Friday, February 29, 2008
On the other hand ...
Shorter Canadian conservatives: "As devout Christians who absolutely and unequivocally believe in an invisible, intangible but infinitely omniscient and omnipotent deity without even the flimsiest bit of supporting evidence to back that up, there's no way we're going to accept these Chuck Cadman accusations without positively ironclad, irrefutable proof."
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, but... but... that's different!
What's different is it's conservatives.
A minor quibble: from what I can tell, there's no amount of proof that's sufficiently ironclad or irrefutable for a Con to admit wrongdoing.
I believe, Jurist, that's known in the casebooks as Lord Whimsy's Rule.
Got it: IAOKIYAR, I mean IAOKIYAC.
Post a Comment