[quote]Sloth wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Thoughts, feelings, rants, raves? I’m naturally thinking, hell no. Never.
"LONDON (Reuters) - A global financial regulator is an option to consider as it may not be possible for national regulators to resolve policy disputes through co-operation, a senior U.S. Democratic member of Congress told the Financial Times.
Representative Barney Frank said in comments published on Monday that co-operation between, for example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) was good in theory.
“Joint action is theoretically (good) but what does that mean? In American baseball, if the runner and the ball arrive at the base at the same time, the tie goes to the fielder. Who breaks a tie if there is a disagreement over policy between the SEC and FSA?” he said.
Asked if a supra-national regulator would be needed, Frank told the FT: “I don’t know. At this point that’s something to look into.”
His comments contrasted with the views of the SEC, the newspaper said noting that its chairman, Christopher Cox had flagged increased co-operation with foreign regulators.
Frank is widely expected to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee if Democrats regain control of the chamber in next month’s U.S. election. He is now the top Democrat on the panel, which oversees most U.S. banking regulations."
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlebusiness.aspx?storyid=2006-10-30T020118Z_01_L30237554_RTRUKOC_0_UK-FINANCIAL-BANKS-FRANK.xml&type=businessNews&WTmodLoc=Business-C3-More-4
The GOP will retain the house anyway.
I thought you were a Libertarian but you only attack Democrats…
Hmm, I’m pretty sure I’ve shared my feelings on the big spending habits of republicans. I could be wrong, just seems like I recall doing so. And I believe I’ve taken stances on social issues, way off from a rebulican platform. But, in case I haven’t, here’s a summary of Sloth’s ideology.
First, to clarify (to the best that I can), the label I’d pin on myself.
Conservative Catholic, Pro-life Libertarian.
How does that it work, you ask? Ok, maybe you didn’t, but I’ll explain anyways. The following is my opinion. Alot of it will be based on religious beliefs and Libertarian beliefs.
Is prostitution a sin? Absolutely! Should it be a crime? No. Jesus didn’t call for the prostitue to be jailed, after having saved her from being stoned to death. It’s a sin between consenting adults. Jurisdiction of God? Yes. Jurisdiction of man? No.
Drugs? For the most part, legalization. I’m not sure about the more personality altering drugs, such as PcP. If violent personality changes are a wide-spread side effect, no. And no, I don’t use any drugs. Well, on extremely rare occassions, I’ll have a beer.
Homosexuality: Sin. Consenting adults though. Their rights should be protected. No sodomy laws.
Gay marriage: Privately, they should have that right. Though, I’m free to not recognize it. I believe it’s best to remove government from marriage. More of a Libertarian principle. I feel it’s a position that protects Homosexuals’ individual freedoms, and Christians, believe it or not.
Entitlement programs: Sin! And government intrusion. Charity is an act of grace! But, stealing from your neighbor to give to the poor is theft. Even if using the government as the coercive FORCE to carry it out.
Abortion: Sin and should be illegal. And, it’s where I think most Libertarians fall short of their own beliefs.
Any questions? I’ll try to answer.[/quote]
Sloth, I solved the problem of political affiliation. I subscribe to nobody and align my thoughts with the truth not a political ideology. No political party supports everything I believe to be true so I associate with only one, The Pat Party. The only good thing about Republicans is that they are not Democrats. Libritarians are by far better, but you still find your self shoe-horning your own beliefs to fit the political ideology. You are a pro-life, Catholic, member of the Sloth party.