I can write all that and still leave a sentence unfinished.