You remind me of too many Christians who give a bad name to that Jesus guy. He apparently made some pretty clear statements but you're sure he didn't really mean them.
Yeah I'm completely sure he didn't mean that every person should sell everything and give it to the poor. Know why? It's logically impossible. If everybody is selling, and nobody is buying, then nobody can actually sell anything.
Look, I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't pretend to be one. I don't care which is why I freely admitted I haven't read most of the Bible. To me it's perfectly plausible that in your quote about selling everything and giving it to the poor, since he was actually talking to one particular guy who happened to own a lot of property, he was purposely giving him a personal challenge that he would fail, so that the guy knew what it was like to fail, to have empathy with others who fail like poor people. Or maybe it's a lesson about how to get into Heaven -- not just by being good because it's easier for some people to be good than others, but by being good in a way that causes you to sacrifice painfully according to your own situation. That's also a common theme I believe.
The Bible is not an econ textbook. Reading economic theory into some random quote from Jesus is frankly stupid. I'm pretty sure Jesus is big on empathy, and a lesson about empathy is more fitting with the Bible than a lesson about what economic system you should support.
But to claim that he didn't mean what he said is a pretty weak one.
The guy chiding me for my "simplistic black or white view" is arguing that nobody could disagree about what Jesus meant versus what he said. Classic.
I never said he endorsed communism. I said he wasn't a capitalist.
Good for you. I never said he was a capitalist.
I don't think Jesus said much about economics at all in the Bible. That's why I challenged you to show that he did say something for an economic system -- and I left out capitalism because you already revealed that you don't think Jesus embraced capitalism. Remember what I said? "Tell me what he said. I haven't read most of the Bible. I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Jesus espoused anything like communism or socialism. I suspect he said stuff like be nice to poor people."
There is a huge range of options between those two. But you've assumed that someone opposing unbridled capitalism must be a communist.
Good for you. If you're not going to say what he IS, then the discussion is free to move to what he IS NOT. And I said he is not a communist or a socialist. So? The fact that Jesus is not a communist does not exclude your "huge range of options."
Frankly I don't know why you're hung up on Jesus and the Bible in this discussion. The person I originally responded to claimed that to embrace Ayn Rand's ideals about capitalism, you must be an atheist, or at least reject the Christian ideals of God. I disagree. And in the question "What Would Jesus Do?" the operative word is WOULD. Not DID. It's not "What DID Jesus Do." So the question of whether Jesus WAS a capitalist or a communist is neither here nor there. Those concepts were not well formed back then. Jesus was none of those things, which is why I said it's highly unlikely that you'll find quotes espousing any economic system.
The question is what economic system WOULD Jesus support RIGHT NOW. If he would support more capitalist systems because (as I said) they ended up in hindsight bringing more wealth and stability to people than the alternatives, then the original poster's insistence that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible is incorrect because it's something Jesus WOULD support. (Not DID support.)
Capitalism does not exist in the real world. Neither does communism.
Yup. This isn't high school. You don't need to explicitly add the standard disclaimers every time you use words like capitalism a
Yeah I agree with that. Like I said, we didn't want to take control of Vietnam, we wanted to help the South Vietnamese. And we did lose Vietnam in that sense, but it's more nebulous than a military loss.
Exxon could very well peacefully enter the land. Millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico have entered the US -- who would call that an "aggressive" invasion? That's silly. So of course you can enter another country, as private citizens, without being aggressive.
On the other hand owning land and keeping others out is "Imposing your rule over another group of people" which you said is aggressive. You can't peacefully keep people out who want to come in.
I think perhaps you just spoke too broadly if that's not what you actually meant.
You equate selling all of your possessions, giving the money to the poor, and giving up your life to follow Jesus with selling some stuff and giving a pittance to charity?
No I'm not equating them. Typically people who aspire to be like Jesus don't reach the goal 100%, and that's considered ok. If Jesus says "Sell everything and give it to the poor" that doesn't become a commandment, it just means Jesus wants you to give to the poor, and ideally give enough that it makes you uncomfortable.
The rest of your retorts are equally ridicules and ill conceived.
You posted some stuff from the Bible that was supposed to show Jesus endorsing communism, and I don't think it did. I took the time to respond to each point and you come up with this crap? Thanks!
Seriously, if you don't want to have a discussion, why did you bother posting?
Your fascination with capitalism vs communism and the good/evil nature of these theoretical economic systems is juvenile. I never suggested that either system is good or bad.
Good/evil nature? All I said was that historically capitalism has produced more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than communism. What does that have to do with the "nature" of the economic system? What is juvenile about that? When did I use the words "good" or "evil"?
The purpose of warfare is generally to control something, be it territory, a trade route, raw materials, a population, whatever.
I think that's the traditional purpose of warfare but today it's not. America fights wars of principle. Why do we interfere in random civil wars like Bosnia? What did we gain? Why did people want the US to get involved in Rwanda? Why did we start giving weapons to Syrian rebels? Because we think we'll be in control of Syria afterwards?
It's a product of being rich and detached from the actual conflict. Personally I think it's linked to the decline of religion in the US. People need something to believe in, and war gives us such a thing -- that we're these awesome champions of justice, that we're going to go make a positive difference in the world, etc. I saw it first hand when the US liberated Iraq. Nobody who supported the war said "Oh sweet we'll control their territory forever." People GENUINELY thought that once we liberated them and showed them democracy and stuff that they'd be our new buddies.
After a dozen years of the second-most expensive occupation in history the entire accomplishments of the US in Afghanistan is that they control most of Kabul and some if its suburbs, their heavily-armed military bases are secure, and they control some of the mountain passes.
Look I readily agree that if the goal is to control the territory and make them like us, then we've lost. I don't think that's the goal. If the goal is to say "This is what happens when you harbor terrorists who we don't also support.." then we won. If it's just to say "Look we can still do what we want when we want and no other country is going to step in to help our target" then we won.
If you're cynical maybe it's to say "Look we have enough control over our domestic affairs and population that we can wage the 2nd most expensive occupation in history, get nothing out of it, and face no consequences."
Bottom line, winning a war today, when war is about principles, is entirely subjective. There are winners and losers on both sides. In my opinion, the Afghanistan War was about punishment and we won. Then it morphed into a humanitarian mission, which is separate, and stupid, and we will not win that. The Iraq War also had two parts. We obviously won the military part, and again lost/will lose the humanitarian part. That said, who knows... maybe the Kurds will break away from Iraq and in hindsight it will be a net win (though why we care is beyond me).
1. I'm not pro-Vietnam war by any stretch, but the fact remains nothing you said indicates that the US wanted to permanently control the land. In fact why would you do that stuff if you did want to stay?? Poison all the cropland -> "OH yes please, I think I'll retire here!"
2. Indians far outnumbered whites at the beginning. And they went to war with us many, many times. The small white population eventually grew and became "the population" like you said, but of course that's what happens when you permanently hold a territory where the population hates you.
Once war becomes so easy to do, perhaps the need for it will decrease. If suicide attacks are self-moderating, and doing things to piss off a powerful drone-equipped military becomes equivalent to a suicide attack, then it will be self-moderating.
I don't buy the argument that having drones will make the population so numb that things like "Today in Chad, Exxon commissioned the US Army to drone-attack BP's oil field workers. Exxon is up 1.5% in premarket trading." will start happening. I mean seriously you have people today paying 300% markups for "fair trade coffee" and garbage like that. Our sense of humanity is only increasing over time.
No it's not aggression to impose your rule. For instance don't you think it's allowable for countries to have borders and keep people out that it doesn't want to let in? The way you've phrased it, if Exxon hires a bunch of guys to peacefully go pump all the oil out of Mexico, there's nothing Mexico can do to stop it because they can't use violence or impose their rules over other people. So basically Mexico as a sovereign state ceases to exist.
It's impossible to permanently hold a territory where the population hates you
Two problems: 1. Straw man -- the US didn't want to permanently hold territory in Vietnam, we wanted to help the South Vietnamese 2. Historically incorrect -- e.g. Americans vs Native Americans.
Or perhaps just listing the top 10 countries to start wars in the last 20 years would be a good start?
Do you have such a list? Glancing at 1990-2002 and 2003-2010 I would guess Iraq as the #1 country. Possibly tied with or followed by Hamas (since those pages are about groups involved with wars, not just official countries).
Of course who "started" a war can be pretty subjective.
War, with few exceptions, tends to be about the ruling elites using the poor as pawns in their struggles for power and profit.
I don't think so because the ruling elite by definition already have power and profit, and can extend that without war. I think most wars in the last few hundred years are ideological, with power and profit being a consequence of war (not a cause).
Even wars of succession, while having high stakes for power and profit, are certainly tied to things like family pride as well as wealth.
Why do the Afghans win? Because they're still there afterwards?
It doesn't make sense to define winning like that unless you think the only goal of war is genocide. America can go where it wants, shoot people, fly planes and drones, set up bases. It can't do that for free, but it can do it as much and as often as it likes. It can also leave if it likes.
If you can do whatever you like, didn't you pretty much win?
Sure, and every civilian group is a civilian group of rapists, because some civilians also rape. So really it's just rapists fighting rapists. Why do you care?
Saddam was apparently lead to believe he could attack Kuwait without consequence, it could have been stopped before it started.
If we're still talking about justifiable wars, then it doesn't matter if there was an earlier opportunity to stop it. It wasn't stopped, so at the time the war was justifiable.
There was no good reason for US to enter Afghanistan
Them harboring al Qaeda was good enough reason for many people.
US goes to war to keep the corporate military machine going, if America stopped going to war it's economy would take a dive.
In other words, the wars are justifiable. You just don't like the justification.
But religious limitations to child abuse/neglect are just one type of limitation. It's not the only one. For instance you aren't going to be thrown in jail for being too poor to properly raise a child either, or not being smart enough, or making your child a racist, etc.
The first two say to sell your possessions and give to the poor. Capitalists sell stuff. Capitalists engage in charity as I already pointed out.
Then we see it's hard for rich people to go to heaven. Most people in capitalist societies are not rich.
Then there's some parable about someone who spends his last day thinking about his business without knowing that he's dying. What does this have to do with capitalism? It might just as well have been a parable about a guy wasting his time with a stamp collection even though he's about to die.
Last one is about God providing for you or something. Again I don't know what you think this has to do with capitalism specifically. Do you think capitalism is the only economic system where people have to work for their food? How do you think food is provided in communist societies?? Do you think God just gives it to everybody and nobody has to work??
If anything, the quotes you found are about how to be a Christian IN a capitalist society. It's like you're forgetting that the people in a capitalist system are still people... they still have families, they still love things, they are nice or mean, they have priorities other than money, they have emotional needs and maybe spiritual needs too. Capitalism is just an economic system, it's not a 100% complete blueprint for your life.
I suggest that you look to your Bible for values, but look at the real world to see how best to implement those values. Like I suspected, Jesus said (twice in your quotes) to give to the poor but did not lay out HOW to give. So it's up to you to choose. Well guess what... capitalism gives to the poor. It has given more to the poor than any other system, and lifted the most poor out of poverty. So if your value is "give to the poor" then a smart person would say "Ah, let's make a capitalist society to help the poor." Not "Oh gee, capitalism sounds evil, Jesus wouldn't approve, let's just be communist even though it makes everyone's lives worse."
Do you use a coin purse or do you keep high value coins jumbling about your pocket? I just don't see any advantage to coins except some theoretical savings over constantly reprinting paper money. But that is a pretty negligible cost, and burdening the entire population with coins doesn't seem worth it.
But the company that sold GM those robots--Japan's Fanuc Ltd.--is worth another look. Fanuc (for factory automation, numerical control) has spent the intervening years turning its own assembly line into the lights-out model Smith dreamed about. At this moment, in one of Fanuc's 40,000-square-foot factories near Mt. Fuji, robots are building other robots at a rate of about 50 per 24-hour shift and can run unsupervised for as long as 30 days at a time.
Any time you make a denial more specific than necessary to get the point across, it raises suspicion. I don't think you need to change the word "known" to "unknown" to make a point, the mere fact that "known" is in there is odd. Same with "secret" contract. Nobody cares if the contract was secret, or if there even was a contract vs a high level understanding or a backroom verbal agreement.
That said, the bit you quoted at the end ("we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use.") is a pretty good denial. I'd still get rid of half of it... the extra verbiage of "entered into any contract or engaged in any project" is bad.
Overall, if RSA did have a secret contract, they're not going to just say "Yep ok we've been caught" so I agree that analyzing their denial doesn't add anything. They're going to deny it whether it's true or not.
No idea why you got downmodded so viciously in this thread!
What does secularism have to do with it? People have freedom. People's authority over their children isn't based on religion it's based on human nature.
im sorry that im anti freedom because i dont want the fucking church dictating what is and isnt appropriate in my lfie
Either do I, and I don't want the government to become the substitute for the church either.
A few hundred years ago the church was like the government and had just as much power. That was considered BAD. Now people want the government to have even more power than the church ever had... and that's GOOD? You think morality and values don't exist in politics just because they're called politicians and not priests? You just have to look at what people in both parties talk about. Democrats want "social justice" and crap like that, that's not shoving their values down your throat?
Also, this had nothing to do with obamacare
So when you said "They could just pay the fine and force employees to get heath insurance from the exchanges and BOOM..its out of there hands"... you were referring to what? Pre-Obamacare when there was no fine? Pre-Obamacare when there were no exchanges?
Tell me what he said. I haven't read most of the Bible. I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Jesus espoused anything like communism or socialism. I suspect he said stuff like be nice to poor people. You do realize that charity is not incompatible with capitalism?
Slashdot Mirror
You remind me of too many Christians who give a bad name to that Jesus guy. He apparently made some pretty clear statements but you're sure he didn't really mean them.
Yeah I'm completely sure he didn't mean that every person should sell everything and give it to the poor. Know why? It's logically impossible. If everybody is selling, and nobody is buying, then nobody can actually sell anything.
Look, I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't pretend to be one. I don't care which is why I freely admitted I haven't read most of the Bible. To me it's perfectly plausible that in your quote about selling everything and giving it to the poor, since he was actually talking to one particular guy who happened to own a lot of property, he was purposely giving him a personal challenge that he would fail, so that the guy knew what it was like to fail, to have empathy with others who fail like poor people. Or maybe it's a lesson about how to get into Heaven -- not just by being good because it's easier for some people to be good than others, but by being good in a way that causes you to sacrifice painfully according to your own situation. That's also a common theme I believe.
The Bible is not an econ textbook. Reading economic theory into some random quote from Jesus is frankly stupid. I'm pretty sure Jesus is big on empathy, and a lesson about empathy is more fitting with the Bible than a lesson about what economic system you should support.
But to claim that he didn't mean what he said is a pretty weak one.
The guy chiding me for my "simplistic black or white view" is arguing that nobody could disagree about what Jesus meant versus what he said. Classic.
I never said he endorsed communism. I said he wasn't a capitalist.
Good for you. I never said he was a capitalist.
I don't think Jesus said much about economics at all in the Bible. That's why I challenged you to show that he did say something for an economic system -- and I left out capitalism because you already revealed that you don't think Jesus embraced capitalism. Remember what I said? "Tell me what he said. I haven't read most of the Bible. I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Jesus espoused anything like communism or socialism. I suspect he said stuff like be nice to poor people."
There is a huge range of options between those two. But you've assumed that someone opposing unbridled capitalism must be a communist.
Good for you. If you're not going to say what he IS, then the discussion is free to move to what he IS NOT. And I said he is not a communist or a socialist. So? The fact that Jesus is not a communist does not exclude your "huge range of options."
Frankly I don't know why you're hung up on Jesus and the Bible in this discussion. The person I originally responded to claimed that to embrace Ayn Rand's ideals about capitalism, you must be an atheist, or at least reject the Christian ideals of God. I disagree. And in the question "What Would Jesus Do?" the operative word is WOULD. Not DID. It's not "What DID Jesus Do." So the question of whether Jesus WAS a capitalist or a communist is neither here nor there. Those concepts were not well formed back then. Jesus was none of those things, which is why I said it's highly unlikely that you'll find quotes espousing any economic system.
The question is what economic system WOULD Jesus support RIGHT NOW. If he would support more capitalist systems because (as I said) they ended up in hindsight bringing more wealth and stability to people than the alternatives, then the original poster's insistence that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible is incorrect because it's something Jesus WOULD support. (Not DID support.)
Capitalism does not exist in the real world. Neither does communism.
Yup. This isn't high school. You don't need to explicitly add the standard disclaimers every time you use words like capitalism a
Yeah I agree with that. Like I said, we didn't want to take control of Vietnam, we wanted to help the South Vietnamese. And we did lose Vietnam in that sense, but it's more nebulous than a military loss.
Exxon could very well peacefully enter the land. Millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico have entered the US -- who would call that an "aggressive" invasion? That's silly. So of course you can enter another country, as private citizens, without being aggressive.
On the other hand owning land and keeping others out is "Imposing your rule over another group of people" which you said is aggressive. You can't peacefully keep people out who want to come in.
I think perhaps you just spoke too broadly if that's not what you actually meant.
You equate selling all of your possessions, giving the money to the poor, and giving up your life to follow Jesus with selling some stuff and giving a pittance to charity?
No I'm not equating them. Typically people who aspire to be like Jesus don't reach the goal 100%, and that's considered ok. If Jesus says "Sell everything and give it to the poor" that doesn't become a commandment, it just means Jesus wants you to give to the poor, and ideally give enough that it makes you uncomfortable.
The rest of your retorts are equally ridicules and ill conceived.
You posted some stuff from the Bible that was supposed to show Jesus endorsing communism, and I don't think it did. I took the time to respond to each point and you come up with this crap? Thanks!
Seriously, if you don't want to have a discussion, why did you bother posting?
Your fascination with capitalism vs communism and the good/evil nature of these theoretical economic systems is juvenile. I never suggested that either system is good or bad.
Good/evil nature? All I said was that historically capitalism has produced more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than communism. What does that have to do with the "nature" of the economic system? What is juvenile about that? When did I use the words "good" or "evil"?
Thanks for wasting my time!
The purpose of warfare is generally to control something, be it territory, a trade route, raw materials, a population, whatever.
I think that's the traditional purpose of warfare but today it's not. America fights wars of principle. Why do we interfere in random civil wars like Bosnia? What did we gain? Why did people want the US to get involved in Rwanda? Why did we start giving weapons to Syrian rebels? Because we think we'll be in control of Syria afterwards?
It's a product of being rich and detached from the actual conflict. Personally I think it's linked to the decline of religion in the US. People need something to believe in, and war gives us such a thing -- that we're these awesome champions of justice, that we're going to go make a positive difference in the world, etc. I saw it first hand when the US liberated Iraq. Nobody who supported the war said "Oh sweet we'll control their territory forever." People GENUINELY thought that once we liberated them and showed them democracy and stuff that they'd be our new buddies.
After a dozen years of the second-most expensive occupation in history the entire accomplishments of the US in Afghanistan is that they control most of Kabul and some if its suburbs, their heavily-armed military bases are secure, and they control some of the mountain passes.
Look I readily agree that if the goal is to control the territory and make them like us, then we've lost. I don't think that's the goal. If the goal is to say "This is what happens when you harbor terrorists who we don't also support.." then we won. If it's just to say "Look we can still do what we want when we want and no other country is going to step in to help our target" then we won.
If you're cynical maybe it's to say "Look we have enough control over our domestic affairs and population that we can wage the 2nd most expensive occupation in history, get nothing out of it, and face no consequences."
Bottom line, winning a war today, when war is about principles, is entirely subjective. There are winners and losers on both sides. In my opinion, the Afghanistan War was about punishment and we won. Then it morphed into a humanitarian mission, which is separate, and stupid, and we will not win that. The Iraq War also had two parts. We obviously won the military part, and again lost/will lose the humanitarian part. That said, who knows... maybe the Kurds will break away from Iraq and in hindsight it will be a net win (though why we care is beyond me).
1. I'm not pro-Vietnam war by any stretch, but the fact remains nothing you said indicates that the US wanted to permanently control the land. In fact why would you do that stuff if you did want to stay?? Poison all the cropland -> "OH yes please, I think I'll retire here!"
2. Indians far outnumbered whites at the beginning. And they went to war with us many, many times. The small white population eventually grew and became "the population" like you said, but of course that's what happens when you permanently hold a territory where the population hates you.
Once war becomes so easy to do, perhaps the need for it will decrease. If suicide attacks are self-moderating, and doing things to piss off a powerful drone-equipped military becomes equivalent to a suicide attack, then it will be self-moderating.
I don't buy the argument that having drones will make the population so numb that things like "Today in Chad, Exxon commissioned the US Army to drone-attack BP's oil field workers. Exxon is up 1.5% in premarket trading." will start happening. I mean seriously you have people today paying 300% markups for "fair trade coffee" and garbage like that. Our sense of humanity is only increasing over time.
No it's not aggression to impose your rule. For instance don't you think it's allowable for countries to have borders and keep people out that it doesn't want to let in? The way you've phrased it, if Exxon hires a bunch of guys to peacefully go pump all the oil out of Mexico, there's nothing Mexico can do to stop it because they can't use violence or impose their rules over other people. So basically Mexico as a sovereign state ceases to exist.
It's impossible to permanently hold a territory where the population hates you
Two problems:
1. Straw man -- the US didn't want to permanently hold territory in Vietnam, we wanted to help the South Vietnamese
2. Historically incorrect -- e.g. Americans vs Native Americans.
Or perhaps just listing the top 10 countries to start wars in the last 20 years would be a good start?
Do you have such a list? Glancing at 1990-2002 and 2003-2010 I would guess Iraq as the #1 country. Possibly tied with or followed by Hamas (since those pages are about groups involved with wars, not just official countries).
Of course who "started" a war can be pretty subjective.
War, with few exceptions, tends to be about the ruling elites using the poor as pawns in their struggles for power and profit.
I don't think so because the ruling elite by definition already have power and profit, and can extend that without war. I think most wars in the last few hundred years are ideological, with power and profit being a consequence of war (not a cause).
Even wars of succession, while having high stakes for power and profit, are certainly tied to things like family pride as well as wealth.
Why do the Afghans win? Because they're still there afterwards?
It doesn't make sense to define winning like that unless you think the only goal of war is genocide. America can go where it wants, shoot people, fly planes and drones, set up bases. It can't do that for free, but it can do it as much and as often as it likes. It can also leave if it likes.
If you can do whatever you like, didn't you pretty much win?
Military being present is not the same as "invading." We were working WITH the Taliban against the Soviets.
You could say we invaded Soviet Afghanistan, but we did not invade the Taliban, they invited us in.
Every army is an army of rapists
Sure, and every civilian group is a civilian group of rapists, because some civilians also rape. So really it's just rapists fighting rapists. Why do you care?
Well, WWII was not one of those "sometimes" you're referring to. When France surrendered to Germany it didn't result in the death of all the French.
There are very few wars of extermination in history compared to normal wars where the dominant side wins and then life goes on.
Saddam was apparently lead to believe he could attack Kuwait without consequence, it could have been stopped before it started.
If we're still talking about justifiable wars, then it doesn't matter if there was an earlier opportunity to stop it. It wasn't stopped, so at the time the war was justifiable.
There was no good reason for US to enter Afghanistan
Them harboring al Qaeda was good enough reason for many people.
US goes to war to keep the corporate military machine going, if America stopped going to war it's economy would take a dive.
In other words, the wars are justifiable. You just don't like the justification.
But religious limitations to child abuse/neglect are just one type of limitation. It's not the only one. For instance you aren't going to be thrown in jail for being too poor to properly raise a child either, or not being smart enough, or making your child a racist, etc.
None of your quotes are anti-capitalist.
The first two say to sell your possessions and give to the poor. Capitalists sell stuff. Capitalists engage in charity as I already pointed out.
Then we see it's hard for rich people to go to heaven. Most people in capitalist societies are not rich.
Then there's some parable about someone who spends his last day thinking about his business without knowing that he's dying. What does this have to do with capitalism? It might just as well have been a parable about a guy wasting his time with a stamp collection even though he's about to die.
Last one is about God providing for you or something. Again I don't know what you think this has to do with capitalism specifically. Do you think capitalism is the only economic system where people have to work for their food? How do you think food is provided in communist societies?? Do you think God just gives it to everybody and nobody has to work??
If anything, the quotes you found are about how to be a Christian IN a capitalist society. It's like you're forgetting that the people in a capitalist system are still people... they still have families, they still love things, they are nice or mean, they have priorities other than money, they have emotional needs and maybe spiritual needs too. Capitalism is just an economic system, it's not a 100% complete blueprint for your life.
I suggest that you look to your Bible for values, but look at the real world to see how best to implement those values. Like I suspected, Jesus said (twice in your quotes) to give to the poor but did not lay out HOW to give. So it's up to you to choose. Well guess what... capitalism gives to the poor. It has given more to the poor than any other system, and lifted the most poor out of poverty. So if your value is "give to the poor" then a smart person would say "Ah, let's make a capitalist society to help the poor." Not "Oh gee, capitalism sounds evil, Jesus wouldn't approve, let's just be communist even though it makes everyone's lives worse."
Do you use a coin purse or do you keep high value coins jumbling about your pocket? I just don't see any advantage to coins except some theoretical savings over constantly reprinting paper money. But that is a pretty negligible cost, and burdening the entire population with coins doesn't seem worth it.
Whatever lobby group is against dollar coins should make a video of someone walking around with $30 of coins in their pockets.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2003/06/01/343371/
But the company that sold GM those robots--Japan's Fanuc Ltd.--is worth another look. Fanuc (for factory automation, numerical control) has spent the intervening years turning its own assembly line into the lights-out model Smith dreamed about. At this moment, in one of Fanuc's 40,000-square-foot factories near Mt. Fuji, robots are building other robots at a rate of about 50 per 24-hour shift and can run unsupervised for as long as 30 days at a time.
Any time you make a denial more specific than necessary to get the point across, it raises suspicion. I don't think you need to change the word "known" to "unknown" to make a point, the mere fact that "known" is in there is odd. Same with "secret" contract. Nobody cares if the contract was secret, or if there even was a contract vs a high level understanding or a backroom verbal agreement.
That said, the bit you quoted at the end ("we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use.") is a pretty good denial. I'd still get rid of half of it... the extra verbiage of "entered into any contract or engaged in any project" is bad.
Overall, if RSA did have a secret contract, they're not going to just say "Yep ok we've been caught" so I agree that analyzing their denial doesn't add anything. They're going to deny it whether it's true or not.
No idea why you got downmodded so viciously in this thread!
What does secularism have to do with it? People have freedom. People's authority over their children isn't based on religion it's based on human nature.
im sorry that im anti freedom because i dont want the fucking church dictating what is and isnt appropriate in my lfie
Either do I, and I don't want the government to become the substitute for the church either.
A few hundred years ago the church was like the government and had just as much power. That was considered BAD. Now people want the government to have even more power than the church ever had... and that's GOOD? You think morality and values don't exist in politics just because they're called politicians and not priests? You just have to look at what people in both parties talk about. Democrats want "social justice" and crap like that, that's not shoving their values down your throat?
Also, this had nothing to do with obamacare
So when you said "They could just pay the fine and force employees to get heath insurance from the exchanges and BOOM..its out of there hands" ... you were referring to what? Pre-Obamacare when there was no fine? Pre-Obamacare when there were no exchanges?
Tell me what he said. I haven't read most of the Bible. I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Jesus espoused anything like communism or socialism. I suspect he said stuff like be nice to poor people. You do realize that charity is not incompatible with capitalism?