\Pocket, you know I dig you. But this does not make sense to me. I'm sitting here with a drink in front of me, admittedly, and trying to make sense of this Roveian theory.
"Because Michael Moore is gleeful, all critiques are gleeful. It also identifies the strongest opinions and disparages them."
OK, so yeah, what about Ann Coulter? Same shit.
And the bankruptcy bill? I don't get this either. "We should be able to declare bankruptcy in the case of a natural disaster." Okay, fair enough. But that's what. How many people are affected by this? A quarter million of the national population? So we throw out a bill that reforms debt control in the face of 1/200th of the nation's population? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I honestly don't get it. Maybe some sort of selectively lenient codicil to this particular bill in the face of a terrible national disaster, but I don't get throwing it out totally.
no subject
"Because Michael Moore is gleeful, all critiques are gleeful. It also identifies the strongest opinions and disparages them."
OK, so yeah, what about Ann Coulter? Same shit.
And the bankruptcy bill? I don't get this either. "We should be able to declare bankruptcy in the case of a natural disaster." Okay, fair enough. But that's what. How many people are affected by this? A quarter million of the national population? So we throw out a bill that reforms debt control in the face of 1/200th of the nation's population? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I honestly don't get it. Maybe some sort of selectively lenient codicil to this particular bill in the face of a terrible national disaster, but I don't get throwing it out totally.