#CruzSexScandal

[fishonjazz]

It's so funny that this site censored his last name. Rhymes with Decker.

Lmao P-ecker is censored? ******.

Jazzfanz lmao.

Reminds me of a joke.
Why can't a chicken pee?

Spoiler

cause his ****** is on his head

 

[Miggs]

Reminds me of a joke.
Why can't a chicken pee?

Spoiler

cause his ****** is on his head

Thought this was gonna be that Johnny Deeper joke.

Anyone know that one?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Thought this was gonna be that Johnny Deeper joke.

Anyone know that one?

The one about the kid and the teacher and the mom and the dad and the principal? The only thing stranger than that meandering joke is trying to figure out why you thought he was going to tell it in this situation.. unless you know a completely different Johnny Deeper joke than the one I've heard.

 

[Miggs]

The one about the kid and the teacher and the mom and the dad and the principal? The only thing stranger than that meandering joke is trying to figure out why you thought he was going to tell it in this situation.. unless you know a completely different Johnny Deeper joke than the one I've heard.

'Cause the word ****** was being thrown around, genius.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

'Cause the word ****** was being thrown around, genius.

Well the word ****** isn't even in the version I've heard. So please treat us to this gem.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Huh? I think you may have your political terminology a little mixed up. Socialism is one end of a continuum. Joe clearly pointed out "farther toward", which implies moving further to the socialistic end of the continuum...

No I don't. The core concept of socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

Evidently, the way it is being used here and elsewhere involves a more expanded definition, e.g., expansion of social safety net, of, if you will, the welfare state. I genuinely want to understand which of Bernie's policy ideas are pushing the US more toward socialism, and as part of this, what people understand this term to mean.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You need me to explain to you how Sanders proposed programs would move us toward socialism? Are you paying any attention to what he says at all?

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You and Cruz sound very similar.

Ouch, that really hurts

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Sounds like you need Jesus as much as Cruz does

I need lots of things, maybe Jesus is one of them, but I'm pretty certain it's not the vindictive, bigoted version of Jesus that Ted Cruz worships.

 

[b_line]

Does this story actually have legs?

Legs fo dayzzzzzzzzz bro! Why else would ted have cheated on Heidi?

 

[b_line]

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

Single payer medicine is the big one.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

Your posts lead me to believe that you think that government does a good job with the money it collects and spends. If that's the case, you and I see this entire issue in fundamentally different ways. I do not believe government does a good job of solving problems. I think that the results of government programs are almost always vastly different than the intentions. I could give many examples. As a result of this, I believe that government involvement in our lives (especially from the federal level) ought to be minimized. For this reason I'm rarely for increased federal social spending and the increased federal taxation that's required to fund it.

To me increased taxes and increased social programs are another step on the pathway toward a more socialist form of government. Also, I do not believe that the social programs will work at all as advertised. People in high tax brackets will take steps that will hurt the economy (moving money and business offshore) and people who are eligible for the programs will take steps to get as much as they possibly can. There will also be a ton of fraud and waste. It happens every time.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Your posts lead me to believe that you think that government does a good job with the money it collects and spends. If that's the case, you and I see this entire issue in fundamentally different ways. I do not believe government does a good job of solving problems. I think that the results of government programs are almost always vastly different than the intentions. I could give many examples. As a result of this, I believe that government involvement in our lives (especially from the federal level) ought to be minimized. For this reason I'm rarely for increased federal social spending and the increased federal taxation that's required to fund it.

To me increased taxes and increased social programs are another step on the pathway toward a more socialist form of government. Also, I do not believe that the social programs will work at all as advertised. People in high tax brackets will take steps that will hurt the economy (moving money and business offshore) and people who are eligible for the programs will take steps to get as much as they possibly can. There will also be a ton of fraud and waste. It happens every time.

I think the government at times uses tax money well, at other times it does not. It has it's share of inefficiencies and dysfunctions. I think also that the private sector, especially large corporations, do a generally good job of allocating economic resources, but are full of inefficiencies, dysfunctions and inequities. I'm simply not willing to indulge in generalizations on the order of "government = bad" or "private sector = good." There are a wide variety of public goods/service, which I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the private sector, for a variety of reasons, and a wide variety of goods/services I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the public sector. Provision of health care is not one of them, because as I've noted repeatedly, countries that DO have a much larger role of the government in healthcare delivery do so at a lower cost, with better outcomes, and higher public satisfaction rates.

I see the issue as complex, whereas your posts lead me to believe that you don't, and that, rather, you have a pretty simplistic understanding of what is, in my opinion, a complex issue.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Single payer medicine is the big one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but health care service providers would still be privately owned, right?

Ok, fair enough. Keep in mind that where it comes to health care, the US is the outlier among developed nations. Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts. Why, then, would we not want to take a closer look at their models to learn from them . . . other than, perhaps, our misguided sense of American exceptionalism, which dictates that, even when we are producing sub-optimal outcomes compared to other developed countries, the way we do it is better, because . . . . America!

 

[fishonjazz]

Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts.

If this is true and people don't want to change it then wouldn't those people that don't want to change it have to be idiots?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think the government at times uses tax money well, at other times it does not. It has it's share of inefficiencies and dysfunctions. I think also that the private sector, especially large corporations, do a generally good job of allocating economic resources, but are full of inefficiencies, dysfunctions and inequities. I'm simply not willing to indulge in generalizations on the order of "government = bad" or "private sector = good." There are a wide variety of public goods/service, which I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the private sector, for a variety of reasons, and a wide variety of goods/services I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the public sector. Provision of health care is not one of them, because as I've noted repeatedly, countries that DO have a much larger role of the government in healthcare delivery do so at a lower cost, with better outcomes, and higher public satisfaction rates.

I see the issue as complex, whereas your posts lead me to believe that you don't, and that, rather, you have a pretty simplistic understanding of what is, in my opinion, a complex issue.

We disagree, so that means you understand the issue and I don't. Got it.

If this is true and people don't want to change it then wouldn't those people that don't want to change it have to be idiots?

Yep, but please remember that the idiots are the ones who thought that health care costs would go up as a result of Obamacare, and it turns out that they were right.
https://sites.middlebury.edu/presid...u-lie-assessing-claims-about-obamacares-cost/

Maybe the geniuses who believe we need to emulate the rest of the world to solve this problem are overlooking the fact that the rest of the world is effectively being subsidized by American Health Care. And maybe they are also ignoring the fact that a much larger percentage of an American's health care dollar ultimately ends up in an insurance company's pocket than anywhere else in the world (because American consumers are the ones who ultimately pay for all of those liability lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Hmm, who is oversimplifying this issue again?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

If this is true and people don't want to change it then wouldn't those people that don't want to change it have to be idiots?

No, not at all. Different countries have different cultures and ways of doing things. What works in one country won't necessarily work in another. I don't know that a single payer system would work here, but I think it's worth having a grown-up discussion about it. We can't, however, because the political culture in this country won't allow it, owing to knee jerk branding of any public option as 'socialism' and jingoistic appeals to American exceptionalism.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

We disagree, so that means you understand the issue and I don't. Got it.

If you want to, you can look at it that way. Frankly, no, I don’t think you understand the complexities of the issue judging solely by the context of your posts. Don’t take it personally; there are plenty of issues we all don’t understand well. I’ve worked with numerous government and private sector entities, and my experience has taught me that gross generalities about either are misplaced. I’ve seen enough to know that blanket statements smearing public sector entities as inherently inefficient are overstated, while blanket statements praising the efficiency of private sector entities are overstated as well.

Yep, but please remember that the idiots are the ones who thought that health care costs would go up as a result of Obamacare, and it turns out that they were right.
https://sites.middlebury.edu/presid...u-lie-assessing-claims-about-obamacares-cost/

I never hung my hat on the argument that health care costs would necessarily go down under Obamacare. To me, increased costs, within reason, are an acceptable tradeoff to a significant increase in the insurance net. So, I never said or thought that people who arguing costs would rise were idiots, it was always an empirical question to me and not one of ideology. For me, the primary issue was that it is a moral disgrace that the richest country in the world doesn’t provide health insurance for all its citizens, as does every single other developed country. Purely private provision will NEVER achieve this objective.

I would, however, urge you to consider the caveat at the end of the sited articles, as follows:

“As you can see, the CBO projections completely missed the coming housing collapse and the accompanying economic recession, not to mention spending on two wars – as did everyone else! We should be skeptical, then, when we hear pundits evaluate ACA based on its estimated budgetary impact a decade from now. Unlike Joe Wilson, I’m not accusing anyone of lying. But typically judgments about ACA say more about the pundit’s own ideological leanings than they do about any certainty about what ACA’s actual economic impact is likely to be, particularly that far ahead. This is not to say that the CBO projections are wrong – in fact, they may be the best projections available – but they are projections made with a great deal of uncertainty. The truth, I think, is that there are simply too many moving parts and too many unknowns to be confident in predicting how ACA is going to play out. But that won’t stop both sides from trying.”

I’m not saying or have I ever said that we should emulate the rest of the world. My point is that we can possibly learn from what the rest of the world is doing, and that we should have a grown-up discussion about options for providing health care, as the existing approach (prior to ACA) had many severe deficiencies. So, I’m about keeping options open, because I believe there is a better approach out there than what we had before, this includes public or quasi-public provision. The fact that we're America doesn't mean we have all the best solutions for every policy issue, and our obsession with this idea of American exceptionalism hinders us from learning from what other countries are doing.

 

[fishonjazz]

We disagree, so that means you understand the issue and I don't. Got it.


Yep, but please remember that the idiots are the ones who thought that health care costs would go up as a result of Obamacare, and it turns out that they were right.
https://sites.middlebury.edu/presid...u-lie-assessing-claims-about-obamacares-cost/

Maybe the geniuses who believe we need to emulate the rest of the world to solve this problem are overlooking the fact that the rest of the world is effectively being subsidized by American Health Care. And maybe they are also ignoring the fact that a much larger percentage of an American's health care dollar ultimately ends up in an insurance company's pocket than anywhere else in the world (because American consumers are the ones who ultimately pay for all of those liability lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Hmm, who is oversimplifying this issue again?

Good post

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I never hung my hat on the argument that health care costs would necessarily go down under Obamacare.

Obama is the one who hung his hat on this. His claims about the costs played a huge role in passing the legislation.

Oh well. I really visited this thread because I'm so fascinated by Cruz's sex life. I'm not getting nearly as much info on that as I'd expected.