||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Friday, October 17, 2014
ThreeJays on Gardner
Deadspin recently has given to us anti-Gardnerians a lesson on how not to take down a candidate. If anything they've now given to all of us frightened of a politicised media (including me) reason to go against Udall - who supports a veto on non-media free-speech.
Still, there's this, from the comments, by one ThreeJays:
I think my politics are mixed, but it's hard to argue that endorsing creationism in the face of demonstrable science, defiantly calling oneself pro-life while supporting the death penalty and wars that kill innocents, and denying that climate change exists; then saying it does and humans contribute, then backtracking and saying, "I'm not a scientist...", and again putting climate change into issue (even though 97% of scientists agree on the issue), is anything but honest or consistent.
We are sorely tempted to call out ThreeJays, the person, as a slimy and disgusting liar. If his politics were "mixed", he'd know that being pro-life does not entail being merciful to - for instance - murderers, especially murderers who are likely to repeat their crimes.
ThreeJays would also be a lot more careful about calling people who question the received faith of Climate Change, "deniers"; or, for that matter, "dishonest". The only factor staying my hand is the possibility ThreeJays might be eating his own dogfood. It is common among Cathedral believers to hold that their axiomata are just Science - which in this case they actually are - except that the believers haven't grokked that "science" means that these statements aren't axiomatic. No statement is axiomatic in science. (Math department's down the hall, bro.) A true scientist would be reading Watt's Up With That.
Well, I'll still call ThreeJays out on one thing. ThreeJays is lying about the pro-life / capital-punishment relationship, which I'm surprised he doesn't just out and call an "Axis".
ThreeJays's personal life as a lying hack and probable astroturfer aside... he does offer points which go to Gardner's inconsistency. Some digging - okay, I just googled - turned up that Gardner has a very mixed record on Climate Change (his support of birdblenders alone has been documented on this very blog; which is a clear "tell" for a climate panderer). Gardner also supports that amendment on "personhood" (anti-abortion), to one audience; but he vacillates to the other audience. Well, which is it?
Based on Gardner's other stances, and his professions to not really being a Republican at all these days: I think I can tell you. Gardner is very happy to accept the extra turnout from the Republican base. Gardner's answer on "personhood" in general is that it is very important that Gardner be elected. Vote for him and your views on "personhood" will be very... *koff* [babble] oh look at the time.
Gardner is just as much a doubletalking weasel as is ThreeJays. But here is the difference - ThreeJays ain't in the running to be my Senator. Gardner is. So I'll give Gardner as many votes as I'd give ThreeJays.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved