If the police were ordered to stand down this is a bigger issue than what it appears to be. We need to find out all of the facts before jumping to conclusions.
There weren't. The Mayor was just on TV. He explained that all cities except Richmond in Viginia operate under a "city manager" model, so he could not order tham to stand down even if he wanted to. He does not have that authority. And the Police Chief said they did not standown.
It's hard for me to believe they stood down when most videos show a police presence and lots of people seem to complain that the police were ''herding'' them at someplace or another (which is common procedure as I understand it). ''Stood down'' kind of implies they just let everything happen, which runs contrary to other stories I heard, the fact that a police helicopter crashed first among them.
Do we know anything about said crash anyway?
He constantly mocks the alt-right. He got banned on twitter for tweeting big black dicks at known alt-righters lol.
As for him being a 9/11 truther, first off please provide a source on that. Secondly, that doesn't address any of his arguments. It's just character assassination. Even if he was a 9/11 truther, people can be correct and intelligent about some things while being complete morons about other things. Sam Harris is one of the smartest people I've ever seen and he's said some things I disagree with.
The North did NOT fight "to keep the US together as a nation without slaves." The North fought to keep the Union together period. There were slave states that remained with the Union: Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not touch slavery in those states.
As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Boiling the Civil War down to just slavery is overly simplistic. Yes, it was a major factor, but there were vast cultural, political, and economic (even beyond slavery) differences between the North and South and that had been festering for 80 years. The Civil War did not suddenly spring into life upon Lincoln's election anymore than World War I suddenly happened because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Even without slavery, there still likely would have been an American Civil War sometime in the 19th century. Maybe not precisely at the moment it did, but secession and State's Rights had been an issue in American politics since the Declaration of Independence; for example, the Nullification Crisis of 1832, or the Hartford Convention in 1813-1814.
While I was taking a monster shit I thought of something to say that is much more important than my previous reply. This is a very important question and I would like a serious reply.
If Sargon believes what he says he does and actually is a "woke independent" or as he describes himself, a "classical liberal", what would that look like? How can you know that he is a pretender? In other words, what would you accept as counter evidence of your claim?
If you can't imagine what could prove you wrong, if you cannot crystallize that idea, then you are not open to being proven wrong, which means you are being dogmatic.
It's both sides blaming the police. Or is the ACLU somehow a Nazi organization now?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/pol...rnd/index.html
So it seems the police were just incompetent instead of malicious.
Antifa were not innocent people. I find it funny that suddenly, the Antifa supporting Regressives are finding it Abhorrent that people are using violence for Politics.
- - - Updated - - -
Sargon is a Center-Leftist and a classical liberal which is quite a common stance in Britain. He argues against Communism because it's an ideology that attacks his the most in British Politics See: Corbyn and his neo-Trotskyists and their infestation of the Labour party.
This however, doesn't make him Right wing, because the political scale isn't just Facism and Communism like both Facists and Communists want you to believe.
[Infracted]
Last edited by Endus; 2017-08-17 at 02:52 PM.
mob with bats bashing a car until the driver runs them over
[Infracted]
Last edited by Endus; 2017-08-17 at 02:52 PM.