You forgot brilliant and magnificently sexy.
And remember this Jocko. Never, EVER disagree with me. Does the lion worry about the opinions of the sheep?
Hahahahaha. Just kidding.
You may disagree with me once a month. You have used up March's quota. :)
In keeping with your traditional obstreperous and obnoxiously witty affronteries to social norms and the conventional connective tissues of society
I'll just have to start disagreeing with you on odd days and twice on Saturday.
Can't have you getting too smug and lofty in your prissy confidence in your own grandeur.
On the topic of the "receivership," ...
It is a rather specific term. I do NOT think it would have been used except about a corporation in this context. And, THAT corporation is ripe for POTUS doing exactly what he said he'd do with such wealth in his December Executive Order.
I just can't imagine it being thrown around willy nilly about anything BUT a legal receivership designed to protect the wealth and operations of a corporation.
Just doesn't make sense, to me.