en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/695280 Comments by Dean Moriarty http://www.wsbt.com/sports/93731599.html#IDComment75443977 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! Fri, 14 May 2010 17:39:27 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/sports/93731599.html#IDComment75443977 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72983143 Seriously, the argument that someone&#039;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&#039;t you? Of course, someone else attempted to support creationist &quot;science&quot; 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&#039; luck to ya. Thu, 6 May 2010 00:13:06 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72983143 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72964045 I find it hilarious that those who claim to be strict adherents to the Constitution would make sanctimonious hyperbolic claims about &quot;gay slurs,&quot; 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 &quot;strict constructionists&quot; and defenders of constitutional integrity, they like it when it applies to them, but when others&#039; 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. Wed, 5 May 2010 23:24:38 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72964045 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72943584 I have a master&#039;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&#039;m amused by your claim that &quot;most of the citizens of this country believe in creationism.&quot; I&#039;m sorry, has empirical science now become a ballot issue? That&#039;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&#039;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. Wed, 5 May 2010 22:36:54 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72943584 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72930434 What specifically are you saying is unconstitutional about health care reform? I&#039;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&#039;m curious about what your perspective is on the latter. Wed, 5 May 2010 22:05:13 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72930434 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72929171 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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t call that caving. I think that something had to be done. Furthermore, why can&#039;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&#039;s vote on Health Care makes you unable to trust him is like saying that because your auto mechanic burns his steaks, you can&#039;t trust him to change your oil. Of course, let&#039;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 &quot;tax and spend&quot; party, but they are simply the &quot;borrow and spend&quot; party. 35% increase in the federal debt (not deficit), under their stewardship. Wed, 5 May 2010 22:02:14 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72929171 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72890597 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&#039;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. Wed, 5 May 2010 20:30:23 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72890597 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72888709 lol, if you are going attempt to be sesqupedalian, try to find works with appropriate definitions. I&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t honestly claim that Joe Donnelly is somehow being disingenuous by having concern for, and being assuaged by, the executive order. That&#039;s all I&#039;m sayin, Mixie. Wed, 5 May 2010 20:25:42 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72888709 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72853380 The Family Research Council? OMG lol. They believe in Creationism. And you give a quote from the Minority Party leader? Nice &quot;proof.&quot; Wed, 5 May 2010 18:15:35 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72853380 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72813483 Prove it Wed, 5 May 2010 16:41:18 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72813483 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72800718 Perhaps, but that remains to be seen. At this point, it is pure speculation on your part. Wed, 5 May 2010 16:08:41 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72800718 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72796405 Taxation is perfectly legal within the Constitution, isn&#039;t it? Most of the complaints from the Taxed Enough Already party have been about that, right? I mean, I know health care bothers them. However, to this point, the only taxes that are increased have been on cigarette smokers. The Tea Party is usurping the use of the Constitution as though written directly within it was an endorsement of supply-side economics. It&#039;s a useless claim that adds virtually nothing to the discussion of the issues. And you are once again using tired old straw man arguments. &quot;old white, slave-owning rhetoric.&quot; All while complaining about other people being &quot;slanderous&quot; Wed, 5 May 2010 15:58:14 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72796405 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72790088 Actually, as it pertains to the news article, i.e. the 2nd District, this is completely untrue. (and again, you want to chastise others for using language with &quot;negative/perverse connotations&quot; while employing it yourself. Either stop using it yourself, or stop complaining about others) The fact is that the exact opposite was true. One of the main reasons Donnelly ultimately switched was the more restrictive proscriptions on federal funding for abortions or family planning. Donnelly was on the fence until this was addressed. Wed, 5 May 2010 15:42:37 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72790088 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72788292 Sorry Jon, you&#039;re right. It is Tea &quot;Party&quot;. However, PLEASE save your crocodile tears. The party of &quot;death panels&quot;, &quot;death tax&quot;, &quot;socialism!&quot; and of shamelessly claiming that financial reform is itself a bailout has no business whatsoever in bemoaning the &quot;typical language of the Left.&quot; Sorry, that dog don&#039;t hunt. I don&#039;t disagree with the idea of no additional tax and spend. However, I also understand that Keynesian stimulus is a perfectly legitimate effort to address recessions.(wasn&#039;t it interesting to watch so many of those Congressmen who voted against the stimulus pose for pictures back home for the local projects that the stimulus funded?) Also, we are amongst the lowest-taxed countries in the world. And our GINI index is the worst it has been in over 100 years. Where is the money going to come from? What are we going to cut? Military? Social Security? Medicare? The interest on the debt? Military and federal pensions? Those are the biggest outlays the government has. At some point, we have to face a more austere reality. I don&#039;t think many liberals want to believe that, and I think the Tea Party has a facile, naive approach that is ignorant of the realities of our tax system. Instead they opt for cheap and easy political posturing, full of self-righteous indignation and fraught with tired old conservative shibboleths. Hence, Tea BAGGERS..... Wed, 5 May 2010 15:38:06 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72788292 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72776773 I suppose that all remains to be seen, my friend. I certainly think it was a mistake on the part of the Democrats to play the budget game with this issue. At the end of the day, you have competing interests: insuring more people, protecting those already insured, and working to eliminate some of the serious issues within our Medico-Industrial problems. All of this, coupled with keeping costs low and being budget neutral is an impossible task. They would have been better served trying to stick with a more popular bill along the lines of a &quot;Patient&#039;s Bill of Rights&quot; or whatnot. Still, as far as taxes go, I ultimately care less about who I am paying it to (some insurance giant or Uncle Sam) as long as people are trying harder to ensure I get covered and cared for instead of squeezed for every nickel I have. Wed, 5 May 2010 15:08:34 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72776773 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72774949 I have many, many friends from Canada. None are socialist, none feel as though they live under any form of tyranny, and they are always surprised as heck to hear about how miserable their health care system is. Many are amazed to be still alive, based on comments like this. A few of us compared our tax burdens, combined wtih health insurance premiums. If you look at my premiums and copays, it works out pretty much the same in terms of cost. Now, mind you, I am not advocating a move to their system. There are plenty of problems (much of it has to do with inadequate numbers of specialists being too spread out in a country of 30 million people living in the 2nd biggest country in the world). HOWEVER, the point is, people toss out &quot;We&#039;re gonna be like CANADA!&quot; as though it is some kind of devastating argument, even if it isn&#039;t remotely true. Bottom line: we are not going to be, and even if we were, it wouldn&#039;t be such a miserable fate. Wed, 5 May 2010 15:04:13 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72774949 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72773100 Sorry you feel that way. Not all of us have had the rosy experience that you have had with your insurer. However, it is a complete fallacy, a straw man, to compare health care reform to socialized medicine of Canada or Europe. Talk about exposing &quot;propaganda!&quot; That is straight from the AM talk radio playbook, and it is unfortunate that people insist on polluting the debate with such mendacity. Furthermore, Europe does not have socialism. Which countries in Europe are you talking about? Most European countries run parliamentary republics of some form or another. Some of them have a greater degree of government involvement in various aspects of society (e.g. unemployment, health care, pensions, etc), but none of the Western, Central, or Northern European states are socialist. Making such claims displays an astounding ignorance of what socialism really is, and is an insult to the people who actually HAVE suffered under it for decades in eastern europe and asia. Wed, 5 May 2010 14:59:42 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72773100 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72771194 I know, I&#039;m always amused by such comments. Perhaps it is in reference to cuts to Medicare Advantage, a Bush-era program that is the very definition of unsustainable. It offers the nice &quot;privatized&quot; insurance...but is completely subsidized by the federal government and absolutely would not survive without it. Everyone in that program would still have complete Medicare benefits. I don&#039;t get it. Perhaps they are just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks? Wed, 5 May 2010 14:54:45 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72771194 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72760833 &quot;The majority of people in the 2nd District don&rsquo;t care tonight whether they&rsquo;re Republican, Democrat or independent,&quot; she said. &quot;They care about having a fighter, standing up and fighting for them and turning back what&rsquo;s happened.&quot; Interesting choice of words,, Jackie. You basically have described Joe Donnelly, trying to reverse much of the damage and neglect of the Bush/Cheney years. Perhaps she is just trying pretend Joe isn&#039;t a great guy. I don&#039;t envy her position. Essentially, she is running against Barack Obama, because Joe Donnelly is a good guy and great representative for the 2nd District. Wed, 5 May 2010 14:25:36 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72760833 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72744402 Why all the animosity to Joe Donnelly? Is anyone paying attention, or just listening to TeaBaggers? Donnelly has consistently been ranked in the top 10 of most independent voting Congressmen. Contrary to the claims made by his opponents, he has absolutely NOT been a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi. One might not agree with him on everything, but he works as hard as any member of Congress for his constituents, regardless of their party affiliation. Donnelly has voted AGAINST almost every budget bill in which spending outpaced inflation. That&#039;s a fact, and I encourage you all to look it up. He has also done more for our courageous veterans in his 4 years in office than most politicians do in their entire careers. Yes, he voted for Health Care reform , and provided a well-reasoned explanation for why:<a href="http://donnelly.house.gov/2010/03/congressman-donnelly-will-support-health-insurance-reform.shtml" target="_blank">http://donnelly.house.gov/2010/03/congressman-don...</a> Walorski is a nice person, but Donnelly is working hard to undo much of the damage done under the Bush/Cheney administration and Tom Delay Congress. It would be a shame to swap him out for just another voice in the chorus for the Party of No. Wed, 5 May 2010 13:09:34 +0000 http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/92823839.html#IDComment72744402