I definitely believe Bob is an independent. He's far too much of a snowflake to ever risk his ego by identifying with a party.

Still, independent doesn't mean unbiased. He's clearly a "Everybody else is a sheeple and I tell it like it is" conservative.

I firmly believe that all drugs should be legal with the exception of antibiotics. Antibiotics should be heavily restricted, due to the obvious risks. All painkillers, opiates, etc. should simply be legalized, regulated regarding age of use, taxed, and massed produced in a safe fashion. Want heroin, meth, crack? Great! Purchase it. At an affordable rate. From a drug store. No prescription, no nothing. Toothache, gotta wait for the dentists? Vicodin from the corner mart should get you through to your appointment. I don't give a fuck. Why are we inflicting pain, and preventing addiction, among people who have the right to choose for themselves? Restrict children. Other than that? Regulate safety, call it good, make a killing in taxes.

Come at me bro.

Cool, so you admit liberty is left wing.

Banks exist to lend at interest.

Pass stricter legislation governing the end company. Reorganize corrupt agencies.

AOC is targeting the banks because in her small mind she considers bankers the problem. The problem is a poor regulatory framework and corruption that allows that framework to exist. AOC should focus her efforts on increased oversight of environmental projects, and increased restrictions on lobbyists. But again, we're talking about a limited intellect that doesn't grasp big picture issues.

She does advocate for those very things. Her intellect is far more big picture than yours. I mean, you literally just tried to disclude banks from regulation by oversimplifying their role in the process, perhaps because you only have a simple understanding.

The right created the drug war. Why on earth would I indicate other than that the liberty to damage oneself is left wing?

Sorry, I have to quote myself and expand. The religious right used to be a thing. They emphasized the need to prevent people from damaging themselves. Something about some religious thing.

The left went at them hard that it should be everyone's right to choose their own path, regardless of what the prevailing religious views of the time were.

The religious right were the winners of that particular conflict. And in fact, still are. The difference is, if you look at the ACA and all current laws on the book that prevent overseas competition... All those in power, bipartisan, agree. You have no right to make choices based on your own health.

So yeah. Anyhow, I'm drunk and going to walk away for a while.

No, I think she's simplifying their role, to be honest.

Regulation on banks is fine, but you need to clearly define their responsibilities within their larger financial interest.

For AOC, the responsibility "is" their interest, but unfortunately that interest is so vague and open-ended as to make them complicit in just about every disaster to which they've lent money.

Vague laws and broad punishment lead to less lending, see how (vague) American financial threats have impacted European lending / business interest in Iran.

Well, like I said, I'm glad you acknowledge right wingers restrict liberty and left wingers promote it. Most conservatives refuse to acknowledge reality.



@bogie, I have to go back to this again, because I don't think you'll get what I just wrote (being small picture minded and all).

Environmental risk has been on the radar for lenders since at least the Nixon era, when courts began forcing some measure of responsibility on banks for the polluting factories, Superfund (CERCLA) sites and other environmental problems that had, to one degree or another, been facilitated by their financing. Congress passed laws in 1996 that limited the exposure of lenders on this front.

So AOC's line of questioning is important because it highlights the damage done after the shift in policies in the late 90s.

Back in the Nixon era it was easy to decide not to lend if, for example, your potential borrower is dumping cyanide in a river.

But if they’re dumping carbon dioxide into the air for example (not exactly illegal yet) it makes the decision more difficult. Banks are in kind of a quandary because they are competing for business and they risk allowing other banks to take that business if they self-impose regulatory standards.

So what AOC is setting up is a legal framework to bring lenders themselves into compliance with environmental standards akin to those they were used to before 1996, but now with an emphasis on the climate crisis (sure, pipeline spills are also underlying this conversation but let's not insult each other's intelligence, targeting pipelines is about production and ultimately the climate).

This clarifies and codifies lending standards, and prevents unfair competition from "tethered" banks... so it also protects capitalist/market interests while protecting the environment.

So it's really quite a brilliant move that is 100% in line with the goals of social democracy (protecting capitalism while increasing regulatory standards and quality of life).

I don't agree with her on that protecting capitalism bit and think the banks should truly be made to suffer, but folks like yourself should appreciate her brilliance in protecting the market economy and big banks you all love.


Edit: I would love for you to read this, but at least please skim it (it's quite long and you may not be able to comprehend all if it, unfortunately):

https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexis-practice-advisor/the-journal/b/lpa/posts/lender-liability-under-environmental-laws-in-real-estate-transactions

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 19 2019 06:28pm

“Tethered” should read “untethered”

My apolgies. Edit time ran out.