Sharkansky is a liar.* In a post about I-25, he has this doozie:
A telling admission: After taping the segment with Robert Mak last Friday, David Goldstein remarked about I-25: “there aren’t any good rhetorical arguments against it”. No, there aren’t. That’s because there aren’t any good sensible arguments against it, as the bipartisan panel discussion helps make clear. For the most part, the only people who oppose having elections run by an official who is directly accountable to the voters are the tight band of insiders who currently get to appoint the elections director, and their fact-averse profanity-spewing shills
First, most people end their paragraphs with punctuation marks. Since there isn’t a “lie mark” or a “pulled out your ass point” a simple period will do. Second, maybe linking to shit isn’t the best way to elevate the discourse.
But to the point. While he did use those words, he clearly had another intent. And while most people don’t read the comments, Goldy decided to clarify.
When I said there aren’t any good rhetorical arguments against I-25, I specifically pointed out that it is hard to argue against more democracy. It just doesn’t make for a compelling campaign theme. But there are plenty of good, sensible, rational arguments against electing an elections director — as difficult as they may be to wrap in an attractive sound bite.
That you would conflate rhetoric with reason speaks volumes.
Goldy, it’s not conflation, it’s lying. Like when he quotes articles that contradict his point. Or when he makes up sources.
*Sky blue. Grass green. Yeah.