What's this crap with startling new interpretations of the law?

Listening to Hubris on the drive and it's getting back into the pre-war "discoveries" and "findings" that we have a urinary executive, his powers mean he's unaccountable to congress, he has the ability to decide when we go to war without seeing Congress, etc. How can these assholes even voice such ideas without getting impeached, disbarred, or simply shot for treason?

Could you imagine how real life would be if the average citizen could conduct his own reinterpretation of what plain fucking english means? "I've reinterpreted the terms of my car loan to mean that I no longer have to pay." "I've reinterpreted sexual harassment laws to mean I get to pinch secretaries on the butt." "I can speed because the speed limit only applies to other drivers."

How in the bloody fuck can these people say, with a straight face, that they can read centuries-old law and come up with interpretations nobody else has, act on it, and not be punished? Fuck, I'm reinterpreting my birth certificate to say that McDonalds owes me a free cheeseburger and schizo blondie from Heroes is my new wife.

.. no matter what kind of perfume they try to package it in.

A urinary executive.. love it.

You know how much the Republicans hate activist judges. They've told us that over and over again. I never knew Roberts and Alito were Democrats, did you? :sarcasm:

Ergo??????

BTW, if the bank/investors owe you enough money, you get to name the terms of your payment not in full because they're dying just to get back pennies on the dollar.

When you pull that sort of thing off a couple of times the TV networks give you your own reality show.

Cheney is loving his role on Faux and is working hard to bring PBS and NPR in line.

Smedley Butler in "War is a Racket" talks about how you never see mad money in peactime like you do in wartime. If you want to make the big bucks, you need a war. The same goes for your average revolutionary. I've read some books about revolutions and the consensus among authors is that a healthy nation is just plain unlikely to fall to revolutionary conspirators. For starters, the state apparatus is healthy and internal police will be able to detect and neutralize plots. More importantly, the people wouldn't stand for it. But a weak nation with a weak government won't be able to keep up with the plots, the people would be just as happy to see the rulers gone. In this chaos, a conspirator can move from revolutionary to establishment in short order.

Bush and crew wouldn't have been able to pull off half this shit if we weren't already paralyzed by fear of a mostly fanciful terrorist threat.