Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely ... Controls in the banking industry are needed, and Glass-Steagall was the catch-all in that control.
The fact that it worked for so long, over multiple generations, should be an indication to everyone, that the legislation never should have been repealed in the first place.
If the corporate lobby didn't exist, Glass-Steagall would be alive and well today, and we wouldn't be in the fine economic mess we are in.
Of course... that's why we live in an era of corporatism and the recent denial of a public Digial Library was another win for the corporate world to continue to reap our money for no good reason...
What? ToE is a description of one specific phenomenon found in nature - it is not a political ethos. You may as well complain that people who describe the effect of cyanide on living beings take offense at being asked to gulp down cyanide themselves.
I disagree. I'm referring to those who believe in darwinism, the theory of evolution, etc., as opposed to those who don't. My position stands:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It's also strange that left-wingers mock those who choose to believe creationism over evolution (doesn't apply to me, btw, I'm an evolutionist), but then vehemently eschew social darwinism and free market competition in favor of a government 'creator' of artificially forced egalitarianism and a centrally controlled economy.
I disagree. I'm referring to those who believe in darwinism, the theory of evolution, etc., as opposed to those who don't. My position stands:
Believe? As in, in a religious manner? Don't think I've ever come across one.
Darwin defined ToE as a scientific theory to explain the phenomenon of speciation. He never intended it to be the foundation of a political system. While some sure ran with it, I am not aware of anyone doing so in a major way today. Could you give me a name or two? Really, you have me at a loss here.
If you want to play the blame game remember that it passed Congress with a veto proof majority and Clinton was powerless. Get your facts straight, and stop leaving out half of the story.
If this does happen how will this look since Clinton was the one who repealed it? Does it come off highlighting something Clinton did that contributed to this financial collapse?
Believe? As in, in a religious manner? Don't think I've ever come across one.
Darwin defined ToE as a scientific theory to explain the phenomenon of speciation. He never intended it to be the foundation of a political system. While some sure ran with it, I am not aware of anyone doing so in a major way today. Could you give me a name or two? Really, you have me at a loss here.
Left-wingers believe in evolutionary Darwinism but not social Darwinism. Why not? Makes them just as hypocritical as they claim the right-wing is.
Left-wingers believe in evolutionary Darwinism but not social Darwinism. Why not?
You can't be serious. What you call "Evolutionary Darwinism" is a theory conceived to describe and explain how speciation has happened/happens in nature.
It does not follow that it's a good model for anything having to do with how to build a robust set of ethics, let alone arrange a society. The only people to claim so has had their own political agenda to further.
Social Darwinism has been used by the might-makes-right crowd (Left and Right both, btw.) to give their preconceived ideas an undeserved aura of science. It is incredibly convenient for those on top to claim that Nature put them there.
Quote:
Makes them just as hypocritical as they claim the right-wing is.
Not really. Evolution should no more influence politics than, say, plate tectonics.
You can't be serious. What you call "Evolutionary Darwinism" is a theory conceived to describe and explain how speciation has happened/happens in nature.
It does not follow that it's a good model for anything having to do with how to build a robust set of ethics, let alone arrange a society. The only people to claim so has had their own political agenda to further.
Social Darwinism has been used by the might-makes-right crowd (Left and Right both, btw.) to give their preconceived ideas an undeserved aura of science. It is incredibly convenient for those on top to claim that Nature put them there.
While that's one way to look at it, I'm specifically referring to the left-wing's abandonment of Social Darwinism in favor of social policies that have actually done more harm than good by helping the "less fit" survive without the need to become responsible for or contributors to their own survival - IOW, sentencing them to the never-ending vicious repetitive cycle of generations of entitlements-dependence. I'm questioning the left-wing's support of perpetuating learned helplessness, if you will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
