100+ dead in France

[cannabineer]

I merely rewrote my interpretation of your thoughts. If I was off base in my assumptions maybe your approach could have been more tame? I'm not usually one to attack people like you, cb. You'll know when I'm doing that. - That being said, I interpreted your position as "extreme" as you were the one to denote that intention. -- I wasn't attempting to be snooty, I apologize for coming off that way. Let's let that one go, and move forward.



Is it corrupt? Or is it rather dysfunctional and requires attention? I'd argue dysfunctional. Have you seen or lived under a corrupt government? I have for a couple years, I am far better off here in the United States, even with all its dysfunction.



I believe due process works most of the time. But again, there are times the judicial system is dysfunctional.



So you're taking to "slippery slope" argument? My position is close to yours on this. I believe certain politicians and political hack Judges are taking a far extreme approach to gun rights. And I don't agree with them, which is namely why I won't be voting for Hillary this election, I'll write in Bernie. -- That point aside, I do feel there is a common sense approach to gun legislation and oversight, and it certainly ain't, "fuck it, let everyone have a gun, at least i know im a better shot".



I hope I've squared up as best I could in the few minutes I have at the moment. Be back soon.

I'll reply by inspecting your previous post.

View attachment 3736106

No reference ... the minimal answer. Uninformative and thus a n overt display of disrespect. Without going back and seeing where the reference was, you saw to it that I could not judge the source. In educated circles that is one of the big insults.

As UB pointed out, the 2nd Amendment was not meant specifically for defending against a tyrannical government. Of which by the way, you will have a very hard time convincing me we are so ruled. By simply dismissing all other interpretations,

I never dismissed the possible other interpretations. My attitude is "show me". That requires a reasoned response and preferably citations for the supporting material.

you've left this discussion about why the 2nd Amendment exists

This is what interests me

and why we should or should not all have a "God given" right to bear arms

Right there ... demonizing my argument, equating me to a Bible Belt Republican. With others gathering for a good heel-nip, I recognize this as pouring gravy on my argument, exhorting them to keep nipping.

Straying from the point you've pivoted your focus more on establishing our current form of government is tyrannical and that one Associate Justice is working tirelessly day and night to make that happen, under our blind innocent noses.

The adjectives are rhetorical tools to make my argument ridiculous. The real question is: am I wrong? If so, a counterdatum would be more welcome and classier than a denigrating rephrase. These points are not subtle minutiae; they are the basis of decent discourse.

I reject that notion completely.

I understand that. I do not understand your belief that our votes matter at all. Who here voted to drone the Middle East? to blacklist Snowden? to extend the Homeland Security Act? to hyperempower bankers and insurers?Until majority opinion actually has real political traction on such topics, I am unwilling to take your word that the system works. Show me that the rule of law is still real enough to make the corporations subject to it, and the Executive Branch more than a figurehead. I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life.

I would have also liked to stay on topic. I'd like to discuss more, but I've got meetings to attend today. I may stop in and try to debate a little, but it may resort to one liners or swaths of thought. Like my use of swath? lol

I see your saying "like my use of swath? lol" as a nod to the folks who ganged up on my for my word choices. There is no way that was not a plain, large-scale gesture of contempt.

 

[see4]

No reference ... the minimal answer. Uninformative and thus a n overt display of disrespect. Without going back and seeing where the reference was, you saw to it that I could not judge the source. In educated circles that is one of the big insults. I never dismissed the possible other interpretations. My attitude is "show me". That requires a reasoned response and preferably citations for the supporting material. This is what interests me Right there ... demonizing my argument, equating me to a Bible Belt Republican. With others gathering for a good heel-nip, I recognize this as pouring gravy on my argument, exhorting them to keep nipping. The adjectives are rhetorical tools to make my argument ridiculous. The real question is: am I wrong? If so, a counterdatum would be more welcome and classier than a denigrating rephrase. These points are not subtle minutiae; they are the basis of decent discourse. I understand that. I do not understand your belief that our votes matter at all. Who here voted to drone the Middle East? to blacklist Snowden? to extend the Homeland Security Act? to hyperempower bankers and insurers?Until majority opinion actually has real political traction on such topics, I am unwilling to take your word that the system works. Show me that the rule of law is still real enough to make the corporations subject to it, and the Executive Branch more than a figurehead. I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life.
I see your saying "like my use of swath? lol" as a nod to the folks who ganged up on my for my word choices. There is no way that was not a plain, large-scale gesture of contempt.

Dag nabit, the quote jumbled up your carriage returns. I will try my best to respond to each point.

Yes, I gave you a minimal answer. The information you are looking for is on fbi.gov, I have point it out several times in the past. I assumed you were being coy. But to that end, using that set of information, unfortunately for you argument isn't a good one to hold on to. Since the 1986 weapon ban, there has been a dramatic decrease in gun related crime. So you may want to avoid using that particular piece of information in this argument. Nevertheless, I wasn't intending to be insulting.

Your attitude is show me. Which is quite convenient. You make a claim, but then "we" have to provide evidence to counter. How about you state a claim that is supported by your own evidence to the fact?

No, I was not implying you were a Bible thumper. However I was illustrating the extreme nature you are taking with gun rights, as with most Bible thumpers, they feel everyone should have a gun, even their 3 year old daughters on their way to Sunday school. Again I wasn't implying you were a Bible thumper, I was merely putting you in the same circle. If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, you may need to explain again, sorry.

Yes, I think you are wrong, our government is not tyrannical. You've made the claim, I'd like you to prove your premise.

Who here voted for drones, Homeland Security, et al? I didn't, I voted for Gore in 2000. I vote for representatives who vote in favor of many of my principles. And I vote for them knowing that not all my principles will be voted on, as I understand I live in a democracy with 340,000,000 other individuals.

"Show me that the rule of law is still real enough to make the corporations subject to it, and the Executive Branch more than a figurehead. I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life." -- What does that have to do with gun rights? But since you brought it up, I agree, our dysfunctional government needs to do more about corporate welfare, I think it's a disgrace that money [and religion] are in politics.

No, you misunderstood my use of my last sentence. And I likely misused the word swath in this case. My comments to you have nothing to do with the other comments made in this thread. In fact, I haven't read much else since we've began our discussion. Swath - meaning a broad strip or area of something; I meant to use it to say, "broad generalization of thought". Relax cb, I'm not trying to attack you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I do not understand your belief that our votes matter at all....I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life.

i hold great contempt for such privilege and narrow minded anecdotal examples meant to demonstrate a much greater point.

probably why you are getting likes from people like steviebevie and flaming pie though.

to rebut, 538 votes in florida and out supreme court might just be sending people out to take your guns right now and force you into a FEMA camp.

good day sir.

 

[cannabineer]

I merely rewrote my interpretation of your thoughts. If I was off base in my assumptions maybe your approach could have been more tame? I'm not usually one to attack people like you, cb. You'll know when I'm doing that. - That being said, I interpreted your position as "extreme" as you were the one to denote that intention. -- I wasn't attempting to be snooty, I apologize for coming off that way. Let's let that one go, and move forward.

I'm okay with snooty, but what i see is dishonest. I am not ok with that if it is the case.

Is it corrupt? Or is it rather dysfunctional and requires attention? I'd argue dysfunctional. Have you seen or lived under a corrupt government? I have for a couple years, I am far better off here in the United States, even with all its dysfunction.



I believe due process works most of the time. But again, there are times the judicial system is dysfunctional.

Due process has led to prohibition for over 80 years. That is dysfunction of the sort that dismisses majority opinion. Our economic base has shifted from manufacturing to the welfare and law enforcement/corrections industry. Very powerful commercial interests promoted and benefit from that; where is the media discussion? Oh do not get me started on the media; major tangent

So you're taking to "slippery slope" argument? My position is close to yours on this. I believe certain politicians and political hack Judges are taking a far extreme approach to gun rights. And I don't agree with them, which is namely why I won't be voting for Hillary this election, I'll write in Bernie. -- That point aside, I do feel there is a common sense approach to gun legislation and oversight, and it certainly ain't, "fuck it, let everyone have a gun, at least i know im a better shot".

Sotomayor's expressed jurisprudential opinion tells me we are way down that slope. I have zero confidence Hillary will restore the rights i had here 15 years ago, e.g. legal open carry. I see this as the political center in legislative bodies these days, not the words and deeds of outliers.

I hope I've squared up as best I could in the few minutes I have at the moment. Be back soon.

Here is from the NY Times: Sotomayor on states' freedom to ignore the 2nd Amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html?_r=0

This is from RealClearPolitics, a "right-leaning" site but haven't found it on the more moderate sites. I wonder why we have to have specialist news services in order to get all the news.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/12/sotomayor_and_the_second_amendment_97420.html

RKBA is "not an individual right" and "the States are not subjected to it". I don't see how these conclusions are not in contradiction of the amendment itself. Why is this not being more vigorously discussed in state and federal Congress? Cui bono?

 

[cannabineer]

i hold great contempt for such privilege and narrow minded anecdotal examples meant to demonstrate a much greater point.

probably why you are getting likes from people like steviebevie and flaming pie though.

to rebut, 538 votes in florida and out supreme court might just be sending people out to take your guns right now and force you into a FEMA camp.

good day sir.

Yes, but ... am I wrong? I respect your right to your contempt, but show me where I am bringing unfacts.

 

[see4]

Due process has led to prohibition for over 80 years. That is dysfunction of the sort that dismisses majority opinion.

What do you mean "due process has led to prohibition"? Prohibition of what? I don't see how the term "due process" is connected to "prohibition", they are two disparate ideas.

Our economic base has shifted from manufacturing to the welfare and law enforcement/corrections industry. Very powerful commercial interests promoted and benefit from that; where is the media discussion? Oh do not get me started on the media; major tangent

You won't hear argument from me on that one. Yellow press anyone?

Sotomayor's expressed jurisprudential opinion tells me we are way down that slope. I have zero confidence Hillary will restore the rights i had here 15 years ago, e.g. legal open carry. I see this as the political center in legislative bodies these days, not the words and deeds of outliers.

Here is from the NY Times: Sotomayor on states' freedom to ignore the 2nd Amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html?_r=0

Open carry laws are states rights, am I wrong? What they're after is all your guns. That won't happen, so I'm not worried about that idea. Are you?

This is from RealClearPolitics, a "right-leaning" site but haven't found it on the more moderate sites. I wonder why we have to have specialist news services in order to get all the news.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/12/sotomayor_and_the_second_amendment_97420.html

Heh. Cool story bro. lol.

RKBA is "not an individual right" and "the States are not subjected to it". I don't see how these conclusions are not in contradiction of the amendment itself. Why is this not being more vigorously discussed in state and federal Congress? Cui bono?

My opinion on this is we know the Bill of Rights, the Amendment, The Constitution are not without flaws, so our representatives and other law makers do their best to interpret decreed law, revise it when and where necessary, and try to make new laws that help govern our society as seen fit for the 21st century. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson wasn't thinking Al's Queda, or Tal's Ban. ISIS? No YOU-SIS!!

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, but ... am I wrong?

they were threatening castration! are we gonna split hairs here?

I respect your right to your contempt, but show me where I am bringing unfacts.

ignoring the litany of policy differences which somehow in no way effected you at all (besides, of course, sotomayor taking a big steamy shit on your natural right to self defense, apparently), i already did.

538 votes in florida out nearly 6 million decided the election, that election decided citzen's united (among other cases).

if you find idiots agreeing with what you have to say, question yourself immediately.

 

[cannabineer]

Dag nabit, the quote jumbled up your carriage returns. I will try my best to respond to each point.

Yes, I gave you a minimal answer. The information you are looking for is on fbi.gov, I have point it out several times in the past. I assumed you were being coy. But to that end, using that set of information, unfortunately for you argument isn't a good one to hold on to. Since the 1986 weapon ban, there has been a dramatic decrease in gun related crime. So you may want to avoid using that particular piece of information in this argument. Nevertheless, I wasn't intending to be insulting.

I'll check the site and stay loose. I do wonder ho0w "gun-related crime" is defined; the devil is in the details.

Your attitude is show me. Which is quite convenient. You make a claim, but then "we" have to provide evidence to counter. How about you state a claim that is supported by your own evidence to the fact?

I brought particulars in my last reply - late but still. Would you provide links to support your contention that the system still works? I'd like that.

No, I was not implying you were a Bible thumper. However I was illustrating the extreme nature you are taking with gun rights, as with most Bible thumpers, they feel everyone should have a gun, even their 3 year old daughters on their way to Sunday school. Again I wasn't implying you were a Bible thumper, I was merely putting you in the same circle. If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, you may need to explain again, sorry. [/quote] This can be read as saying "not only are you NOT a conservative, you are also NOT a Bible-thumping naif who wants to arm his 3-year-old daughter". It is a rhetorical trick and raises my hackles.

Yes, I think you are wrong, our government is not tyrannical. You've made the claim, I'd like you to prove your premise.

Who here voted for drones, Homeland Security, et al? I didn't, I voted for Gore in 2000. I vote for representatives who vote in favor of many of my principles. And I vote for them knowing that not all my principles will be voted on, as I understand I live in a democracy with 340,000,000 other individuals.

"Show me that the rule of law is still real enough to make the corporations subject to it, and the Executive Branch more than a figurehead. I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life." -- What does that have to do with gun rights?

It bears on whether any discussion of rights "within the system" for an individual without lobby access has value. If not, the gun rights topic is wasted bandwidth.

But since you brought it up, I agree, our dysfunctional government needs to do more about corporate welfare, I think it's a disgrace that money [and religion] are in politics.

No, you misunderstood my use of my last sentence. And I likely misused the word swath in this case. My comments to you have nothing to do with the other comments made in this thread. In fact, I haven't read much else since we've began our discussion. Swath - meaning a broad strip or area of something; I meant to use it to say, "broad generalization of thought". Relax cb, I'm not trying to attack you.

And yet you coyly rewarded the ankle nippers. I'm going to discontinue this conversation.

 

[cannabineer]

they were threatening castration! are we gonna split hairs here?



ignoring the litany of policy differences which somehow in no way effected you at all (besides, of course, sotomayor taking a big steamy shit on your natural right to self defense, apparently), i already did.

538 votes in florida out nearly 6 million decided the election, that election decided citzen's united (among other cases).

if you find idiots agreeing with what you have to say, question yourself immediately.

I think I'm missing something big. Who threatened to castrate whom?

I also don't know what Florida has to do with my inability to discern any real serious differences in how the current and previous administration helped or hurt me and my family. That is anecdote, agreed, but also my current opinion and restricted to my situation. I hesitate to generalize it.

Also, I like Flaming Pie. I also like WinterWoman and you gave me a pass for that. In any case, I do not control who gives me Likes.

As for Sotomayor, I strongly disagree with her opinion that the 2nd does not articulate an individual right. The state in which i live has arbitrary and punitive gun laws. She thinks that is no business of the Federal government, a stance I find confusing since the Constitution should apply to all US citizens and institutions. That may be naive; I don't know.

 

[see4]

And yet you coyly rewarded the ankle nippers.

I can't control who likes my comments.

I brought particulars in my last reply - late but still. Would you provide links to support your contention that the system still works? I'd like that.

Your particulars are opinions of what may happen one day, sometime, if all the gun-grab lunatics have their day. Your particulars are a bunch of what-ifs. And even if they weren't, by no means does that illuminate the idea our government is tyrannical and completely broken as you have alluded. I don't need to prove the affirmative in this case, as it's plain as day. You've offered one case out of millions, that in no way offers overwhelming evidence, it's not even a blip in statistical probability.

It bears on whether any discussion of rights "within the system" for an individual without lobby access has value. If not, the gun rights topic is wasted bandwidth.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, "rights 'within the system' for an individual without lobby access". Lobbying should be illegal. Democratic vote is the only way a true democracy can be led. Adding in advantages for the few is not democratic. However, lobbying is not by definition tyrannical, nor is the system that cherishes it.

I'm going to discontinue this conversation.

Suit yourself. I rather enjoy some of your insight, it is frustrating that you don't stay consistent sometimes. Although I could probably accuse myself of said lack of consistency.

 

[see4]

Also, I like Flaming Pie. I also like WinterWoman and you gave me a pass for that. In any case, I do not control who gives me Likes.

And yet you coyly rewarded the ankle nippers. I'm going to discontinue this conversation.

Have you met kettle? I think he's off eating cake.

 

[abandonconflict]

IAnd yet you coyly rewarded the ankle nippers. I'm going to discontinue this conversation.

You seem upset that someone likes a comment you disagree with, yet receive likes from Trump supporters...

I really just wanted to point out that the study of human social behavior is called social anthropology though.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think I'm missing something big. Who threatened to castrate whom?

you keep asking "am i wrong?". only one thing comes to mind.

I also don't know what Florida has to do with my inability to discern any real serious differences in how the current and previous administration helped or hurt me and my family. That is anecdote, agreed, but also my current opinion and restricted to my situation. I hesitate to generalize it.

florida shows that voting matters. to act like the very real policy differences are negligible because they have not effected you, in your anecdotal experience, is mere privilege.

Also, I like Flaming Pie.

that's unfortunate. she is a very dumb person. very uninformed and slow. she finds a conclusion first then works backwards to look for evidence. she defends, excuses, and apologizes for racism non-stop.

i do not know why anyone would choose to like someone like that.

I also like WinterWoman

even more unfortunate. absolutely a white supremacist. one of those that you can almost hear sneering through text. vile.

I do not control who gives me Likes.

also unfortunate. if i notiuced myself getting likes from people like NLXSK, i would immediately review and revise my opiniomns, wonder where it all went wrong, and possibly slip into depression.

As for Sotomayor, I strongly disagree with her opinion that the 2nd does not articulate an individual right. The state in which i live has arbitrary and punitive gun laws. She thinks that is no business of the Federal government, a stance I find confusing since the Constitution should apply to all US citizens and institutions. That may be naive; I don't know.

as someone who recognizes the need for a strong central government with (some) laws that should be uniformly applied across all states, i can see the validity of that point.

as for her opinion on the meaning of the second itself, i have no problem with that. that goes back to why voting matters though. 538 people in florida can have a very strong effect on things like that.

 

[Grandpapy]

you keep asking "am i wrong?". only one thing comes to mind.

florida shows that voting matters. to act like the very real policy differences are negligible because they have not effected you, in your anecdotal experience, is mere privilege.



that's unfortunate. she is a very dumb person. very uninformed and slow. she finds a conclusion first then works backwards to look for evidence. she defends, excuses, and apologizes for racism non-stop.

i do not know why anyone would choose to like someone like that.



even more unfortunate. absolutely a white supremacist. one of those that you can almost hear sneering through text. vile.



also unfortunate. if i notiuced myself getting likes from people like NLXSK, i would immediately review and revise my opiniomns, wonder where it all went wrong, and possibly slip into depression.



as someone who recognizes the need for a strong central government with (some) laws that should be uniformly applied across all states, i can see the validity of that point.

as for her opinion on the meaning of the second itself, i have no problem with that. that goes back to why voting matters though. 538 people in florida can have a very strong effect on things like that.

Hmm, learn something new everyday.

 

[cannabineer]

you keep asking "am i wrong?". only one thing comes to mind.

florida shows that voting matters. to act like the very real policy differences are negligible because they have not effected you, in your anecdotal experience, is mere privilege.



that's unfortunate. she is a very dumb person. very uninformed and slow. she finds a conclusion first then works backwards to look for evidence. she defends, excuses, and apologizes for racism non-stop.

i do not know why anyone would choose to like someone like that.



even more unfortunate. absolutely a white supremacist. one of those that you can almost hear sneering through text. vile.



also unfortunate. if i notiuced myself getting likes from people like NLXSK, i would immediately review and revise my opiniomns, wonder where it all went wrong, and possibly slip into depression.



as someone who recognizes the need for a strong central government with (some) laws that should be uniformly applied across all states, i can see the validity of that point.

as for her opinion on the meaning of the second itself, i have no problem with that. that goes back to why voting matters though. 538 people in florida can have a very strong effect on things like that.

While I agree that Bush stole the '00 election, I wonder how different things would have been with Gore. I am under the impression that the White House matters much less than they make it look like it does.
Iirc WinterWoman wasn't a white supremacist ... but a Midwestern Republican. If you have info otherwise, I am curious.

ceterum censeo Walter did love that line. Read mine in a different voice: honest, curious. If I do not have an error of fact, I am less concerned if my social interface is acceptable.

 

[cannabineer]

You seem upset that someone likes a comment you disagree with, yet receive likes from Trump supporters...

I really just wanted to point out that the study of human social behavior is called social anthropology though.

Not correct. It is a subset, and one infested with subjectivists with agendas. There are legitimate studies of human social behavior beyond the bounds of Social Anthropology. Sociology (as pioneered by Durkheim) isn't anthropology unless of course anthropologists lobbied for an extension of the term. I would not be surprised. That would not make them right.

 

[UncleBuck]

While I agree that Bush stole the '00 election

that is not my position at all. i think he either won or lost in a narrow victory or defeat, but nothing was stolen IMO.

I wonder how different things would have been with Gore. I am under the impression that the White House matters much less than they make it look like it does.

multiple supreme court justices at a minimum.

Iirc WinterWoman wasn't a white supremacist ... but a Midwestern Republican. If you have info otherwise, I am curious.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/zimbabwe-has-217-in-the-bank-no-i-didnt-miss-any-zeros.619287/#post-8609281

"i just knew this would happen when they kicked out the White farmers!"

"if you're white, you're the wrong color!"

"i make a special effort to capitalize White!"

dead giveaways. people who are not white supremacists don't comport themselves that way.

ceterum censeo Walter did love that line. Read mine in a different voice: honest, curious. If I do not have an error of fact, I am less concerned if my social interface is acceptable.

sorry, that line will always be read in the sobchak voice. my concern is solely with whether or not you are wrong or not, i'm not too concerned with politeness in discourse, as you well know.

 

[cannabineer]

I can't control who likes my comments.

Irrelevant. I wasn't checking your Likes. I was commenting directly on your swipe at words. You know exactly to whom you were pandering with that.

Your particulars are opinions of what may happen one day, sometime, if all the gun-grab lunatics have their day. Your particulars are a bunch of what-ifs. And even if they weren't, by no means does that illuminate the idea our government is tyrannical and completely broken

Did I say completely? I didn't imply it.

as you have alluded. I don't need to prove the affirmative in this case, as it's plain as day. You've offered one case out of millions, that in no way offers overwhelming evidence, it's not even a blip in statistical probability.

No. I brought particulars, but you dismissed them with "cool story bro". They were a pair of links that spoke about Sotomayor's stated opinions. My anecdote is not a particular. I never labeled it such ... I think.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, "rights 'within the system' for an individual without lobby access". Lobbying should be illegal. Democratic vote is the only way a true democracy can be led. Adding in advantages for the few is not democratic. However, lobbying is not by definition tyrannical, nor is the system that cherishes it.

Suit yourself. I rather enjoy some of your insight, it is frustrating that you don't stay consistent sometimes. Although I could probably accuse myself of said lack of consistency.

I am indeed inconsistent. I may say No tomorrow to something to which I previously said Yes. The question is: am I avoiding Mencken's "foolish consistency" or am I being a loose cannon?



Bottom line, I see the system as broken and trying to look not broken.

 

[cannabineer]

that is not my position at all. i think he either won or lost in a narrow victory or defeat, but nothing was stolen IMO.



multiple supreme court justices at a minimum.



https://www.rollitup.org/t/zimbabwe-has-217-in-the-bank-no-i-didnt-miss-any-zeros.619287/#post-8609281

"i just knew this would happen when they kicked out the White farmers!"

"if you're white, you're the wrong color!"

"i make a special effort to capitalize White!"

dead giveaways. people who are not white supremacists don't comport themselves that way.



sorry, that line will always be read in the sobchak voice. my concern is solely with whether or not you are wrong or not, i'm not too concerned with politeness in discourse, as you well know.

I don't agree about WW. I was certainly taught to capitalize race as a youngster. i think you misapprehend a regionalism as bigotry. Jmo.Even if I am wrong on this, basing your evaluation on a form like that is an extremely weak basis for so serious an accusation. I think you wronged her.

I do think Bush stole the election. There was all sorts of skulduggery surrounding the Hanging Chads.

To the bolded: Good. I like that.

 

[testiclees]

Not correct. It is a subset, and one infested with subjectivists with agendas. There are legitimate studies of human social behavior beyond the bounds of Social Anthropology. Sociology (as pioneered by Durkheim) isn't anthropology unless of course anthropologists lobbied for an extension of the term. I would not be surprised. That would not make them right.

You sound like a character who was given intelligence by the wizard of oz.