ErikS

That is describing capitalism, social programs are necessary to subsidize it. Case in point, Walmart. Shall I explain or is that enough?

I always wondered how Saggy Balls Gary learned to flip Volvos. It all makes sense now. I wonder if he puts his money where his Saggy Balls are, and is helping with Trump's "emergency fundraising."

I wonder where Saggy Balls Gary went to school. He makes us all want to believe it was the school of hard knocks. I guess that is what made him great again.

I don't know what Trump's problem is with the Chinese, they pay $85K per year to go to our school and I love them for it. They literally live across the street from his tower in Manhattan. I do know that my six years of education at state schools in the late 90's was less than ONE year of my sister's schooling at Wash U.

I have to go in person next week to renew my driver's license, so I'll register to vote for a party as well Saggy Balls Gary. Will you answer my question then?

When was it good, and when was America great? Give me a timeline and expound. Its the thesis of the argument but is empty. Like your sagging moist balls. "Sagging Balls Gary" That is your name until you can explain why Trump is going to make America great again.

Opiates are horrible. Having two herniated discs for 15 years they ease the pain initially, but then you get addicted to them psychologically as they have an emotional component. The withdraw from them can be excruciating, worse than the initial pain. They should not be prescribed until all other options are not working. I am happily free of them now, after realizing physical therapy and alternative medication is better. I hope the next president can real in big pharma, it is out of control.

The AAP has for years, all studies and statistics show having a gun in your home increases the risk of death for all. Its a "no shit, Sherlock" finding, but it is the truth. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/pages/aapfederalgunviolencepreventionrecommendationstowhitehouse.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Gun-Safety.aspx

Well. They don't brake well. Sorry Kevin, old teacher in me ...

There are four car makers no longer around on that list. Also, volume (N) counts. Jeep and Land Rover in the middle? Riiiggghhhtt .... Find the mean and SD and take the number of vehicles out there on the road, totally different results.

Its like death. Somethings are beyond your control. What is in control is what happens in your neighborhood, and local government. Efforts are much better spent locally than who buys the presidency.

A generation of parents handing down their 850's and S/V70's to their douche bag kids is over, that's what killed the VS trolling. Well, that and the Facebook page.

ADAMS: I’ve been studying persuasion for decades. And, when I saw Trump last summer displaying the tools of persuasion, I thought, “Oh, my God, he’s not a crazy clown; everything he’s doing, including his complete ignoring of the facts, is persuasion perfection.” And, I called him to be the landslide winner in the general election, last year, because the tools he’s using – essentially, he’s basically taking a flame-thrower to a stick fight. There’s nobody using the same tools he’s using. So, his complete ignoring of facts are actually part of the persuasion because he doesn’t give you targets. He doesn’t give you details of his policies, usually. So, he’s – he’s reducing the number of targets while making you feel good and focus on the things he wants. So, it’s not about facts. It’s about focus and attention. MAHER: He also seems to be a master of branding. You know, we see this—he never ever says the word “Hillary” now without “crooked” before. “Crooked Hillary,” “Crazy Bernie.” I mean, this is like six-grade-level stuff. But, that’s the level— ADAMS: So wrong. No, so wrong. That is the best persuasion you’ll ever see. When I heard “low-energy,” I called— MAHER: “Low energy,” right. ADAMS: —yeah, I called the end of Bush that day, because that is a sticky insult. MAHER: Right. ADAMS: So, these are not random insults. They’re— MAHER: I’m not saying they’re random. I’m not saying they don’t work. I’m just saying he brands people. “Low energy,” “crazy,” “crooked.” ADAMS: —no, but there’s something else to it. He’s – he’s working on confirmation bias. When you see anything come out in the news that looks like maybe Hillary Clinton did something a little bit suspicious, you say, “Crooked Hillary.” So, he’s setting these up— MAHER: Yeah, it’s— ADAMS: —so that you’re reminded of them— MAHER: —it really comes into – yeah, I mean – it looked great this week when that report came out. ADAMS: Yeah. MAHER: It fed right into the narrative. ADAMS: Right. And, “Lyin’ Ted,” same thing. MAHER: Right. ADAMS: He’s a politician. He’s going to say something— MAHER: Right. ADAMS: —that somebody is going to call a “lie.” And when they do, the nickname just pops in your mind. MAHER: I remember when he called Dr. Ben Carson, “The Sheriff of Nodding Off.” ADAMS: And, by the way, he A-B tests this, just like the software people do. So, he says these – these nicknames in front of people, he sees the reaction and then he uses them. The brilliant thing he did recently was he came up with a second one for Clinton. He said, “Well, is she heartless? Is it “Heartless Hillary” or is it “Crooked Hillary”? And, he actually made people debate whether she was more heartless or more crooked? And that’s all intentional.

I can still find it interesting, like religion, can't I? I just am giving you some food for thought as to why Trump is doing so well, with no substance, and conning so many people into believing in him.

Watch the video, you are being trolled so hard Gary. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/28/dilbert_creator_scott_adams_to_bill_maher_donald_trump_will_win_election_in_a_landslide.html

The universe we live in does not need an outside creator, so no I do not believe in a human conception of "God." Did something we will never understand create the universe? Maybe. Do I need to define it and label it? No. There is so much to be learned, and humanity has only barely broken the surface of knowledge. To have one or another religion claim to have an answer to life, death, and a supposed life after death seems arrogant given how small our little planet is. We are not the center of anything. I said if I could have been born something else, a Buddhist on a mountain top would be a pretty simple life, or an earthworm, maybe an African eagle, or a Californian Redwood. Life is life, I got to be a conscientious observer. Lucky me. I got to make another one somewhat like me, and hopefully my half-baked daughter gets to arrive one day, see the universe, and carry on and add to the wonder. One of the unfortunate but likely theories I hope is untrue is that advanced life like us fails to unite and self-extincts before we can collectively free ourselves from the rock that circles our star. Religion ain't going to get us off this rock, that I know for certain.

A curiosity, but if God is eternal, and your religion is the way to eternal life after death - where did Mormon souls go before Joseph Smith had his first vision? Do they have to be saved from Christian heaven so they can go to Mormon heaven? Digging a bit deeper ... If all humans have souls, and homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, why did God only send prophets when we began to save our written words? Why is it that God and the prophets only appear when written words were preserved? That's ~ 198,000 years of us being around before God and prophets appeared without written communication* *These are "scientific" thoughts, based on physical, geologic, and evidence based anthropology** Mayans excluded, since they had mathematics and complex astronomy thousands of years before Christ**

Not believing in something because there is no evidence for it, how is that being close minded? An invisible floating corporeal dragon in my garage is no more silly than believing in God. There is equal evidence for both, and you can't disprove either of them because of the context and direction one takes to exclaim how faith operates If a God exists, why not reveal itself so we can all find purpose and get the most basic questions answered. If heaven is real, Why is there no evidence for it? If we have an eternal soul, why is it not evident when we are alive? All the questions are rebutted through human thought by people, not God or a prophet in modern times giving us the answers. My contention is that religion grew when common physical things that we now know as truths were not understood and were used by those in power of the religion to control. Why does a church leader who prays and gets answers from God to tell his congregation a lauded figure, but a schizophrenic who does the same is labeled crazy and given drugs and sent to a mental institution? We are a very young species, not being on this Earth for very long but have convinced ourselves we are the most important thing in the entire universe. We are not even a spec of dust in the game and scheme of the vastness of space. With the age and size of the universe I cannot fathom a God, if there is one, having personal relationships with use and wanting to save us into eternity.

I don't give my life to science, and not all beliefs are equal. We are allowed to doubt the scientific method. If you doubted your faith you would be a hypocrite. If science were to stop working or no longer provided a working model of our physical world, I'd look for another method to describe it. You are not going to become a Hindu, Jew, or catholic if you find your religion no longer works - all you have is self-supporting evidence and "personal" experience to tie you to your specific faith. There are no inherent contradictions when I use science to describe my world, and what happens when I die. Religion is one where God loves all but is merciful, one where we have free will but the future is also foretold. Its a series of contradictions bound by human storytelling and reinforced through financial gain. Powerful churches are rich, the most powerful ones if God, Jesus, whomever truly existed and were real should have no money at all. You sound frustrated spouting back my arguments Alain, like you are experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Sure I do. You believe there is a god with no physical evidence. You believe your religion will give you life after death with no physical evidence. That is how faith works, confidence and trust without evidence, in this case anything that can be proven using how we now form our understanding of the physical world. You believe an invisible dragon lives in your garage. I can't prove it doesn't, but it sets the bar to how a person like me sees a person with your beliefs. I respect your right to believe it, just respect my right to let you know how silly it seems to me.

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.

It's taking it a step further actually. In science, we believe that nothing is 100% certain. We can test and re-test, come up with a degree of certainty - then assume that in those conditions we are confident to predict they will always happen given the model. Am I certain electrons exist? Yes, to 99.999999999 ...etc %. Do I open the door for some other model to describe them down the road better? Sure. Religion is the opposite, they are 100% certain - using their assumptions, "tests", texts, practices, etc God exists. Period. Their God(s) is/are the one(s). Their savior in their version is the way to live after you die. Mormon's have it pretty good, I get to go to heaven, but still have to look up to Alain.

You keep building those tabernacles, but they will never be as big and as expensive as the largest "church" ever made.

No, religion does not operate using the scientific method. At all.