Jarrod is a great kid, and comes from a great family. His father is a Battalion Chief with the SBFD, and his older brother, now running track at the University of Michigan, was equally as bright and an outstanding athlete. For all of the crap we have to deal with in the news about our city, it is a nice change of pace to read an article about someone like this. Congrats Jarrod!

Seriously, the argument that someone's post is somehow invalid based on reader ratings is the same kind of fallacious reasoning that most of the conservative posters on here use in other epistemic claims.

All the rating means is whether people LIKE the post or not. It is more of an indirect way of revealing the ideological inclinations of the readers of an article than the validity of the points made therein. Surely you understand that, don't you? Of course, someone else attempted to support creationist "science" by referring to some poll somewhere that said many people believe it. Astonishing.

Sorry guys. I thought I might get some enjoyable discussion out of these threads. Instead, I see little other than tired old shibboleths and many-a-three-card monty employed in order to avoid an eviscerating rebuttal. Best o' luck to ya.

I find it hilarious that those who claim to be strict adherents to the Constitution would make sanctimonious hyperbolic claims about "gay slurs," when it is clear that, while a lampoon on the Tea Party, is in no way an obscene reference. (ironically, these same folks come to the defense bigoted organizations that promote laws to execute gay people in foreign countries).

I suppose, like most "strict constructionists" and defenders of constitutional integrity, they like it when it applies to them, but when others' speech can be cut off, they take every chance. With such a lack of substance behind their own arguments, I am not surprised that they would seek to remove the arguments of others over technicalities.

I have a master's degree in Theology from the local Catholic university. There is nothing about the Big Bang inconsistent with creatio ex nihilo (in fact, how else would it have happened!) Furthermore, the evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. What is the evidence for creation? (jeez, I mean, most of the time you all try for natural selection, but go ahead and play that losing hand as far as you want.)

I'm amused by your claim that "most of the citizens of this country believe in creationism." I'm sorry, has empirical science now become a ballot issue? That's hilarious. I am going to resist the urge to take this thread to a tangent about creationism vs. reality, but that is just patently absurd, and I can't believe you would even go there.

And yes, I am belittling the FRC. They are deliberately trying to undermine scientific reality with their underhanded school-board-stuffing efforts. It is also despicable that those bigots-for-Jesus would support the politicians in Uganda who have made being a homosexual a capital crime. They have actually made it punishable by death, and it is a life sentence for you to not report someone you know is gay. That is not only unChristian, it borders on criminal. So yes, I am belittling those hate-mongering bigots. So would Jesus.

What specifically are you saying is unconstitutional about health care reform? I've heard a few corners of the conservative punditocracy make such claims, but nothing substantial has ever been presented in terms of legal underpinnings. Sounds more like political posturing by ambitious attorneys general than anything substantive. In most discussions with folks in the legal arena, my understanding is that it would be unlikely that even Scalia or Thomas would find it unconstitutional prima facie, although their political motivations might give them cause to come up with something.

Anyway, liking or disliking a bill and calling it unconstitutional are different animals entirely. I'm curious about what your perspective is on the latter.

There is more to the bill than just the cost. At the end of the day, reform is a legitimate endeavor, and ultimately needs attention. Donnelly recognizes that, and that's why he made his choice. I respectfully disagree with you about him not being able to consider himself a deficit hawk simply from one vote. He voted for this bill in spite of its cost, and make no mistake, it weighed heavily on him. He was in a tough spot, because of the way the leadership put this bill forward. His record on matters of fiscal policy is still very solid, and he is quite often at odds with his own party on such matters. If you don't think it is worth diving into his record, then I must say that you are not giving the issue the attention it deserves. I've seen your posts and you seem to be a thoughtful guy. Dismissing him as such seems to be an easy way of avoiding the facts of the matter.

And I would also say that it was indeed the truth about his position. The abortion funding issue changed, at least ostensibly. I don't call that caving. I think that something had to be done.

Furthermore, why can't you trust him on financial reform? That is not so much a matter of fiscal conservatism or budgetary policy. The fact of the matter is that there absolutely MUST be better oversight over the derivatives market, and of the activities of institutions with fiduciary responsibilities to clients that have such far reaching impact on the broader economy. Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Financial Services Modernization Act from 10 years ago, which repealed Glass-Steagall and essentially made it illegal to regulate credit default swaps, were some of the most devastating policy decisions precipitating this crises (and there were many, with much blame for both parties to share). Saying that Joe's vote on Health Care makes you unable to trust him is like saying that because your auto mechanic burns his steaks, you can't trust him to change your oil.

Of course, let's face it, the GOP lost its claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility over a decade ago. They may call the Dems the "tax and spend" party, but they are simply the "borrow and spend" party. 35% increase in the federal debt (not deficit), under their stewardship.

Sorry, MrBigTime, I disagree. I get a weekly list of votes from my representatives, and Donnelly has voted against almost every single spending bill that he felt overreached. This is a courageous act from a freshman (now sophomore, I guess), Congressman. He has worked tirelessly for veterans, and a simple search on his bills and efforts will prove that. If you think that, because you disagree about his health care vote, that he is a sell out, then I wonder if ANYONE could possibly meet your expectations.

What other important votes are you referring to? Just curious. I mean, if health care is the only one, it must be very very important to you, and I can dig that. Everyone holds different issues, and those issues have different valences for us all. But, if it is important mostly because of the fiscal policy issues, I strongly suggest you review Joe's record on the myriad other issues that pertain to the budget, the deficit, and the debt. He is a legit deficit hawk, and his record substantiates that.

lol, if you are going attempt to be sesqupedalian, try to find works with appropriate definitions. I'm hardly being recalcitrant. You proved nothing. You provided an opinion from the Party Leader of the opposition, along with opinions from two of the most vocal anti-abortion groups in the world. Their authority on such matters is suspect, at best.

However, I'll drop it. You are of the opinion that this is certainly a vote FOR money for abortion. I am saying it is not, or at least that is what was the sentiment expressed by those who put it through. If they are wrong, so be it, but you can't honestly claim that Joe Donnelly is somehow being disingenuous by having concern for, and being assuaged by, the executive order. That's all I'm sayin, Mixie.

The Family Research Council? OMG lol. They believe in Creationism. And you give a quote from the Minority Party leader? Nice "proof."

Prove it