Xequecal wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
It's fine that you don't feel bad about saying things that are untrue, you've proven that the truth means little to you when it benefits you to lie. It's interesting that you quote wiki, but don't look at the underlying article. Here's what he actually
said:No, I didn't read the interview. I'll freely admit that I'm biased against Santorum...
Ahh, I misjudged your character, you'll not only lie when it benefits you, you'll lie when you don't like someone. Got it.
Xequecal wrote:
Do you really think Santorum would vote against a law banning these things if it came down to one in a state legislature?
Unlike you, I can't read minds, so I look for what people
say: [edit: What, do you have Hopwin on ignore, or something?
]
Quote:
Personally, Rick Santorum is opposed to contraception.
Policy-wise, he wouldn’t vote to ban it for anyone.
But he doesn’t think the courts have any business stepping in, either way.
A lot has been made of Rick Santorum’s perceived opposition to contraception and homosexuality. But is not as simple as Santorum opposing contraception and gay sex and thinking the government should do everything it can to outlaw the two.
In Santorum’s view, states have the right to make laws outlawing things like contraception – although he says would not vote for the laws himself.
But while he disagrees with the specific state laws, he doesn’t want the Supreme Court striking them down, because that could create blanket rights affecting all Americans and tying the hands of state governments.
As far as contraception and gay sex, Santorum is personally opposed because of his Catholic faith.
Even so, he thinks states should have the legal right to limit what people do in their bedrooms – or to “limit individuals’ wants and passions,” as he puts it. But he doesn’t want to be accused of actually wanting to limit those activities himself.
“I didn’t vote for any kind of ban on contraception, nor did I vote for any ban on sodomies, nor would I as president,” he told CNN’s John King this week. “I don’t believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. The government doesn’t have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral. That was one. And I said it at the time that I wouldn’t have voted for the Texas sodomy law that was in place nor would I vote to ban contraception, even though I think that – as a Catholic who the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong - I would not do it myself.”
Another example would be the quote, from the article you didn't read, that I highlighted above.
Xequecal wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
In your opinion, which is backed by your many years of education in institutions specializing in economics? Your decades of reading economic theory? Your decades of doing performing duties that relate directly to economics on the scale of the Federal Government of the United States of America? Nah, I'm guessing that it's an opinion of based on casually browsing message boards and blogs. Which is closer to the truth, X and why should your opinion hold water?
Yes, in my opinion. I don't understand complex economic principles, but you seem to be implying that there's a consensus amongst economists that I'm wrong.
I'm implying no such thing. I'm clearly
stating that you don't admittedly don't understand what you're talking about, therefore, your opinion is not one to which I lend any credence.
Xequecal wrote:
You claim I'm incapable of "basic logical reasoning," but how is someone that doesn't understand complex economic principles supposed to tell that left-wing economists like Krugman are a fraud and economists that support your side aren't?
Educate yourself. Use logic vigorously. Look at things you do understand. You have referenced the Broken Window Fallacy. Krugman, for example, believes that works. **** the individual pundits for the moment. Look at the various
schools of thought on the subject. Compare and contrast the
schools of thought. Which schools of thought have been successful? Which have failed repeatedly? Why? When you can answer those questions for yourself then you can move on to the pundits. When you can identify (independently) which school of thought the pundit espouses then you can decide if what they are espousing is even logically consistent with their own belief system. If they don't even make it that far you've got an idea of how much weight to give their pontificating. Continue...
The first thing you might want to consider is the difference (if there is any) between cutting a trillion dollars from "the budget" and cutting a trillion dollars from "spending".
Hey Hopwin, we used the same source independently! Go go Google!
_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
