is an anomoly in an otherwise fine document.

Its inclusion is antithetical to the very idea of the "rule of law" and that in America "the law be king and all men equal before it".

The Constitution is a great document in many ways but it isn't without its flaws.

with two scoops of "teh soft serve vanilla stupid", a thick chocolate caramel layer of "rich idiot sauce" a dollop of fluffy white "dumbass", top-coated with "sickeningly sweet crushed nuts", two "marachino mushheads" and one longitudinally sliced "banana", and this looks like one tasty "crazy filled" ice cream treat.

Thankfully I had my fill yesterday and my sweet tooth wasn't acting up. Otherwise I might have been tempted to take a couple of big old bites.

Nice piece Glenn. Too bad we can't find a way to get it syndicated in every major media market in the country. A guy can dream big though can't he?

I always wondered what late stage syphillitic dementia looked like.

Now I know and it isn't pretty. Pretty sad in fact.

As Glenn referenced Zorkna the other day "the level of mental illness it takes to show up here every day, day in and day out, feverishly pounding out the same screed over and over and over again is truly disturbing."

Or something to that effect.

I think Winnie is showing signs of it as well.

All I've got for you now brother is pity and the hand.

Talk to it until you're blue in the face for all I care.

If I wanted to directly respond to any more crazy uninformed jibberish I'd call into Limbaugh's Singing Salami Show.

Because if you can turn a buck off getting people to tune into a program featuring a singing salami, there just might be something of value to learn about the human condition.

You on the other hand are as interesting as an inflamed episode of the clap or a wicked case of head lice.

To be precise it's "nanothermite stained underpants".

Not regular thermite. Nanothermite. There's a very important distinction there.

And I don't get the sense he's graduated to underpants yet. It's probably still a diaper or whatever you call those plastic training underpants the little peoples wear when they aren't quite ready for big kid underpants.

I merely pointed out that there was no PRECEDENT for a building collapsing like that that WASN'T a controlled demolition job. In other words I was being exceptionally clever. By saying that I'd be informing the judge about all the other buildings ever that had collapsed like that had been demo jobs.

What you should be pointing out to yourself in the mirror is how not clever you are, how insufferable stupid you are when it comes to the law, and how pathologically annoying your are.

You wouldn't be allowed to say the above for the very same reasons I stated. You'd open your idiotic cakehole, a lawyer would object that you aren't competent to opine on a question that wasn't asked of you, it would be sustained, and you'd be told to shut up and keep your remarks to the question at hand (e.g. what did you witness first hand--that is all). Any stupidity or theories or explanations you might spew before he/she shut you up would be followed by a jury instruction to disregard your know-nothing utterances.

Again this raises a two larger questions--why are you so insufferably stupid or are you mentally ill?

You and your Israel hating conspiracy theorists should all jet down to Brazil and rant away about Dual Loyalty, and how the secret Jews control Washington to funnel money to Israel and kill Muslims, while the rest of us fight the real enemy -- the very above-the-board movement called the "Republican Party."

It's like a broken record.

1) we're all part of an anti-Jew/anti-Israel conspiracy . . .check

2) dual loyalty . . . check

3) secret jews run the banking industry . . . check

4) I'm a real liberal you guys are 7th column stealth republicans . . . check

5) I know this because I have my "anti-Jew code language" decoder ring on my index finger today and it is pressed firmly to my temple to facilitate decoding.

None of which has ever been argued here except in one PhD candidate's fevered imagination.

If the judge got annoyed at me saying they blew up and how could I say that. I'd butter up the old beak by telling him that there was no precedent for a building like WTC7 to drop like that unless it was the result of an explosive demo job.

That'd make him sit up and pay attention wouldn't it rrheard?

God you are insufferably stupid. You wouldn't be allowed as a lay person to "speculate" about causation. Period. And the minute you opened your stupid idiotic cakehole a lawyer would object and the judge would instruct you to refrain from opining on things you are not competent to testify about.

What it would make him sit up and do is make you shut up or suffer the penalty of not adhering to his instructions which is to have you removed from his courtroom.

I just have to say this again--God you are insufferably stupid. And annoying. And incredibly misinformed. And likely mentally ill. I don't know why I even waste my time attempting to educate you on the simplest legal concepts.