prole

Great description for the neoliberal economists at the IMF and World Bank foisting your crap on them for thirty years through mafia debt collection tactics. More free-market mythologizing and historical obfuscation here. Every one of the "Asian Tigers" was balls-deep in protectionist policies that got them up and running in the post-WWII era, all endorsed by the USA.

Wait, aren't these the same people you're trying to convince us are welcoming your neoliberal development model? Bunch of ingrates are they? It's just so hard to find good help these days.

A comforting mythology for you to be sure. Reality is rather more complicated though:

Ha! As if the global poor are neither capable of or haven't been articulating their own resistances to capitalist globalization in every corner of the planet for the last fifteen years. Where have you been?

Not sure what's more pathetic, the sideshow freak or Fox News for giving him a mouthpiece.

Fixt. ahem Well, that just got a fuckload more complicated!

Just his brain.

From Wiki:

First they came and took away our right to be swindled out of our money and or addicted by snake oil salesmen selling alcohol and opium as medicine. Then they came and took our right to drive without a seatbelt while committing other traffic violations. Then they took our freedom to be poisoned by cigarette smokers in public places. Then they took away our Olestra. Then they took away our liberty to kill a motorcyclist with our cars when it might have been preventable (in some states). Ohhhh, the horror! Anyway Jay, I wasn't aware that any single payer proposals involved outlawing anything. I think any such drastic steps would go through proper legislative processes under public scrutiny and that the Republic, having been through the Civil War, etc., can probably accommodate some debate on any of the terrifying dystopian healthcare fantasies you can dream up as they come up. Maybe you (and Fairweather) can point out for us some of the activities that have been outlawed in any of the modern liberal democracies with robust public healthcare systems for their citizens? You know, so we can be ready for them as they emerge.

That hasn't been nullified by amendment? Like what? The Senate.

Yeah, there's a whole bunch of shit in the US Constitution I take exception to.

I think it's safe to say that not all constitutions are created equal.

Well, now that we've established that The United States and Honduras are identical in political history, economic and constitutional structure, culture, etc., I'd say you guys have got this thing all wrapped up.

How about "I'm cool with allowing any possible infringements on our liberty like (get ready for this bombshell) mandatory seat belt laws (shivers) to work their way through the normal legislative process that you and yours are so keen to remind us is the best system in human history like any other laws rather than satisfying any and all theoretical potential ideological boogymen that you can toss out while people are dying because they can't afford healthcare". That's what I meant.

Those kids are going to be awesome adults. An unholy trinity ruling over an enslaved humanity from their crystal citadel. Have you people thought this thing through?

Ha! Are you suggesting that Fairweather wouldn't be supportive of an illegal military coup based solely on the political affiliation of the ousted? Yeah right.

Did we win?

What's your understanding of the rationale used to justify compulsory seatbelt and helmet laws for adults? Drug prohibition? The government is unlikely to outlaw dangerous, fringe activities for the simple fact that very few people participate in...dangerous fringe activities, and the simple lack of resources would make such bans next to impossible to enforce even if legislators thought that doing so was desirable. Motive - yes. Means - not likely. However, if you are someone that participates in a more popular activity that's likely to impose significant aggregate health-related costs on the state - it's quite a bit more likely that a state funded and administered healthcare monopoly will have both a strong motive to curtail whatever potentially costly behavior that you are engaging in. Whether the state/monopoly-healthcare-provider will ever try to procure the means necessary to inhibit whatever bit of potentially costly, non-fringey personal freedom that you're exercising is an open question - whether they'll have the motive to isn't. Not sure "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't" is a heuristic that I'd be willing to bet all of my chips on in that context. There's probably a few brewers/distillers that set up shop in 1919 that wish they wouldn't have followed that approach... Sorry, none of these concerns hold enough weight to suggest that a state funded healthcare system is likely to result in a worse outcome than what currently exists. I'm willing to cross those mandatory seatbelt law bridges as we come to them rather than be cornered into satisfying all your theoretical doomsday scenarios before action is taken.

Chavez appreciates your close attention.

What do you call five fingers that are grasping a small boy's penis? The Jackson Five.

Fixt.

My question exactly. Now they are rich idiots who just entered the 15 min of fame part of their lives. But that still doesn't answer my question. From prole's post, I gather they have some sort of a TV show? I don't watch TV; who has the fucking time? Apparently you don't shop at the grocery store either...

What I'm mostly concerned about at this point are the missing accounts of the years Michael spent while in "exile" in Qatar or Abu Dhabi or wherever the fuck he was. A guy like that could've got up into some serious weirdness given a free hand in a place like that. Witnesses are probably being knocked off right now by the banks that Jacko owed money who're counting on recouping their cash through boosted record sales.