So you think this guy is going to go through six years of video eh?
We all know why he's doing it; just because he can and it's going cost everyone money.
Casio G*Zone One. Doesn't even have a camera.
Verizon likes to pretend they don't stock them, but they do - corporate clients buy that model all the time for their delivery drivers.
So...a fishing expedition.
Or more often, a fishing expedition.
I wouldn't call being specific about what you want a "limitation".
Requesting it all is a stupid stunt.
You would probably get a faster response when you provide dates, badges, etc.
Just a sweeping request of everything is a stupid stunt and of no benefit at all. Unless you really believe he is going to view all six years worth of data from hundreds of officers.
Link to Original Source
I am not sure I understand what your point is. Are you saying the sole cause of poverty in the black community is because they name their kids Darnell and Jamal?
Or are you simply justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior?
My point is, people like you are the closet racist that you think everyone else is, simply because you keep telling black people that they can't make it without white help (and a huge dose of white guilt). The fact is, that kind of racist attitude is exactly where a large chunk of the problem is.
When you actually see the racist remarks by liberals when a black person succeeds (see Ben Carson), then you'll understand the problem is Racism, it just isn't the kind you're expecting to see. 50 years of white guild progressive policies have decimated the black community.
If not honoring or stalling indefinitely FOIA requests is one extreme, requesting every last bit of recoding is the other.
The law should be amended to require specific and limited dates, specific officers, and that it be pertinent to an official incident.
Ha! The submissions can all be dismissed as "biased" without trying too hard. All of the Climate-scientists paid by the government and international institutions, for example, are inherently biased — should they conclude, there is no danger in global warming, their grants will dry out and they'll lose their jobs and influence.
Worse! Even if the scientists themselves are sincere, the people who run their departments and the international institutions are politicians and thus (far) less trust-worthy. And it is in their interest to only seek-out and hire scientists, who favour their agenda — sincerely or otherwise. A good scientist may still be able to find employment, but if the International Panel on Climate Change is closed, a lot of the currently-influential people will become nobodies...
The conflict of interest is so stunning, I'm surprised we can still breath in the room with this giant elephant. Compared to that bias, a blogger's personal agenda is nothing to speak of...
Here's the latest one.
Like I said many times before: once the result is known, finding somebody having "predicted" is too easy to be convincing. If you put 720 stalled clocks into one room, each set to a different minute, one of them will always show correct time.
No, please, link to a prediction published — anywhere, be it "peer-reviewed" publication or a tabloid — online before it materialized... And not just one, but at least two or three.
I get modded up, I get modded down.
My complaint is people modding down because "I have a different opinion therefore you are a troll". I accept it, just think it is fairly lame.
it isn't a good example of a prediction.
Of course, it is not a good example of a prediction — it failed! I "cited" it as an illustration of a "binary" prediction only. Sorry, I don't know of any "good" predictions made by the Climate-scientists, so I cited a bad one. Do you?
Are you ready to try again? Of all people, you already know very well, what I'm seeking — and agree, that the format I ask for is not unreasonable...
It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice.
Distinction without difference. Both would evidence to the dangers of global warming — or lack thereof. That one was posted, while the other was not, hints at a bias...
It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing).
The difference between the poles may affect local residents on each, but it does not affect the debate of whether or not the whole planet is warming to an alarming — or even perceptible — degree.