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: 137
Latest Activity: Sep 14

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

The Profit Motive and the Election Motive Intersect.

Started by tom sarbeck Sep 12. 0 Replies

Who has not heard the term 'profit motive'?'Election motive' may be a neologism, a newly-coined word.The former moves capitalists; the latter moves politicians.The SCOTUS in the 1970s held that money is speech. In 2010 SCOTUS held that corporations…Continue

Tags: money, speech, corruption, SCOTUS, politicians

Tax Cuts for the Rich Help the Rich, Not You

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo Sep 14. 3 Replies

Tax Cuts for the Rich Help the Rich, Not You"Big money will pull out all the stops to sell you a tax plan that exclusively benefits the wealthy. Don’t buy…Continue

Tags: TV, economy., just, and, newspaper

Porque?

Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by tom sarbeck Sep 13. 8 Replies

How is it that Joe Arpaio deserves a pardon and dreamers don't?Continue

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by tom sarbeck on May 25, 2017 at 2:47pm
@Joseph: "...wasn't validly constructed."
Politics is not an exercise in philosophy. Some say politics is economics. It is, in part.

With both major parties corrupted by money, and no laws to prevent a rising minor party from becoming similarly corrupted, politics requires a different description.

Having done politics, and having seen more than the car bomb murder of an investigative reporter (see 'Don Bolles' in Wikipedia), politics is more accurately described as conflict between:
1. an oligarchy controlled by corrupted party leaders who exhibit some of the behavior of sociopaths, and
2. a lied-to and ill-informed taxpaying public.
Comment by tom sarbeck on May 25, 2017 at 2:27pm
@Joseph: Joseph might be sure he and I agree on 80 or 90% of things. Since we haven't conferred, I'm not sure. :)
Comment by tom sarbeck on May 25, 2017 at 9:05am
@Joseph: "...I wasn't an adult back then. [when the NYT were sycophants of the State Department]"

It may be true that you weren't an adult then, Joseph. Many people weren't. I was and in 1951 was a veteran of military combat (the Korean War). Yeah, I'm playing the older is smarter card.
Comment by Joseph P on May 25, 2017 at 2:52am

I'm sure that Tom and I agree on 80% or 90% of things, Joan.  The points of disagreement are the ones that are the most important and the most interesting to discuss.

Comment by Joseph P on May 25, 2017 at 2:49am

Only when you say something silly, Tom.  Plenty of what you say on here is spot on.  This particular argument of yours just wasn't validly constructed.

Think about what you said about the New York Times.  Sure, during the Vietnam War, they were sycophants of the State Department.  They probably had someone in the driver's seat who was a major war hawk, or ... something.  I don't know; I wasn't an adult back then.

That's still a far cry from being an actual appendage of the State Department, as is the case of RT and the Kremlin.  The New York Times could have had a change of leadership and gone entirely another direction.  It's just a wee bit harder for RT to do that, when the Kremlin holds the purse strings and has ultimate directorial control.

I'm taking your perspective on what the New York Times was up to with Vietnam at face value, by the way.  I don't care enough to look it up, and it was just an example, anyway, which serves your purpose well enough, regardless of its accuracy.

Think about Fox News and the Republican party.  I could see an argument that the Republican party was an appendage of Fox News ... or at least that was the case a few years ago.  It was a pretty smart tail, wagging that dog like crazy.  Recently, though, it seems that it wagged a little too hard.

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 24, 2017 at 11:20pm

Steve Keen makes sense to me. He not only demonstrates why neoclassic theory provides an unsound economic principle on which to stand, but he also provides a description of what will work and performs some mathematical analysis to illustrate the problem and the solution. Keen is hard to understand, orally, and impossible to follow mathematically, and his graphs and charts reveal very different patterns. He could be talking a big bunch of blow-hard, but after listening and watching him for a while, I can figure our what he says and what he means.

Professor Steve Keen A Real Media Interview

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 24, 2017 at 10:09pm

Tom & Joseph, you come from different points of view. I wonder, do you have thoughts in common? Perhaps, war destroys, bullets create problems, domineering leadership presents an inferior form of leadership. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 24, 2017 at 10:03pm

Joseph, thanks for the information about RT. Very interesting  bits of Russian PR history. 

Loren, I agree that all the US and any other nation's news casts contain bias. That is the rub. The hunt ends up finding a writer that makes sense and then see what he/she has to say. 

Do you have particular reporters/writers that you read on a regular basis? 

Comment by Loren Miller on May 24, 2017 at 8:49pm

Meanwhile:

Comment by tom sarbeck on May 24, 2017 at 8:39pm

I will paraphrase an old favorite, Loren.

I do objectivity, you do subjectivity, s/he do crap.

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service