The US Civil War wasn't originally to "free the slaves", it was about keeping the Union together and keeping a strong central federal government versus a weaker one in which states had (much) more power inside their own borders.
No no no no no no.
The Civil War was most definitely about slavery. The states that seceded explicitly stated this. Here's a few excerpts from declarations of seceding states.
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
South Carolina: "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."
Virginia was marginally more circumspect: "the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
Please don't bring revisionist history into this. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were taught this in school (as many of us were, and many students still are), but it is demonstrably false, and an attempt to whitewash U.S. history. Yes, the goal of the North was to preserve the Union, but for the Confederacy it was all about preserving slavery.
Also, the poll didn't include an option for "Law Enforcement should never be able to permanently seize money or other property". Since respondents didn't have that option to select, we could always hope that people who believe that are part of the 13% who selected "not sure".
So... two closely-related people with cancer. Could it be their annoying electronic toys? Or... maybe... just maybe... genetics might have something to do with it?
Everyone in my immediate family has had cancer except me (so far). We all played with our sheepdog when I was a kid. Therefore, sheepdogs cause cancer. (I just happen to have sheepdog-immunity.) Yes, that makes perfect sense.
By the way, would you ask any other person claiming to have a serious health issue to "prove it and, by the way, don't bleed on my couch"?
Oh hell yes. If they really have all these symptoms, then someone needs to figure out what really is going on, rather than accepting their ridiculous claims of a malady that is entirely unsupported by evidence.
Sure... crush my hopes... which were admittedly completely unjustified. In other news, a rather-delayed letter from my former healthcare provider informs me that an unknown hacker accessed the parts of their system that contain "personal information, like name, address, date of birth, social security number, medical record number, Medicare or health plan ID number, and some medical information (e.g. medical condition, medications, procedures, and test results)." So, nothing important.
The City of El Segundo is located in Southwest Los Angeles County and home to numerous Aerospace businesses such as Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Aerospace Corp and the Los Angeles Air Force Base. Our tactical team is in dire need of a armored vehicle for operational use.
Raytheon is pretty scary. But I'm not sure an armored vehicle would be much use against them.
To put it in another context, the officers' claim of misrepresentation by videotape is roughly equivalent to telling your boss when he's firing you for showing up for work drunk that he's "misrepresenting" the situation by "editing" down your work history to the day you showed up drunk for work. What about all the days you showed up sober?
Not to abuse the analogy, but I'm guessing there aren't too many days where these cops showed up sober.