I'm not assuming there is no corruption stemming from checks and balances, that's fallacious, like most of your argument. My argument to you, not yurigadaisukida whom is competent, is simply pointing out horrible grammar and your confidently fallacious assertions. I have nothing else to go on if that's the best of what you bring to the table. You did indeed say, not imply, the government intends to keep parties at each other to ensure subversion ("nothing gets done"). That is conspiratorial. Whereas I say the parties are naturally and inherently at odds. If your bigger picture is the faults of funding and lobbying, your "bigger picture" is juvenile. Again, I recommend you brush up on your punctuation. It's a chore putting together what you write.
lol ok we will play this game. So when I told him that his view point of "liberals destroying the government one stone at a time" is not at all bipartisan. It is in fact an ignorant statement to say that one party has all the faults, thus your argument against that statement is invalid. On to the next part, since the government is both of these political parties, it is impossible to say that the government wants to keep itself pre-disposed with arguments. What I was saying had you of read it correctly is merely the fact that assuming blame on one party is exactly what an unfair bipartisan government would want. To assume corruption is to assume that this is unfair. Thus making it a reality not a conspiracy, I suggest you focus on the words and the message, not grammatical errors.
It's hard to focus on the message when it's an effort to read. Assuming x is to assume y thus z is fallacious. I don't know what you don't understand about faulty logic.
As a general rule, one should attempt to express oneself as legibly and concisely as possible in forums like these. English is my 3rd language but if I'm debating something important, like the wonders of the universe, or which type of the cat is the coolest cat (obviously cream), I'd like to pull out my A-grade artikulayshins. You can pretty much count on at least 30% (random number I picked) of the viewership to disagree with you, so having a large amount of grammatical errors will leave you open for critique. It can also sway those on the fence of the argument to your debating partner's side.
For real. I never would have guessed. I wish I picked up language earlier or had a natural talent for it. I've got one friend that speaks 4 languages and is picking up a 5th and contemplating what his 6th will be. Being a linguist GOAT tier, right up there with mathematicians.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/rachel-dolezal-nbc-today-show.html?_r=0&referrer= So much lolz
Tuck you dick and put on a dress. You are a hero. Say that you are black when you " believe " that you are and get labeled as a villain. The liberal way. We believe in expression as long as we agree with it. If not you can GTFO.
I don't really see why someone would lie about being black, but I also don't see why everyone cares so much what she calls herself. I think a huge part of any issues surrounding race come from people being way too committed to a group identity, instead of thinking of themselves as individuals first.
I agree. But have you seen the claims she's made about her life? I don't care one way or another but it's hilarious. I'm gonna start being trans-racial too