They make money hand-over-fist from the money they have sitting in their accounts. This weird notion of banks charging for everything seems peculiarly American.
Those are not wire transfers. Wire transfers are between people via an intermediate actor, whereas bank transfers are between accounts between banks.
The cultural revolution which replaced all previous gods with new gods - Mao & the state? If you think they were atheist you really should read more.
Those governments will do it for any established religion, and passes the money on to them. It's essentially an automatic, opt-in tithe, dealt with by the government finance office. The government favours no particular religion in this arrangement.
Well, there is no evidence the "historical" Jesus was the same guy written about in the Bible, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove
The churches they oppressed were simply not adhering to the religion of the state, and so were deemed dangerous. They were not atheists - they worshipped the state. Just because someone or a group of people don't believe in the Christian god (or any particular god of choice) doesn't make them atheist. They have to not believe in any gods at all, even ones who they deem walk among us.
It's just become patently obvious to me that you are deluded beyond belief. All your "Leave the NSA alone!" posts seem far less intelligent. The various curtains you allude to were formed by worshippers - people who worshipped the state, its political party, and especially its leader. They were not atheists in any meaningful sense (apart from when a theist needs to somehow show that atheism is bad, that is, in which case logic has already flown out of the window). You are implying that when someone doesn't believe in god they get literature to prove the point? That seems like ridiculous confirmation bias to me. There are plenty of atheists out there who fly under your outrage radar, who do not preach a negative, who take no position on things as trivial as belief in supernatural puppeteers. But no, that would require admission that your understanding of the world isn't perfect, which seems to be one hell of a character flaw you have, which would explain your ridiculous defence of the NSA et. al. You seem well equipped to take orders from people you deem "better" than you. Maybe you should work on your self esteem, realise you are inherently flawed as a human being (as we all are), and start to think for yourself, assuming that even if those you think are indeed "better" than you, that unless you demonstrate that to yourself with total honesty and consistent logic, there is no way to be sure? Or ignore logic and keep on believing in nonsense which, if your are lucky, will lead you nowhere, and if unlucky, will destroy every vestige of humanity you are lucky enough to possess.
"Tyranny of the masses" is entirely democratic. It also has nothing to do with whether the country is a monarchy or not. You seem to be getting your words mixed up. That fact alone casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posts. If you don't know what the words you use mean, what else have you got completely wrong?
There are indeed some innocent parties - not every country on the planet is trying to save all information about everyone. Yes, some are engaged in similar areas of activity as the NSA, but to say they are equally as guilty is ridiculous when you compare the scale and scope of their operations. Simply put: Not all intelligence agencies the world over want to be able to monitor everyone. Saying "there are no innocent parties" is like saying the rapist is just as bad as the litterer. Technically you are correct, but you've reduced the discussion to pointless banality for no other purpose than making excuses for the head-and-shoulders worst offender.
Even if he did say what you claim he did, Kitty Hawk was not the first demonstration of powered, heavier-than-air flight. And before that spate of planes the Montgolfier brothers might have something to say. If you're going to blame someone for being incorrect, it helps to not be incorrect yourself.
The only non-PC thing you could say is that the whites were good because they were white, and the blacks bad because they were black. Everything else has nothing to do with "political correctness" (or, as decent folk call it: "accuracy").
I think they cancel each other out... Maybe they're on to something.
Again, according to the original author who has very limited access to the facts and a history of straight-up lying about these cases.
Apart from the bright red light on the device showing it's using its camera, you're entirely correct.
Poor choice. That could void your warranty, as the extra horsepower would put more stress on the suspension.