adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe 115 Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC

B071XFJ7JH
adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC
  • Textile
  • Imported
  • Upper: CLIMAPROOF membrane for waterproof protection in wet conditions
  • Ripstop mesh and synthetic upper for lightweight and comfort
  • Sockliner: Molded sockliner to enhance comfort and fit
  • Midsole: Lightweight EVA midsole for long term cushioning
  • Outsole: Continental Rubber for extraordinary grip
adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC adidas outdoor Mens Terrex Swift CP Shoe (11.5 - Legend Ink/Black/Grey Four) outlet Inexpensive cheap brand new unisex original cYKqjAC
  • Welcome to Signature Bank of Georgia
  • Welcome to Signature Bank of Georgia
General Writing Research and Citation Teaching and Tutoring Subject-Specific Writing Job Search Writing
New Balance Womens WL574 Core PlusW Lifestyle Sneaker Black 1537 high quality 1NBX5WczX
> > General Writing > The Writing Process > Proofreading

Suggested Resources

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/). When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice at bottom.

Coming Soon: A new look for our same great content!

We're working hard this summer on a redesign of the Purdue OWL. Worry not! Our navigation menu and content will remain largely the same.

Summary:

Proofreading is primarily about searching your writing for errors, both grammatical and typographical, before submitting your paper for an audience (a teacher, a publisher, etc.). Use this resource to help you find and fix common errors.

Contributors: Jaclyn M. Wells, Morgan Sousa, Mia Martini, Allen Brizee, Ashley Velázquez, Maryam Ghafoor Last Edited: 2018-04-27 02:19:46

When you have plenty of time to revise, use the time to work on your paper and to take breaks from writing. If you can forget about your draft for a day or two, you may return to it with a fresh outlook. During the revising process, put your writing aside at least twice—once during the first part of the process, when you are reorganizing your work, and once during the second part, when you are polishing and paying attention to details.

Use the following questions to evaluate your drafts. You can use your responses to revise your papers by reorganizing them to make your best points stand out, by adding needed information, by eliminating irrelevant information, and by clarifying sections or sentences.

What are you trying to say in the paper? In other words, try to summarize your thesis, or main point, and the evidence you are using to support that point. Try to imagine that this paper belongs to someone else. Does the paper have a clear thesis? Do you know what the paper is going to be about?

What are you trying to do in the paper? In other words, are you trying to argue with the reading, to analyze the reading, to evaluate the reading, to apply the reading to another situation, or to accomplish another goal?

Does the body of your paper support your thesis? Do you offer enough evidence to support your claim? If you are using quotations from the text as evidence, did you cite them properly?

Do all of the ideas relate back to the thesis? Is there anything that doesn't seem to fit? If so, you either need to change your thesis to reflect the idea or cut the idea.

With barely three months left until Election Day, Kapor—a veteran of many tech startups—knew that time was short for such an ambitious effort. “Coordination is going to be vital,” he emailed Edley on July 23, “and I know campaign time and attention is going to be very limited, so the sooner we can figure out what the ‘bridge’ is between campaign and transition with respect to online community, and whether it’s a footpath or a highway, the better. I am worried that as each day goes by without knowing anything about what we on the transition side might be building and how it does or does not connect, the deadline pressure to actually deliver on time gets worse and worse.”

A few weeks later, on August 18, Edley sent a progress report to John Podesta and the other two co-chairs of Obama’s transition board, Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse. “Campaign folks are joined at the hip with this effort (Rospars, Slaby, others),” Edley assured them. “The technical discussions about the software platform, etc., are moving quite well.” While he acknowledged that “the Senator” would ultimately have to sign off on the plan, Edley—confident that he was still channeling his old friend’s wishes—said he didn’t “see any particular hurry about it.” The candidate, he understood, had a few other things on his mind.

Edley attached the initial concept document for Movement 2.0. It outlined an audacious vision: to create “a new ‘home place’ for Obama supporters” that would be ready to go, the day after the election. The new entity would be closely aligned with Obama but independent of the party and his re-election campaign. “Think of it for now as AFO (Americans for Obama),” the memo declared, envisioning it as the “principal means for continuing the active participation of people in the Movement.” AFO would not simply whip up support for Obama’s legislative agenda—it would “gather the input to help shape it.” It would “be a place where Obama supporters can come together, affiliate and organize for change using cutting-edge online tools that will create and support a new and deeper form of civic engagement.”

Critically, the Movement 2.0 team envisioned AFO as a tax-exempt organization that would operate free of the Democratic National Committee. “Mitch and I argued that to make the movement ‘authentic’ and entrepreneurial,” Edley says, “it would have to be built outside of the DNC—which has institutional commitments and incumbent allegiances that will always be a fact of party life.” The team concluded by asking for permission to raise $250,000 to set up a staff infrastructure and develop the web site. The founding board would include Edley, Kapor, Alexander, and Podesta.

Podesta decided to circulate the concept document to higher-ups in the campaign. He asked Pete Rouse, Obama’s Senate chief of staff and key political consigliere, to forward the memo to Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, partners in a political consulting firm who had risen to positions at the top of Obama’s organization. Hildebrand was the deputy national campaign manager, and Tewes, after directing Obama’s Iowa campaign, was now running the DNC on the candidate’s behalf. Podesta had a simple question for them about Edley’s plan: He wanted to “see if they care whether this goes forward to a planning stage.”

Follow Us
Jurisprudence

Donald Trump says he wants to improve the law. Here’s what he would do if he meant it.

By Dennis Henigan

Demonstrators hold signs during a ‘lie-in’ demonstration supporting gun control reform near the White House on Monday in Washington.
Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images

After last week’s horrific mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, there was immediate attention given to the apparent warning signs about the alleged shooter. Even gun rights advocates, like President Donald Trump, seemed to imply that Nikolas Cruz never should have had access to a gun. All of which raises important questions: We have background checks for gun sales, don’t we? Why, then, are violent people able to so easily get guns?

Because of the federal background check system enacted as part of the Brady Law, more than 2.4 million legally prohibited gun-buyers have been blocked from buying guns from gun stores or denied gun permits. We are surely safer because criminals can no longer buy guns over the counter by lying on a federal form. However, the mass shootings that have become emblematic of American gun violence continually instruct us that the system is still inadequate to the task and must be strengthened.

The flaw that has received the most attention is that federal background checks are required only for sales by licensed gun dealers, allowing transactions between private persons to occur with no check at all. In multiple other ways, though, the federal system reflects a core premise that, unless abandoned, will always limit its effectiveness: The background check law prioritizes easy access to guns by law-abiding gun owners over efforts to ensure that violent people do not get guns.

First, the categories of persons prohibited by federal law from buying guns are entirely too narrow. A particularly consequential example is that federal law bars the sale of guns to persons who have committed misdemeanors involving domestic violence—but permits sales to those who have committed other violent misdemeanors. Research shows that violent misdemeanors are predictors of future, more serious violence. If our priority is to stop violent people from getting guns, any violent misdemeanor should be disqualifying.

AdChoices
广告
inRead invented by Teads

Second, the background check system puts a premium on speed, not thoroughness. It is, after all, known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), with most of the checks completed within minutes and 95 percent of them completed in less than two hours. Indeed, it is not a “background check” system at all; it is a “database check” system. The gun dealer contacts the FBI or a state equivalent, and a computerized check of various databases is performed to determine if the buyer is the subject of a disqualifying record. No matter how many red flags there may be in the buyer’s past, if no disqualifying record is in the system, the purchase goes forward.

What We Treat

Our Locations

Need Assistance?

If you've been injured, CALL US NOW!

1.877.380.7246 214-946-PAIN (7246) or 817-461-PAIN (7246)