This just screams...BAD IDEA right from the get-go...
What's beneath others is your uniformed commentary (in a thread where basic facts are presented that you choose to ignore in favor of your own conjecture), and I'm still debating whether to respond to any of your blather in the other thread. Time is money and I've wasted both on you thus far.
This thread, like many others of mine, is presented as lite fare as a diversion, but on a larger scale, speaks to the socioeconomic condition of this country that someone would actually have to resort to such a near lunatic action to earn a living. Anyone could have either conversation within.
What's beneath others is your uniformed commentary (in a thread where basic facts are presented that you choose to ignore in favor of your own conjecture), and I'm still debating whether to respond to any of your blather in the other thread. Time is money and I've wasted both on you thus far.
This thread, like many others of mine, is presented as lite fare as a diversion, but on a larger scale, speaks to the socioeconomic condition of this country that someone would actually have to resort to such a near lunatic action to earn a living. Anyone could have either conversation within.
What's beneath others is your uniformed commentary (in a thread where basic facts are presented that you choose to ignore in favor of your own conjecture), and I'm still debating whether to respond to any of your blather in the other thread. Time is money and I've wasted both on you thus far.
This thread, like many others of mine, is presented as lite fare as a diversion, but on a larger scale, speaks to the socioeconomic condition of this country that someone would actually have to resort to such a near lunatic action to earn a living. Anyone could have either conversation within.
What's beneath others is your uniformed commentary (in a thread where basic facts are presented that you choose to ignore in favor of your own conjecture), and I'm still debating whether to respond to any of your blather in the other thread. Time is money and I've wasted both on you thus far.
This thread, like many others of mine, is presented as lite fare as a diversion, but on a larger scale, speaks to the socioeconomic condition of this country that someone would actually have to resort to such a near lunatic action to earn a living. Anyone could have either conversation within.
What basic fact? The basic fact that the officer was 'responding to a call' which you said several times, and that there is absolutely no evidence for, and you keep using as a partial basis for her borderline militaristic action (against a senior citizen who is a war veteran for god's sake)?
You can't see the club in the video when she pulls up, so she either had prior knowledge from a call or a prior encounter with him that isn't shown in the video.
Here it is yet again, in this thread...
I'm not worrying about whether other people will think I respond. I just know you are waiting for one.
And again, time is money and like the Cavs championship futures bets, you are shredding my money as I speak.
I could address the other points you made above but once again, I'm not even halfway through this post and you still assume she is responding to a call, somehow giving the encounter even a smidgen of justification.
Now, you can back off that assumption, and maybe (and I do mean maybe, as I haven't given it any real thought), I'll respond to the hog feed you've strewn all over this forum like some backwoods hillbilly in a pair of muddy overalls, or you can go back to eyeballing cheerleaders undergarments. It's up to you.
What basic fact? The basic fact that the officer was 'responding to a call' which you said several times, and that there is absolutely no evidence for, and you keep using as a partial basis for her borderline militaristic action (against a senior citizen who is a war veteran for god's sake)?
You can't see the club in the video when she pulls up, so she either had prior knowledge from a call or a prior encounter with him that isn't shown in the video.
Here it is yet again, in this thread...
I'm not worrying about whether other people will think I respond. I just know you are waiting for one.
And again, time is money and like the Cavs championship futures bets, you are shredding my money as I speak.
I could address the other points you made above but once again, I'm not even halfway through this post and you still assume she is responding to a call, somehow giving the encounter even a smidgen of justification.
Now, you can back off that assumption, and maybe (and I do mean maybe, as I haven't given it any real thought), I'll respond to the hog feed you've strewn all over this forum like some backwoods hillbilly in a pair of muddy overalls, or you can go back to eyeballing cheerleaders undergarments. It's up to you.
What basic fact? The basic fact that the officer was 'responding to a call' which you said several times, and that there is absolutely no evidence for, and you keep using as a partial basis for her borderline militaristic action (against a senior citizen who is a war veteran for god's sake)?
You can't see the club in the video when she pulls up, so she either had prior knowledge from a call or a prior encounter with him that isn't shown in the video.
Here it is yet again, in this thread...
I'm not worrying about whether other people will think I respond. I just know you are waiting for one.
And again, time is money and like the Cavs championship futures bets, you are shredding my money as I speak.
I could address the other points you made above but once again, I'm not even halfway through this post and you still assume she is responding to a call, somehow giving the encounter even a smidgen of justification.
Now, you can back off that assumption, and maybe (and I do mean maybe, as I haven't given it any real thought), I'll respond to the hog feed you've strewn all over this forum like some backwoods hillbilly in a pair of muddy overalls, or you can go back to eyeballing cheerleaders undergarments. It's up to you.
What basic fact? The basic fact that the officer was 'responding to a call' which you said several times, and that there is absolutely no evidence for, and you keep using as a partial basis for her borderline militaristic action (against a senior citizen who is a war veteran for god's sake)?
You can't see the club in the video when she pulls up, so she either had prior knowledge from a call or a prior encounter with him that isn't shown in the video.
Here it is yet again, in this thread...
I'm not worrying about whether other people will think I respond. I just know you are waiting for one.
And again, time is money and like the Cavs championship futures bets, you are shredding my money as I speak.
I could address the other points you made above but once again, I'm not even halfway through this post and you still assume she is responding to a call, somehow giving the encounter even a smidgen of justification.
Now, you can back off that assumption, and maybe (and I do mean maybe, as I haven't given it any real thought), I'll respond to the hog feed you've strewn all over this forum like some backwoods hillbilly in a pair of muddy overalls, or you can go back to eyeballing cheerleaders undergarments. It's up to you.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.