why?
in the last several days, someone, somewhere...
read that karl rove claimed that the opposition was responsible for politicizing his involvement in the whole federal prosecutors deal and because of that he didn't do anythin' wrong...and thought, 'hey, that makes sense.'
heard that so and so agreed with the notion that them there queers shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military because as a catholic they have to believe that it is wrong...and said, 'hmm, ok i can respect that.'
was discussing some 'moral' issue with their buddy over a beer and nodded, 'right on' when they heard,'hey, its just a matter of opinion, let's agree to disagree.'
well, im here to tell you. that is just too damned bad. not because the views expressed are necessarily wrong (it may be the case that the bastards from the other side of the aisle are politicizing rove's deal, that gay folks should definitely not be allowed to serve openly and that the best one can do in a certain situation is agree to disagree). its a damn shame because the reasons used to justify those claims are absolutely useless, provide no support for the claim being made AND if you can make sense of the poorly punctuated sentences i be writing...you cannot consistently adhere to belief in any of them...
2 comments:
Why construct "poorly punctuated sentences"? Laziness is not a consistent excuse, because you were diligent enough to write a master's thesis in the Queen's English, weren't you?
i told you...you must couple it with the speed of my typing AND my impatience
Post a Comment