Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Dave Wilson

Thread: What comes first????

  1. #1 What comes first???? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    26
    To me politics is another complex subject that needs to be studied deeply before i can start stating my ideas clearly and in order to be able to understand how politics really work in this world so here s the question i need u to help me with : DO POLITICS SERVE ECONOMY OR DOES THE ECONOMY SERVE POLITICS DO WE WAGE WARS FOR MONEY OR DO WE USE MONEY TO CONQUER AND MAKE OTHER COUNTRIES SUBMIT TO US ???? WHAT IS THE PRIME PURPOSE IN THE END IS IT ECONOMICAL OR POLITICAL DOMINATION???? WHAT BRINGS MORE POWER????


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
    To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
    To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
    ― Douglas Adams


    “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
    ― Dwight D. Eisenhower


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson
    Far too many people quote this one uncritically. If the banks are funding the provision of education, bridges, railways, vaccination programs, ports, clean water supplies or sewage processing facilities, then the future citizens will be much better able to earn and to profit from their activities and pay far more than is required than if they were to remain ignorant or unhealthy or unable to trade for lack of access to markets.

    If on the other hand the funds are used for extravagant public buildings designed for display or personal aggrandisement or gratification of boastful leaders rather than for social utility, then the argument holds - absolutely.

    The only problem remains as the calculation of the balance of costs and benefits. If we never invest in the welfare of future generations then we lose as a society. The question is simply whether we should bear the entire cost when it is those future citizens who will gain the most benefit rather than the generation that is instigating that benefit - I think they should pay something towards the cost of the things that they benefit from.

    Anyway. There are some things we know that were done at great sacrifice of lives as well as money - WW2 for example. And how long was that a cost to those who fought and won? Even Britain and the USSR which bore the worst of it were pretty well in the clear financially speaking within 20 years of the end of the war. For the USA and other allies it was a much quicker recovery (in financial terms).
    cosmictraveler likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Z@T@RA18 View Post
    To me politics is another complex subject that needs to be studied deeply before i can start stating my ideas clearly and in order to be able to understand how politics really work in this world so here s the question i need u to help me with : DO POLITICS SERVE ECONOMY OR DOES THE ECONOMY SERVE POLITICS DO WE WAGE WARS FOR MONEY OR DO WE USE MONEY TO CONQUER AND MAKE OTHER COUNTRIES SUBMIT TO US ???? WHAT IS THE PRIME PURPOSE IN THE END IS IT ECONOMICAL OR POLITICAL DOMINATION???? WHAT BRINGS MORE POWER????
    I believe that in most countries, politics serves the businesses, and people of that country.

    But in a politically corrupt country like America, politics serves the billionaires and large corporations, that pay the government officials.


    We wage wars for,
    1. Militaristic leaders, and insane leaders.
    2. Resources like oil, gold, and diamonds.
    3. Land and water.
    4. To kill people of different religious beliefs.


    We use money itself to conquer other countries by,
    1. Money enables one side to purchase superior weapons.
    2. Money allows the hiring of paid soldiers.
    3. Money allows the bribing of other countries, to join the rich country.


    WHAT IS THE PRIME PURPOSE IN THE END IS IT ECONOMICAL OR POLITICAL DOMINATION??? (I don't have the time to think) But my gut says economical, everyone likes money.


    What brings more power?

    Money, followers, and resources.



    I would have liked to have spent more time writing this post.

    Interesting thread,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; January 13th, 2013 at 01:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post




    We wage wars for,
    1. Insane leaders like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush, and Dick Cheney.
    Chad, it beggars belief that you can find some sort of equivalence between G. W. Bush et al, and Adolf H along with O. B. L.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post




    We wage wars for,
    1. Insane leaders like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush, and Dick Cheney.
    Chad, it beggars belief that you can find some sort of equivalence between G. W. Bush et al, and Adolf H along with O. B. L.


    The classification above describes leaders that wage senseless wars, (and all those leaders waged senseless wars.)

    But I went ahead and edited my post.


    The words you objected to were replaced with, "1. Militaristic leaders, and insane leaders."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post




    We wage wars for,
    1. Insane leaders like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush, and Dick Cheney.
    Chad, it beggars belief that you can find some sort of equivalence between G. W. Bush et al, and Adolf H along with O. B. L.


    The classification above describes leaders that wage senseless wars, (and all those leaders waged senseless wars.)

    But I went ahead and edited my post. My post no longer compares those people.

    The words you objected to were replaced with, "1. Militaristic leaders, and insane leaders."
    Chad, well done for editing your post.
    I do however feel that it is wrong, for any person on the forum, to have the ability to edit a post, once the said post has been answered by another member of the forum. Chad, I am not having a pop at you. Mods, what do you think ?
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post




    We wage wars for,
    1. Insane leaders like Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush, and Dick Cheney.
    Chad, it beggars belief that you can find some sort of equivalence between G. W. Bush et al, and Adolf H along with O. B. L.


    The classification above describes leaders that wage senseless wars, (and all those leaders waged senseless wars.)

    But I went ahead and edited my post. My post no longer compares those people.

    The words you objected to were replaced with, "1. Militaristic leaders, and insane leaders."
    Chad, well done for editing your post.
    I do however feel that it is wrong, for any person on the forum, to have the ability to edit a post, once the said post has been answered by another member of the forum. Chad, I am not having a pop at you. Mods, what do you think ?

    This is a forum of science, and science is the evolution, of human thoughts and ideas.
    The very heart of present day science is change, and editing=change.

    And when a scientist writes down a theory, do they ever change it?


    Mr. Wilson's proposed changes could actually be devastating to a (true) forum of science.
    When certain scientific minded forum members, realize that they made an error in one of their posts, they will (not) be able to edit it.
    They will then be forced to re-post explaining their errors, and this could cause great re-posting of the same data.

    Many people like to be 100% correct.
    These editing changes could also stop many original theories, from being posted in this forum.


    And part of science is free and open communication.

    Notice how I made a full note, of the editing of my post.
    We just witnessed 2 forum members communicating with each other, and data being openly changed, to make both forum members scientifically happy.
    And there is also a full and open record of the changes, in plain sight for all forum members to see.

    What harm was done here, with the editing of posts?


    Mr. Wilson you are calling for a major change, to be made in this forum.
    What benefits do you believe will be gained, by making these changes?


    I do see the point you make Mr. Wilson.
    And in fact, many/most forums only allow 20 minutes, for forum members to edit their posts. After that 20 minutes, you must contact a moderator in order to edit your post.


    But I ask these questions,

    Do most popular science forums allow the editing of posts, like this forum does?
    Do professional scientific groups allow editing, in any websites they may have?
    Does the fact this forum allows editing, contribute to its character?


    My personal belief is this, if this forum stops allowing the editing of posts, certain forum members will stop posting original theories.
    And some threads in this forum, will be filled with (unnecessary) posts explaining previous errors.

    But perhaps most importantly,

    What harm comes from allowing the editing of posts?
    What good comes from allowing the editing of posts?
    Last edited by chad; January 15th, 2013 at 12:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Chad, altering/editing a post after it has been answered, can make it rather difficult to comprehend the post, of the person, who answered the said post. That was a very long winded reply, you obviously have plenty of gas in the tank.
    God Bless the Republican Party and the Tea Party dudes too.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson
    Far too many people quote this one uncritically. If the banks are funding the provision of education, bridges, railways, vaccination programs, ports, clean water supplies or sewage processing facilities, then the future citizens will be much better able to earn and to profit from their activities and pay far more than is required than if they were to remain ignorant or unhealthy or unable to trade for lack of access to markets.

    If on the other hand the funds are used for extravagant public buildings designed for display or personal aggrandisement or gratification of boastful leaders rather than for social utility, then the argument holds - absolutely.

    The only problem remains as the calculation of the balance of costs and benefits. If we never invest in the welfare of future generations then we lose as a society. The question is simply whether we should bear the entire cost when it is those future citizens who will gain the most benefit rather than the generation that is instigating that benefit - I think they should pay something towards the cost of the things that they benefit from.

    Anyway. There are some things we know that were done at great sacrifice of lives as well as money - WW2 for example. And how long was that a cost to those who fought and won? Even Britain and the USSR which bore the worst of it were pretty well in the clear financially speaking within 20 years of the end of the war. For the USA and other allies it was a much quicker recovery (in financial terms).
    The idea that unless the government takes money from the people then roads wont get get built or water wont get cleaned is a false one.

    It all boils down to who is in charge, and nothing else. Should each individual be in charge of what they spend their money on or should government be in charge?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    I'd think that if a developer wants to build a sub division somewhere they should be responsible for the roads, sidewalks, sewage and water that the community needs and not make the city where it is developed have to pay for all of that infrastructure. After it was built and after many years of taxes being paid by those living there into the coffers of that city would then maintainance be done by the city itself. To many times it is up to the cities to put in all of the infrastructure so the developer makes more profits and all of the cities old taxpayers are burdened with paying out billions to put all of this into the new community.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I'd think that if a developer wants to build a sub division somewhere they should be responsible for the roads, sidewalks, sewage and water that the community needs and not make the city where it is developed have to pay for all of that infrastructure.
    That's largely how it works in many places. But. Developers often make the point, sometimes very poorly justified, that the area will benefit from increased employment while the project is being built and the local government will benefit from rate revenue in perpetuity. Surprise, surprise. This "means" that they're entitled to all kinds of incentives or concessions - which far too many governments hand over without much examination. When this is for development of an industrial or commercial precinct this scenario sometimes goes to ludicrous extremes. I'd suggest that some developers see government as little more than a cow to be milked for benefits when they're not seeing it as an impediment to be bulldozed out of the way.

    And there are some things that neither householders nor housing associations nor developers should even be allowed to buy. Like suburban developments in California where the local authority has found ways to 'describe' the water it takes from the Colorado to fill an artificial decorative lake in ways that escape the oversight of the river authorities. (I have a reference somewhere, but it seems to be hiding from me. I'll find it eventually.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •