One programming language is like the other, at least within the same paradigm
This is quite true and quite important. This is why C, PHP, Fortran, COBOL, PHP, Basic of any kind etc, should be off the curriculum. They encourage bad habits, or at least do not encourage good ones.
In my NSHO, the best two languages to use today would be Java and C# if you want to teach directly relevant languages. Ruby and Python if you want to teach great habits. With Java and C# you could even include a framework like Spring making the student able to do really interesting things while both learning DI and other good things and teaching the fun stuff.
dropping C and PHP while retaining VB and VB.net is beyond any sane comprehension
I tend to agree, they should drop C, PHP (and anyone developing in PHP should be arrested and locked up for ages) and VB all. Another funny thing was that they dropped C# while keeping Java. C# and Java are so close they are almost exactly the same language. C# is basically just a Java accent, and it has actually fixed some of Javas problems.
unless you know how the internal structures of the programs work you will never be able to write good code, at best your code will be painfully slow, at worst it will be outright dangerous
Actually, you are exactly wrong. It is quite the opposite. The vast majority of software developers develop LOB applications for vertical markets. This is good. These developers should never use C and teaching them C is not only not needed, it is directly counter to what would be sensible. These guys should learn Java, perhaps C# (which is just Java with a twist), Python or similar.
Learning like this will teach them good practices. It will teach them to (hopefully) apply sensible patterns like DDD to their problem solving, and it will teach them how to focus on the problem domain, not the underlying architecture or the specifics of the platform. It will yield useful code by the tons, not as with C, by the gram.
Taking them through C would be utterly counter productive. Hardly anything that they'd learn would be applicable in practice, and most of the habits they would add would be utterly counter productive simply because C lends it self to the wrong paradigms. Non-OO, procedural programming is anachronistic at best, and that is what C would teach them. In most cases. I know, I know, you can do OO and DDD in any language. Problem is that you don't. You can't do Inversion of Control in practice unless you have Spring or a similar framework. That means Java. C#. Ruby. Python.
I did embedded software for quite a while. It taught me how to develop really, really tight code in C. Every bit of memory was precious. Every CPU cycle was gold. The number of people in the world requiring this today is so small that teaching it at any school makes no sense.
You are absolutely correct, and the Microsoft market share means that third party apps are successful on Windows instead of other more marginal operating systems. Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether Microsoft or Apple is a monopoly in said market. So... what was your point?
Can my friend, who is not a developer install my app on his device?
Re:You signed away this "right" by picking Apple.
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
The development tools cost more
A significant appeal of the Flash platform is that you can develop advanced LOB apps for it. Apps that are simply not rational do put together using some sort of HTML-based tools. I am developing LOB apps where state has to be maintained over relatively long-running conversations. With thousands of users, maintaining that state on the server becomes prohibitively expensive and it doesn't scale. Doing it in something like Ruby or Seam is therefore absurd in the extreme. Particularly considering the end user probably has at least a dual-cor PC with 4G of memory.
For large LOB apps, Flash, through the Flex platform, has significant appeal, and it is also heavily used in those areas. We currently use GWT and in some cases Silverlight, but the principle is the same. Put more intelligence on the client side to create a scalable architecture. The fact that so much of this discussion is about Flash as a delivery platform for media just shows how ignorant most of the people on Slashdot are about the real world of software development. The vast majority which is within companies developing specialized vertical LOB apps. Flash is good for that. GWT too, and perhaps Silverlight at the moment is the best.
Oh, and my point by answering your post, developing apps for Flash is free if you use the free (as in beer) tools that Adobe supplies. Free is cheaper than not free.
Your arguments and comparisons are predicated on Apple being a monopoly in a space
They are. In the online application space Apple has a 99.4% market share according to Gartner. That makes them a bigger monopoly in that space than have ever existed in any space in the computer industry, software or hardware.
They do have the right, so long as they tell you first and then leave it up to you to decide if you want to play by those rules
BZZZT! Wrong. They do in fact not have that right. Also, they never told anyone. They sold an interesting platform for a long time and then suddenly, after they managed to secure the largest monopoly ever in the software industry, the dramatically changed the rules by banning all non-Apple tools from the platform.
A long time ago Gates was supposed to have said "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run", in other words, Microsoft tried to change their OS to harm a competitor. Devious and a little evil most would have said. According to the Apple apologists, he shouldn't have bothered, he should just have changed the license agreement to say that it was illegal to run any non-Microsoft approved software on Windows, and then promptly banned Lotus for some arbitrary reason.
Oh, and yes, the reason for banning Flash on the iPhone is arbitrary and lame. I have at least two pieces of software on my iPhone (which will be upgraded to an android based phone soon) that drains the batteries significantly faster than any Flash issues.
The reality is that Jobs is trying to use his market power to hurt a troublesome competitor, and he needs to be taken down for it. With prejudice.
Again, this is utter rubbish, and it appears you have never written a Java app in your life. You whine about a Java app not being portable across JVMs, I think that this is bad software development, but who cares. What if Java programs do not port well between VMs? They still, with the specific VM, port easily across platforms.
I would even challenge you to write a piece of java code that didn't port well between platforms. I am reasonable certain you could not do it without it being utterly contrived (such as using backslash as a file separator on Unix).
Again, there might be minor problems porting Java apps between VMs, particularly.x versions of VMs. There are obvious issues trying to get 1.5 apps to run on 1.4 VMs for example, but between CPU architectures and operating systems. No way.
The largest Java apps, such as Eclipse, JBoss, the Spring Framework etc, move effortlessly between VM versions and between OSs and CPU architectures. Again - show me.
Rubbish. His point is that it is harder, to the point of impossible, for rich people to get into heaven. In relations to the poor, who can get in with far less effort. Getting a whole camel through the eye of a needle (and the "there was this narrow gate..." explanation is rubbish) is actually not possible. Not without destroying the camel.
No, Jesus didn't say that.
That is exactly what he said. He basically said that it was IMPOSSIBLE for rich people to get to heaven in the same way that it is impossible for a camel to be threaded through the eye of a needle. And the "there was this really narrow gate that everybody called the eye of the needle" is made up rubbish.
No offense, but my money's on Peter to be right.
Good. Do you always put your money on Peter? You do know that Peter was adamant that Jesus had said that the Jesus gospel should be preached among the Jews only right? Paul, who had never met Jesus, adamantly claimed that it should be taught to gentiles. Eventually Paul won through simply because he was a better recruiter in Greece than Peter was in Palestine. If you are so sure Peter was right, I assume you also feel that only Jews should be allowed to hear the gospels.
Both scales have problems, but from an ideology (not history) point of view, socialism and fascism shares more than they are different. From the point of view of an individual citizen at least.
No, it means that he number of programs on which the socialist wanted to spend federal money increased. Remember, this is outside of the defense budget. GWB grew the budget at a rate where the size of the FED would have doubled had he been allowed to rule for 12 years. Not including defense spending.
Now if taxes had gone up with that spending increase and the state taking over more public sector enterprises, then it'd be socialist
Taxes and socialism have nothing to do with each other. Quite the opposite. In an ideal socialist state the tax level would probably be zero.
Well, if they do find the cure, when you get past the age of 16, you will also find that presenting an argument is usually considered reasonable while insane rants about irrelevant shit is usually frowned upon by those with brains instead of Timex watches between their ears.
You have a point. I am not too fond of the left/right definition of politics however. I favor the totalitarian/libertarian scale, and on that Socialism and Fascism are on the same side of the scale. The reason I use socialist for Bush is his love for huge government spending.
Actually, quite the opposite. The non-moral government has no excuse to oppress the population. The only real way to oppress the population over a period of time is to impose some sort of moral framework on it.
Remember, no morals is not the same as (and how I hate this word) "evil". Quite the opposite in fact. A no-moral government has to rule based on rationality.
The problem for the Pope, and he probably knows this, is not that he presides over an organization that includes and protects child molesters. The problem for the Pope is that he is the head of a veritable child-molester factory. The catholic church, with recruiting relatively young men to a life of sexual perversion, and by that I mean forced abstinence is a sexual perversion as good as any, they foster, nourish and create pedophiles. Young men who are never allowed to grow into sexually mature adults will have a stronger tendency to maintain a child-like sexual attitude. This means that they will tend towards sexual games with individuals of the same sexual maturity, in other words young boys.
This is the most problematic aspect of the catholic church, and the one that needs to change for it to become normal. They have to drop the absurd sexual abstinence requirement. You can't expect a "club" that forces sexual abnormality onto its members to not drop into perversity. We have probably only seen the tip of the iceberg on this one. We have so far not seen much from deeply catholic countries in Southern Europe and from south of the Mediterranean. There is no reason to think the problem is smaller there, but at the moment the power of the church is stronger there than in the US and Ireland.
He said, "YOU [the rich guy he was talking to at the moment] go and sell everything you have and give to the poor".
And you believe that this was not a general commandment to the rich about giving away their possessions to the poor? Wasn't almost everything Jesus said a general rule? If it was not a general rule, why did he, in the follow-up to his comments to the rich dude, talk about the rich in general?
Jesus clearly says in that passage that the only way for rich people to enter heaven is to drop their earthly possessions into the hands of the poor. All of it. For all of them. The passage can not be understood differently.
You who owns this stuff, you voluntarily give it away, not because I'm changing the social order, but because I'm changing YOU".
Almost correct, particularly given the fact that "you" in English is plural. If you by YOU above mean "all you rich dudes, all of you in the entire world", you are correct. And yes, demanding that ALL those who have amassed wealth to give it away is socialism. Particularly when it is given as an order by a divine entity.
Jesus was about changing people's hearts
True to an extent. He was about changing everybody's heart. That is system change. Even if it is one heart at a time. The system change involved wealth redistribution, which is socialism. He was therefore a socialist.
Remember, when Jesus followed up with the statement that rich people essentially were not allowed into heaven, he was no longer talking about that dude in particular, he was talking about all rich people. In other words, dramatic and sweeping system change, one person at a time. Mandated from the ultimate "above". Socialism.
Ireland held a second referendum and approved the modified treaty
Yes, Ireland voted, after SERIOUS pressure from the EU, "yes" to a treaty after no real modifications. Hence my comment about it being printed on different colored paper, that is the extend of the changes made.
The Dutch and the French voted "no" to the original constitution suggestion and were therefore not allowed to voice their opinion to the "modified" treaty. Other countries where there was a very strong no tendency were bullied into dropping any thought of a referendum.
In it self the Lisbon treaty severely limits any democratic tendency in Europe by seriously reducing the areas where countries can veto or otherwise protect them selves from the non-elected, non-democratic leadership of the EU. The treaty moves significant powers away from the individual countries and into EU institutions that are outside of democratic control.
The closest historic parallel to the current EU is The USSR. Sad really. Oh, and I used to be a strong proponent for my home country, Norway, joining the EU. That was before EU showed its real face, as a totalitarian bureaucracy with no democratic oversight.
Atlantic City and Nevada are the only land areas in the US where gambling is legal
Eh, no. Well, depending on how you define "gambling". Poker rooms are allowed in far more areas that that. Even outside Indian reservations. Well, you get my drift since you list a fairly large amount of exceptions to the "rule".
You could say that gambling is illegal in most places except when it threatens the local casinos.
He didn't say "set up a government structure to take taxes from people and give to those who have need".
Correct, he didn't. But that is not socialism. Socialist has nothing to do with taxes as such. Socialism has to do with ownership. In short, socialism says that the community owns everything, that labor is according to your abilities, and that reward is according to your needs. Personal property is the "root of evil" in socialism. So, what did Jesus have to say about that?
Jesus: Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me anyway...
I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
The notion behind capitalism is that each should work as hard as his abilities, generate as much wealth as possible in a "selfish" manner, and the increased wealth will benefit all. This is the exact opposite of what Jesus preaches above. He liked his "wealth re-distribution our Jesus.
He doled out free health care to any and all... socialized medicine in action.
Jesus: Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”
Could have come straight for Marx him self. There's lots more in the bible. Jesus was DEFINITELY a socialist.
The only Republicans who took a stand against legislating morality Goldwater, Paul, etc. have been rebuffed in their quest for higher office.
Sadly partly true. Currently the US can choose between two types of big-government totalitarianism. One with Jesus freaks and one without. Maybe it is time the US population stood up and did what the 2nd amendment was meant for, put them all up against the wall, both parties, and start over.
Slashdot Mirror
Did he say that C++ was an object oriented language?
One programming language is like the other, at least within the same paradigm
This is quite true and quite important. This is why C, PHP, Fortran, COBOL, PHP, Basic of any kind etc, should be off the curriculum. They encourage bad habits, or at least do not encourage good ones.
In my NSHO, the best two languages to use today would be Java and C# if you want to teach directly relevant languages. Ruby and Python if you want to teach great habits. With Java and C# you could even include a framework like Spring making the student able to do really interesting things while both learning DI and other good things and teaching the fun stuff.
I tend to agree, they should drop C, PHP (and anyone developing in PHP should be arrested and locked up for ages) and VB all. Another funny thing was that they dropped C# while keeping Java. C# and Java are so close they are almost exactly the same language. C# is basically just a Java accent, and it has actually fixed some of Javas problems.
unless you know how the internal structures of the programs work you will never be able to write good code, at best your code will be painfully slow, at worst it will be outright dangerous
Actually, you are exactly wrong. It is quite the opposite. The vast majority of software developers develop LOB applications for vertical markets. This is good. These developers should never use C and teaching them C is not only not needed, it is directly counter to what would be sensible. These guys should learn Java, perhaps C# (which is just Java with a twist), Python or similar.
Learning like this will teach them good practices. It will teach them to (hopefully) apply sensible patterns like DDD to their problem solving, and it will teach them how to focus on the problem domain, not the underlying architecture or the specifics of the platform. It will yield useful code by the tons, not as with C, by the gram.
Taking them through C would be utterly counter productive. Hardly anything that they'd learn would be applicable in practice, and most of the habits they would add would be utterly counter productive simply because C lends it self to the wrong paradigms. Non-OO, procedural programming is anachronistic at best, and that is what C would teach them. In most cases. I know, I know, you can do OO and DDD in any language. Problem is that you don't. You can't do Inversion of Control in practice unless you have Spring or a similar framework. That means Java. C#. Ruby. Python.
I did embedded software for quite a while. It taught me how to develop really, really tight code in C. Every bit of memory was precious. Every CPU cycle was gold. The number of people in the world requiring this today is so small that teaching it at any school makes no sense.
You are absolutely correct, and the Microsoft market share means that third party apps are successful on Windows instead of other more marginal operating systems. Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether Microsoft or Apple is a monopoly in said market. So... what was your point?
Can my friend, who is not a developer install my app on his device?
The development tools cost more
A significant appeal of the Flash platform is that you can develop advanced LOB apps for it. Apps that are simply not rational do put together using some sort of HTML-based tools. I am developing LOB apps where state has to be maintained over relatively long-running conversations. With thousands of users, maintaining that state on the server becomes prohibitively expensive and it doesn't scale. Doing it in something like Ruby or Seam is therefore absurd in the extreme. Particularly considering the end user probably has at least a dual-cor PC with 4G of memory.
For large LOB apps, Flash, through the Flex platform, has significant appeal, and it is also heavily used in those areas. We currently use GWT and in some cases Silverlight, but the principle is the same. Put more intelligence on the client side to create a scalable architecture. The fact that so much of this discussion is about Flash as a delivery platform for media just shows how ignorant most of the people on Slashdot are about the real world of software development. The vast majority which is within companies developing specialized vertical LOB apps. Flash is good for that. GWT too, and perhaps Silverlight at the moment is the best.
Oh, and my point by answering your post, developing apps for Flash is free if you use the free (as in beer) tools that Adobe supplies. Free is cheaper than not free.
Your arguments and comparisons are predicated on Apple being a monopoly in a space
They are. In the online application space Apple has a 99.4% market share according to Gartner. That makes them a bigger monopoly in that space than have ever existed in any space in the computer industry, software or hardware.
Apple's US smartphone marketshare is 25% ... I'd ask for a refund on whatever it was you spent on your "education."
Well, at least he has some where he can get a refund. You clearly never even tried to go past middle school.
Apple has 99.4% of the mobile application market.. Microsoft never came close to that.
Gates: DOS aint done until Lotus wont't run.
Jobs (in the same situation): You are not allowed to run Lotus 1-2-3 on Windows.
No company ever has been as evil as Apple is now. Not Standard Oil, not Microsoft. Nobody
They do have the right, so long as they tell you first and then leave it up to you to decide if you want to play by those rules
BZZZT! Wrong. They do in fact not have that right. Also, they never told anyone. They sold an interesting platform for a long time and then suddenly, after they managed to secure the largest monopoly ever in the software industry, the dramatically changed the rules by banning all non-Apple tools from the platform.
A long time ago Gates was supposed to have said "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run", in other words, Microsoft tried to change their OS to harm a competitor. Devious and a little evil most would have said. According to the Apple apologists, he shouldn't have bothered, he should just have changed the license agreement to say that it was illegal to run any non-Microsoft approved software on Windows, and then promptly banned Lotus for some arbitrary reason.
Oh, and yes, the reason for banning Flash on the iPhone is arbitrary and lame. I have at least two pieces of software on my iPhone (which will be upgraded to an android based phone soon) that drains the batteries significantly faster than any Flash issues.
The reality is that Jobs is trying to use his market power to hurt a troublesome competitor, and he needs to be taken down for it. With prejudice.
Again, this is utter rubbish, and it appears you have never written a Java app in your life. You whine about a Java app not being portable across JVMs, I think that this is bad software development, but who cares. What if Java programs do not port well between VMs? They still, with the specific VM, port easily across platforms.
I would even challenge you to write a piece of java code that didn't port well between platforms. I am reasonable certain you could not do it without it being utterly contrived (such as using backslash as a file separator on Unix).
Again, there might be minor problems porting Java apps between VMs, particularly .x versions of VMs. There are obvious issues trying to get 1.5 apps to run on 1.4 VMs for example, but between CPU architectures and operating systems. No way.
The largest Java apps, such as Eclipse, JBoss, the Spring Framework etc, move effortlessly between VM versions and between OSs and CPU architectures. Again - show me.
So it's hard for EVERYBODY, not just for the rich
Rubbish. His point is that it is harder, to the point of impossible, for rich people to get into heaven. In relations to the poor, who can get in with far less effort. Getting a whole camel through the eye of a needle (and the "there was this narrow gate..." explanation is rubbish) is actually not possible. Not without destroying the camel.
No, Jesus didn't say that.
That is exactly what he said. He basically said that it was IMPOSSIBLE for rich people to get to heaven in the same way that it is impossible for a camel to be threaded through the eye of a needle. And the "there was this really narrow gate that everybody called the eye of the needle" is made up rubbish.
No offense, but my money's on Peter to be right.
Good. Do you always put your money on Peter? You do know that Peter was adamant that Jesus had said that the Jesus gospel should be preached among the Jews only right? Paul, who had never met Jesus, adamantly claimed that it should be taught to gentiles. Eventually Paul won through simply because he was a better recruiter in Greece than Peter was in Palestine. If you are so sure Peter was right, I assume you also feel that only Jews should be allowed to hear the gospels.
Both scales have problems, but from an ideology (not history) point of view, socialism and fascism shares more than they are different. From the point of view of an individual citizen at least.
that means that costs went up.
No, it means that he number of programs on which the socialist wanted to spend federal money increased. Remember, this is outside of the defense budget. GWB grew the budget at a rate where the size of the FED would have doubled had he been allowed to rule for 12 years. Not including defense spending.
Now if taxes had gone up with that spending increase and the state taking over more public sector enterprises, then it'd be socialist
Taxes and socialism have nothing to do with each other. Quite the opposite. In an ideal socialist state the tax level would probably be zero.
Well, if they do find the cure, when you get past the age of 16, you will also find that presenting an argument is usually considered reasonable while insane rants about irrelevant shit is usually frowned upon by those with brains instead of Timex watches between their ears.
You have a point. I am not too fond of the left/right definition of politics however. I favor the totalitarian/libertarian scale, and on that Socialism and Fascism are on the same side of the scale. The reason I use socialist for Bush is his love for huge government spending.
I hope they find a cure for your mental retardation.
Actually, quite the opposite. The non-moral government has no excuse to oppress the population. The only real way to oppress the population over a period of time is to impose some sort of moral framework on it.
Remember, no morals is not the same as (and how I hate this word) "evil". Quite the opposite in fact. A no-moral government has to rule based on rationality.
The problem for the Pope, and he probably knows this, is not that he presides over an organization that includes and protects child molesters. The problem for the Pope is that he is the head of a veritable child-molester factory. The catholic church, with recruiting relatively young men to a life of sexual perversion, and by that I mean forced abstinence is a sexual perversion as good as any, they foster, nourish and create pedophiles. Young men who are never allowed to grow into sexually mature adults will have a stronger tendency to maintain a child-like sexual attitude. This means that they will tend towards sexual games with individuals of the same sexual maturity, in other words young boys.
This is the most problematic aspect of the catholic church, and the one that needs to change for it to become normal. They have to drop the absurd sexual abstinence requirement. You can't expect a "club" that forces sexual abnormality onto its members to not drop into perversity. We have probably only seen the tip of the iceberg on this one. We have so far not seen much from deeply catholic countries in Southern Europe and from south of the Mediterranean. There is no reason to think the problem is smaller there, but at the moment the power of the church is stronger there than in the US and Ireland.
He said, "YOU [the rich guy he was talking to at the moment] go and sell everything you have and give to the poor".
And you believe that this was not a general commandment to the rich about giving away their possessions to the poor? Wasn't almost everything Jesus said a general rule? If it was not a general rule, why did he, in the follow-up to his comments to the rich dude, talk about the rich in general?
Jesus clearly says in that passage that the only way for rich people to enter heaven is to drop their earthly possessions into the hands of the poor. All of it. For all of them. The passage can not be understood differently.
You who owns this stuff, you voluntarily give it away, not because I'm changing the social order, but because I'm changing YOU".
Almost correct, particularly given the fact that "you" in English is plural. If you by YOU above mean "all you rich dudes, all of you in the entire world", you are correct. And yes, demanding that ALL those who have amassed wealth to give it away is socialism. Particularly when it is given as an order by a divine entity.
Jesus was about changing people's hearts
True to an extent. He was about changing everybody's heart. That is system change. Even if it is one heart at a time. The system change involved wealth redistribution, which is socialism. He was therefore a socialist.
Remember, when Jesus followed up with the statement that rich people essentially were not allowed into heaven, he was no longer talking about that dude in particular, he was talking about all rich people. In other words, dramatic and sweeping system change, one person at a time. Mandated from the ultimate "above". Socialism.
Ireland held a second referendum and approved the modified treaty
Yes, Ireland voted, after SERIOUS pressure from the EU, "yes" to a treaty after no real modifications. Hence my comment about it being printed on different colored paper, that is the extend of the changes made.
The Dutch and the French voted "no" to the original constitution suggestion and were therefore not allowed to voice their opinion to the "modified" treaty. Other countries where there was a very strong no tendency were bullied into dropping any thought of a referendum.
In it self the Lisbon treaty severely limits any democratic tendency in Europe by seriously reducing the areas where countries can veto or otherwise protect them selves from the non-elected, non-democratic leadership of the EU. The treaty moves significant powers away from the individual countries and into EU institutions that are outside of democratic control.
The closest historic parallel to the current EU is The USSR. Sad really. Oh, and I used to be a strong proponent for my home country, Norway, joining the EU. That was before EU showed its real face, as a totalitarian bureaucracy with no democratic oversight.
Atlantic City and Nevada are the only land areas in the US where gambling is legal
Eh, no. Well, depending on how you define "gambling". Poker rooms are allowed in far more areas that that. Even outside Indian reservations. Well, you get my drift since you list a fairly large amount of exceptions to the "rule".
You could say that gambling is illegal in most places except when it threatens the local casinos.
how is his platform any more socialist than
The strongest non-defense spending growth of them all. Since that New Deal disaster anyway.
He didn't say "set up a government structure to take taxes from people and give to those who have need".
Correct, he didn't. But that is not socialism. Socialist has nothing to do with taxes as such. Socialism has to do with ownership. In short, socialism says that the community owns everything, that labor is according to your abilities, and that reward is according to your needs. Personal property is the "root of evil" in socialism. So, what did Jesus have to say about that?
Jesus: Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor
Doesn't sound very capitalist to me anyway...
I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
The notion behind capitalism is that each should work as hard as his abilities, generate as much wealth as possible in a "selfish" manner, and the increased wealth will benefit all. This is the exact opposite of what Jesus preaches above. He liked his "wealth re-distribution our Jesus.
He doled out free health care to any and all... socialized medicine in action.
Jesus: Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”
Could have come straight for Marx him self. There's lots more in the bible. Jesus was DEFINITELY a socialist.
The only Republicans who took a stand against legislating morality Goldwater, Paul, etc. have been rebuffed in their quest for higher office.
Sadly partly true. Currently the US can choose between two types of big-government totalitarianism. One with Jesus freaks and one without. Maybe it is time the US population stood up and did what the 2nd amendment was meant for, put them all up against the wall, both parties, and start over.