jakee

Which is unconstitutional. (And you're wrong. The ad was requesting chaplains, the application form was demanding Christians) Yes, it's specifically unconstitutional. If you want to get sued. Guess what, they're being sued. You are living in a fantasy world. Not only would multiple Christians be suing, it would be the headline news story on Fox, OAN, Breitbart, NYP for months and they'd be billing it as the death America as we know it. And you would be in full agreement with them.

The US military disagrees with you. A Rabbi working in a prison is a chaplain. An Imam working in a prison is a chaplain. A Bhikkhu working in a prison is a chaplain. It's a valid lawsuit resulting from a clear violation of the constitution.

He did use one space, actually. Anyway, so what? The post was perfectly legible. The sentences that lacked spaces were no more difficult to read than yours which lack capitalisation. If you're allowed to be lazy what's wrong with him being lazy?

Not knowing you're wrong doesn't mean you're not wrong. Then the question remains. If spacing after periods makes no difference to anyone why did you initiate the entire discussion over how someone else was doing it?

If you looked at what I was thinking instead of just looking for opportunities to continue a petty feud, then you might have something relevant to say instead of just pointless bloviating. Yes, if you divert some money away from armed police (erm, defund them?) to pay for unarmed community officers you'll probably reduce the amount of active harm the police do in certain communities. If you divert some money away from them to pay for social workers and programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with the world of law enforcement then you could start to help.

It's a song lyric. Chill out, dude.

If you can't tell that your writing here is not of a reasonable standard then yes, clearly they were. Since it's not 2019 that doesn't really matter does it? Also, even then you were still wrong. The APA guide is primarily for academic papers not general writing, and even in that field was the very last guide to persist with an outdated style.

I thought Richravizza was rushmc.

CSOs are not social workers. They're not the people you want turning up for mental health crises, even if they're less likely to shoot the subject than the real cops are. They're not the people you want turning up when your troubled young child runs away, even if they're less likely to handcuff and pepper spray them than the real cops are.

So are capital letters. If it's ok for you not to use them because you can't be bothered, what grounds do you have to complain about whether he uses a spacebar properly? You absolutely are wrong. No one says to use two spaces after a period and no editor would let it fly. Since he used none and you told him to use two, you're both one away from being right. That's why I described them as separate things. You're grammar is terrible and your syntax is terrible and your composition is terrible. You complained that his lack of spaces made his posts more difficult to speed read. Your flagrant abuse of the english language often makes your posts difficult to read, period.

He didn't mention grammar. I would urge you to look up the difference between spacing and grammar, they have nothing to do with each other. Single vs double spacing is a matter of style not grammar, and since you're using a word processor not a typewriter you are flat out wrong. Single spacing is perfectly acceptable, is the dominant useage and is recommended by every current journalistic style guide that bothers to mention it. You have terrible grammar, terrible syntax and terrible composition. Genuinely awful on a regular basis, to the extent that it seriously hampers the ability of any normal person to comprehend your posts. You care so little about formality that you decided to criticise someone for not using a double space after a period as if they were writing a formal document on a typewriter in the 1950s? Why are you allowed to not be bothered when you are demanding that other people be bothered?

A lack of police funding for public safety efforts really isn't an issue. Police being the de facto agencies in charge of all kinds of social work and community support that have absolutely nothing to do law enforcement because they suck up so mch funding that there is nothing left for dedicated social workers is an issue.

Why does that ring need to be part of the police / law enforcement umbrella?

There’s a WaPo article by a former prosecutor and defence attorney which points out that prosecutors and AGs have a lot of power to crack down on bad police even with qualified immunity. She uses an example from her city of a cop who had 6 cases thrown out by different judges because they all found him to be ‘not credible’ - read ‘making shit up’ - but he faced no disciplinary action from the PD and local prosecutors continued to aggressively prosecute cases based on his arrests. The point she makes is that it’s not a prosecutor’s job to seek the maximum number of convictions possible under any circumstances from cases brought to them by police. Prosecutors don’t work for the cops, they work for the people and their job is to seek justice on behalf of the people. Prosecutors can and should refuse to prosecute cases based on the say so of officers like the one above who have repeatedly been found dishonest, violent or corrupt. If they do prosecute, they should fully disclose to the defence any incriminatory evidence of an officers past misconduct including body cam footage from previous complaints. Then what good is it to the PD to put an officer on the street who can’t bring cases?

He said he starts kissing them without permission. That's sexual assault. That the pussy grabbing is also something he does is heavily implied. By the legal system, but I'm not an officer of the court and I'm guessing you aren't either. He's a rapist.

Err, no. You said Tesla would be bankrupt, they're not just still around but have a lot more money now than before. For Olof to be as bad a predictor as you, EV sales would have to suddenly start dropping from current levels until their numbers are far smaller than they are now.

Yep, none of them. Including Olof. Because half of something isn't the same as all of something.

Sure, but since there are probably only four guys saying that anyway (and none of them here) I think you must know you're not making any kind of relevant point. Truly, your ability to sound like you're taking a stand while not actually committing to anything is unmatched.

Your own source says that charging infrastructure is the main obstacle to increased EV uptake but you don't think spending money on more charging infrastructure will help? Interesting.

I can't imagine Bill ever saying that and meaning it in the way you're using it. And even then, what on earth makes you think anything the medical profession says makes any difference to the arguments made by those who want to limit access to abortions? Oh sure, but if the votes are split you're going to need a tiebreaker, and I'm pretty sure everyone would agree it should be the woman.

A high school senior dating and having sex with a high school freshman is creepy. I remember school - a 2 school year difference was creepy even at the time, 3 was just fucking wierd. And he wasn't just having sex with the girl, he pressured her into an unhappy 'marriage', and when you consider she killed herself only a couple of years after they divorced it seems he was not only taking advantage of a child but of a troubled and vulnerable child. Then today he is presenting all of this (including screwing up his relationship with their kid to the point that they are completely estranged) not as a shameful incident in his life that he has learned from but as an example of what a decent, standup guy he is. If he was too dumb to know better at 18, what's his excuse now he's 55?

The more relevant question is which one of you is trolling? And it's you. I don't think you really believe a word you're saying.

Then that point does not actually counter the post you were replying to. The committees and investigations after that were primarily soapboxes for prominent republicans to spread lies and misinformation about Clinton and Benghazi in the run-up to the election. Joe's statement does make sense.

Then why did you call it fake?

Not exactly. In Arizona they didn't allow those idiots to observe the process, they hired them to carry it out.