I keep posting them because they prove I’m right. I wonder why you have such a problem with that?

A check isn’t money and it isn’t dough. Not to anyone but you. 

A check isn’t money and it isn’t dough.

Unfortunately, as you’re engaging me on it it must exist, for you are acknowledging it enough to say it is wrong.

The chicken sandwiches are great. The meat seem to be an actual chicken breast and not chopped and reshaped.

We are not talking about the future, we are talking about now. Definitions are real facts, saying otherwise just proves how stupid you are. My argument is based on facts and you just can’t handle being wrong.

Your colloquial use doesn’t exist, it’s entirely made up by you.

A check is not money and it’s not dough.

In legal terms a check is a bill of exchange or a document, guaranteeing a certain amount of money, where the drawee is a bank.

I’m saying the definition of check has not changed.


I’m not making any assumptions, I’m proving facts with sources. You are the one just making things up.

That’s what you’ve given. If you think there’s more, say so. I’m just using your words.

But the fact remains that you are not talking about any actual actions taken, yet using a term that specifies action. You can’t have an abuse of power without any kind of action to actually abuse that power. To say otherwise is…

No. The potential to abuse is not abuse. Potential and actualization are different and should be treated as such with different terms.

No, it isn’t and you saying otherwise doesn’t make it so.

No, possibility is not enough to nix the entire thing. That’s fucking INSANITY. Possibility and potential are NOT the same and should not be treated as such.

I don’t think consent is irrelevant to the situation.

More importantly, I don’t think the POTENTIAL to abuse power is the same as ACTUALLY DOING IT. He didn’t take any actions that abused his power. The fact that he could have, does not make for an abuse of power.

In legal terms a check is a bill of exchange or a document, guaranteeing a certain amount of money, where the drawee is a bank.

Definitions by, ironically, definition cannot be facts because they can change.

When you issue a check to pay a bill drawn against your personal bank account, it is not considered cash, even if you have enough money to cover it at the time. That is because there is no guarantee that the funds to cover the check will still be available once the merchant or recipient actually presents it for…

A cheque, or check (American English; see spelling differences), is a document that orders a bank to pay a specific amount of money from a person’s account to the person in whose name the cheque has been issued.

In legal terms a check is a bill of exchange or a document, guaranteeing a certain amount of money, where the drawee is a bank.

Yeah, things that are true can be proven. Just you saying something is true, doesn’t make it so. I’ve done more than that and provided sources.