Politics, Economics, and Religion

Information

Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 118
Latest Activity: 8 hours ago

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

New New Atheism?

Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner 8 hours ago. 11 Replies

Chris Hall published an interesting essay in Alternet, picked up by Raw Story:Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the riseCHRIS HALL, ALTERNET25 MAY 2016 AT 00:18 ET…Continue

Tags: Social, Justice, Atheism, New, Hitchens

An Extraordinary Discussion with Ibrahim Al-Buleihi

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller 21 hours ago. 2 Replies

I sometimes amaze myself with the discoveries I make in my wanderings about the internet, especially YouTube.  I just came upon the following video, which is a conversation between two Arabs, one of them being Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a liberal writer…Continue

Tags: progress, Islam, East, West, Arab

Real (inflation-adjusted) market performance & all recessions since 1871 defined by National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo May 4. 1 Reply

Just look at how unstable our economy is and has been the past 145 years! Yes, there are fewer recessions now than 100 or even 50 years ago. The people harmed by these fluctuations are people who work for a living. Their earning power and consumer…Continue

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by Joseph P on Sunday

Err, was anyone fooled by the purpose of those two mechanics?  I would have thought that even the dimmest bulbs amongst the Fox-News-only voters would be aware of that, at least in regards to the electoral college.

Comment by tom sarbeck on Saturday

When you're supporting the 8, and you're left with the decision between the 3 and the 6, you don't vote for the 3 out of spite.

An apt metaphor, Joseph. It will inspire me.

For starters, when I'm denied chocolate ice cream I may grumble a bit and drink chocolate milk; I do not drink castor oil.

Comment by tom sarbeck on Saturday

Know this as well as you know anything:

The Democratic Party's superdelegates and the Electoral College serve exactly the same purpose: to protect the establishment from the voters.

How does the Republican Party protect the Establishment? According to Heather Cox Richardson's ironically-named history of the Party, To Make Men Free, they very soon after Lincoln's death made protecting the establishment their chief purpose. But for brief periods of populism, during which the Party enacted consumer protection and child labor laws, the Party has consistently exploited their base. Foe instance, Reagan invited xians to join the Party and the Party is now feeling their anger for decades of exploitation. Trump, probably a pathological liar and narcissist, is for his own entirely selfish purposes performing a public service.

All of the above is, of course, my opinion. I've been following the Party's history since the 1950s, when its far right Birch Society called Eisenhower a communist sympathizer and started expelling moderates. The Party replaced the moderates with 1) the racist Southern Dems (whose ancestors had owned the slaves Lincoln's Republicans freed), and 2) the xians Reagan brought into the Party.

Comment by Joseph P on Saturday

I'm trying to be a bit more realistic about it.  Sanders still has under 46% in the pledged delegate count, and the superdelegates are mostly establishment Democrats, who like Clinton more.  I've basically given up.

California and New Jersey are the only states left of any significance, and she has a huge lead in the polls in those.  Considering that California is Clinton territory, from a demographic perspective, and New Jersey is practically her home turf, the polls are probably fairly accurate.

At this point, he needs to squeeze what concessions he can out of Clinton by the end of June, then concede.  He's going to have enough trouble getting his more rabid supporters to come out for Clinton, in November.

I just hope that the vast majority of the lunatics who are talking about voting for Trump, when Sanders loses, are completely full of shit.  That sort of thing, voting for the person, rather than the issues, is kind of horrifying.  Liberals are supposed to be issues-voters.  When you're supporting the 8, and you're left with the decision between the 3 and the 6, you don't vote for the 3 out of spite.

Oh, and I never said Gibson was wrong, Bertold.  I just prefer a bit more fiction in my fiction.

I think we still have another layer to peel down to, actually.  The Oklahoma law is only part way there.  A lot of Republicans really want to prosecute both the abortion provider and the woman for first-degree murder.  And while Cruz has declared that he isn't against birth control, because he thinks that men should be able to get condoms, he isn't being straightforward about his patriarchal reasons for his selective approval.

At least the Catholic church is more honest and consistent in their message about birth control, even if their reasons are pretty fucked up.

Comment by Jennifer W on Saturday
I so want Bernie to win. I think the number one thing we have to do to not fail him is to vote in the smaller elections and make our voices and the message heard. I don't think he's going to get the superdelegates, that's Hillary's game. I'm not really looking forward to reluctantly vote for Hillary.
Comment by tom sarbeck on Saturday

Hey, folks, you're not seeing something that's real important.

Suppose Bernie beats Hillary and wins in November. Suppose too that Dems win control of both House and Senate.

As president, Bernie will be able to do only what a Congress that's corrupted by money -- Citizens United and more -- will let him do.

A recent interviewer pointed this out and asked him, if he's not elected president, will he ask his many supporters to reform Congress.

He said he will continue to seek the  nomination and, if he loses, consider doing that.

If Hillary is elected president, what will you do to move her in a progressive direction?

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on Saturday

@Joseph - But doesn't Gibson get points for being right? Corporations pretty much do have that much power now, and pretty much use it as unscrupulously as he depicted. I guess the main difference between where we are and his dystopias is corporations stiil have to engage in lots of disinformation disseminating to get their way. If the Republicans win the election in November, they won't need to bother. I'm sure you've noticed how they no longer even feel the need to mask their true intentions.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on May 12, 2016 at 6:46pm

Joseph P, you really hit the nail on the head there!

Gotta love Citizens United.  It's the best in Orwellian doublespeak, calling a consortium of special-interest corporations a group of "citizens," with the stated objective of returning the government to citizens' control ... by which they mean the billionaires and multinational corporations.
Comment by Joseph P on May 12, 2016 at 6:44pm

Yeah, I've read a few of Gibson's books.  Did he do a single one that wasn't dystopian?  The guy has issues.

Sort of like SMBC, when we get a run of 7 or 8 comics in a row which are just dark and messed up as hell.  Makes me want to shoot him an e-mail: "Zach, you doing alright, man?"

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on May 12, 2016 at 5:43pm

>by which they mean the billionaires and multinational corporations.

Who continually make obscene profits and aren't even willing to help foot the bill for infrastructure that keeps them going. Back in the 80s sci fi writer William Gibson did a great job of projecting what (then) future corporatocracy would look like. In short, they've already drowned government in the bathtub and the 99% are reduced to fighting over the scum in the soap ring.

 
 
 

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service