Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^^
Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.
Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.
Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.
So…social science, not physical science?
OP again -
Science can help faith leaders who partner with other local leaders to help alleviate poverty in many ways. I would imagine social science is important as well for understanding demographic needs of their populations. Hard science is also needed for volunteer medical clinics such as mobile child wellness clinics in rural areas (even just monitoring weight and heights can detect developmental issues, providing basic medical assistance and dental care as well as vaccines).
Like many things in life factual science based knowledge and services often needs softer delivery with human touches locals can relate to. In many parts of the world, religious leaders can help with garnering trust. In fact, I have lived in places where it is only religious groups providing health and education services. It could help if they collaborate with government agencies and science based agencies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Paul Pelosi’s questionable Wall Street windfall spurs bipartisan calls for stock trading ban
On the things-that-should-be-done-but-haven’t-for-whatever-reason front, legislation exists that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. It’s called the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act and it would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks.
For those who live in a sane world wallpapered in logic, this proposal makes perfect sense. Why? Because currently lawmakers can pass legislation that creates favorable conditions for certain companies or industries, and if a lawmaker knows that this legislation will pass, he or she could profit off it.
Now more eyes are turning to Paul Pelosi, the House speaker’s husband. From a trading perspective, he’s like the real-life version of Gordon Gekko from the 1987 Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.” His portfolio has substantially outperformed the S&P 500. In 2020 alone, a year when the stock market was as turbulent as in any year in recent memory thanks to COVID-19 shutdowns, Paul outperformed the S&P 500 by 14.3 percent, according to Hawley’s office. And per a New York Post analysis, the Pelosis have made approximately $30 million from trades involving Big Tech companies the House speaker is responsible for regulating.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
google says Joyce is worth an estimated $8 million.
Google says Nancy Pelosi is worth between $112 million and $251 million, and her husband makes money off shady deals with businesses Nancy is in charge of “regulating.”
No one is claiming Joyce or Joel are not wealthy. They are. pp claimed that religious leaders are more wealthy by passing the plate. Joyce Meyer has written over 100 books.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/contributor/joyce-meyer/_/N-2wo8
So the pp was wrong. Political figures have more wealth than religious figures.
That's impossible. Her Gulfstream alone is worth $10 million, and her several $2 million dollar homes - gotta wonder if there is some fishy accounting there somewhere. No wonder the IRS investigated her
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Paul Pelosi’s questionable Wall Street windfall spurs bipartisan calls for stock trading ban
On the things-that-should-be-done-but-haven’t-for-whatever-reason front, legislation exists that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. It’s called the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act and it would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks.
For those who live in a sane world wallpapered in logic, this proposal makes perfect sense. Why? Because currently lawmakers can pass legislation that creates favorable conditions for certain companies or industries, and if a lawmaker knows that this legislation will pass, he or she could profit off it.
Now more eyes are turning to Paul Pelosi, the House speaker’s husband. From a trading perspective, he’s like the real-life version of Gordon Gekko from the 1987 Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.” His portfolio has substantially outperformed the S&P 500. In 2020 alone, a year when the stock market was as turbulent as in any year in recent memory thanks to COVID-19 shutdowns, Paul outperformed the S&P 500 by 14.3 percent, according to Hawley’s office. And per a New York Post analysis, the Pelosis have made approximately $30 million from trades involving Big Tech companies the House speaker is responsible for regulating.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
? Does Paul Pelosi get an income tax exemption like the Ministers? I don't think so. Joyce Meyer et al. get rich tax free. And what do we taxpayers get out of it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^^
Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.
Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.
Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.
So…social science, not physical science?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^^^^
Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.
Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.
Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.
So…social science, not physical science?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Paul Pelosi’s questionable Wall Street windfall spurs bipartisan calls for stock trading ban
On the things-that-should-be-done-but-haven’t-for-whatever-reason front, legislation exists that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. It’s called the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act and it would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks.
For those who live in a sane world wallpapered in logic, this proposal makes perfect sense. Why? Because currently lawmakers can pass legislation that creates favorable conditions for certain companies or industries, and if a lawmaker knows that this legislation will pass, he or she could profit off it.
Now more eyes are turning to Paul Pelosi, the House speaker’s husband. From a trading perspective, he’s like the real-life version of Gordon Gekko from the 1987 Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.” His portfolio has substantially outperformed the S&P 500. In 2020 alone, a year when the stock market was as turbulent as in any year in recent memory thanks to COVID-19 shutdowns, Paul outperformed the S&P 500 by 14.3 percent, according to Hawley’s office. And per a New York Post analysis, the Pelosis have made approximately $30 million from trades involving Big Tech companies the House speaker is responsible for regulating.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
google says Joyce is worth an estimated $8 million.
Google says Nancy Pelosi is worth between $112 million and $251 million, and her husband makes money off shady deals with businesses Nancy is in charge of “regulating.”
No one is claiming Joyce or Joel are not wealthy. They are. pp claimed that religious leaders are more wealthy by passing the plate. Joyce Meyer has written over 100 books.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/b/contributor/joyce-meyer/_/N-2wo8
So the pp was wrong. Political figures have more wealth than religious figures.
Anonymous wrote:Paul Pelosi’s questionable Wall Street windfall spurs bipartisan calls for stock trading ban
On the things-that-should-be-done-but-haven’t-for-whatever-reason front, legislation exists that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. It’s called the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act and it would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks.
For those who live in a sane world wallpapered in logic, this proposal makes perfect sense. Why? Because currently lawmakers can pass legislation that creates favorable conditions for certain companies or industries, and if a lawmaker knows that this legislation will pass, he or she could profit off it.
Now more eyes are turning to Paul Pelosi, the House speaker’s husband. From a trading perspective, he’s like the real-life version of Gordon Gekko from the 1987 Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.” His portfolio has substantially outperformed the S&P 500. In 2020 alone, a year when the stock market was as turbulent as in any year in recent memory thanks to COVID-19 shutdowns, Paul outperformed the S&P 500 by 14.3 percent, according to Hawley’s office. And per a New York Post analysis, the Pelosis have made approximately $30 million from trades involving Big Tech companies the House speaker is responsible for regulating.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
Anonymous wrote:Paul Pelosi’s questionable Wall Street windfall spurs bipartisan calls for stock trading ban
On the things-that-should-be-done-but-haven’t-for-whatever-reason front, legislation exists that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks. It’s called the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act and it would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks.
For those who live in a sane world wallpapered in logic, this proposal makes perfect sense. Why? Because currently lawmakers can pass legislation that creates favorable conditions for certain companies or industries, and if a lawmaker knows that this legislation will pass, he or she could profit off it.
Now more eyes are turning to Paul Pelosi, the House speaker’s husband. From a trading perspective, he’s like the real-life version of Gordon Gekko from the 1987 Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.” His portfolio has substantially outperformed the S&P 500. In 2020 alone, a year when the stock market was as turbulent as in any year in recent memory thanks to COVID-19 shutdowns, Paul outperformed the S&P 500 by 14.3 percent, according to Hawley’s office. And per a New York Post analysis, the Pelosis have made approximately $30 million from trades involving Big Tech companies the House speaker is responsible for regulating.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
Anonymous wrote:What does Nancy’s husband do? How big was her inheritance from her wealthy family?