Posted by genghisxcon on 1/13/2011 3:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 1/13/2011 2:02:00 AM (view original):
Swamp wins.

What does he win?

A Brand new Prius, Season tickets to an ASL team, a years supply of organic sustainable food and A light rail system from Warren to Detroit.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 12:54:00 AM:
The main points of people wanted to move to the suburbs and choose to use their tax breaks their was ignored.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 1:33:00 AM:
And as for your last paragraph...Since it is impossibe for me to prove a negative in this case

What negative? You just re-iterated that your "main point' was that people wanted to move to the suburbs, and that their expansion was purely free market. That's your counter-argument to creil's position that suburbs came about because of excessive government intervention in the marketplace.

You completely and utterly failed to provide any evidence to support your case - apart from your incorrect interpretation of a work of fiction, of course.

If you're too lazy or too stupid to actually do any work to look things up to support that argument, that's not our problem. That's on you. creil did his homework, and you didn't, therefore you lost the argument.

The negative is that there was no government involvement.

He has the burden of proof. My position is there was an intrusive but suburb neutral government. His position is that the suburbs would not exist without government intervention.

No, creil didn't have the exclusive burden of proof. You both had it. He met his, you didn't. You lose.

Christ. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Posted by antonsirius on 1/13/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):
No, creil didn't have the exclusive burden of proof. You both had it. He met his, you didn't. You lose.

Christ. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

He followed your lead. Pump as much data as you can into the argument and maybe no one will notice that it isnt relevant.

I clearly met the criteria for my side. I created enough doubt of the other position.

He made the claim. The suburbs were created by an active Government.

I honestly find this totally fascinating. 

Well thank you. I only debate water cooler issues in the hope you are entertained, lol!

No, I mean your refusal to admit that you got your ***-kicked and all the ridiculous contortions you keep using to try to prove you won. 

The argument itself was interesting, I guess, but like in the same way that Tyson-Frazier was interesting...

Posted by rlahann on 1/14/2011 11:30:00 PM (view original):
No, I mean your refusal to admit that you got your ***-kicked and all the ridiculous contortions you keep using to try to prove you won. 

The argument itself was interesting, I guess, but like in the same way that Tyson-Frazier was interesting...

So the fact that he changed the discussion mid stream isnt an issue. He declares Warren, and all the other Suburbs arounf the country, not suburbs. The fact that he never addressed my main point, he said he did but his declaring it unimportant isnt a response.

Lets see if we can take a step back and simplify the issue. There are some ways that we are both right and wrong, but I think overall I win.

The government did help the suburbs grow. They would have occured naturally, as this was what America wanted, but some government actions helped the burbs.

Americans wanted to live in their own houses with a white picket fence. The phrase "White picket fence" is iconic. This is what people wanted.

I got beat up for the "Wonderful life" reference. I realize it isnt 100% accurate, but it shows that America wanted this. As far back as WWII Americans wanted to live in a house with a yard, and some people wanted to keep them in high density slums.

And I repeat that his zoning and roads arguments fall apart the quickest. How could small government bodies all across the country be part of the same process? 

He needed a linchpin. Something to hold his argument together. Something to show that this was not coincidence. Something to show that it was either part of a plan or even intended at any level. He never produced it.

If we are under the assumption that everyone knows his side is true and I have to prove otherwise he wins.

If we look at the issue as my point is right and he needs to prove something I win in a landslide.

If we look at the data itself and try to reach an unbiased conclusion I win a squaker in overtime!

White picket fences are not a distinctly suburban thing. Or did Tom Sawyer live in the suburbs and I just forgot about it?

Jumping Jesus H ************* Christ On a ************* Rocket-Powered Pogo Stick, but you are terrible at this ****. You keep mistaking the desire for home ownership for the desire to move to the suburbs. The 'It's a Wonderful Life' idiocy stems from the same mistake, as I told like four pages ago. The two things simply are not interchangeable.

Next time you want to argue about something, swamp, do yourself a favor and get someone to vet your posts before you make them.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 1/13/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):
No, creil didn't have the exclusive burden of proof. You both had it. He met his, you didn't. You lose.

Christ. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

He followed your lead. Pump as much data as you can into the argument and maybe no one will notice that it isnt relevant.

I clearly met the criteria for my side. I created enough doubt of the other position.

He made the claim. The suburbs were created by an active Government.

I provided simple facts that anyone with a computer or a library card can look up.  There was no attempt to muddy the argument, a tactic that you often resort to.  Your whole questioning of who caused this government intervention and why is an example of this tactic which is why I refuse to engage in it.  If it was important to the conversation then I would address it, but it's not.  

The suburbs are a result of heavy government intervention.  If anyone else has a valid argument against that claim, I'd be happy to discuss the topic with them.  Swamp does not have that.  The talking heads that he listens to did not prepare him for this kind of argument, so all he can do is attempt to "create doubt" about my points.  Problem is, my points are rooted in facts.  

Posted by antonsirius on 1/16/2011 1:14:00 PM (view original):
White picket fences are not a distinctly suburban thing. Or did Tom Sawyer live in the suburbs and I just forgot about it?

Jumping Jesus H ************* Christ On a ************* Rocket-Powered Pogo Stick, but you are terrible at this ****. You keep mistaking the desire for home ownership for the desire to move to the suburbs. The 'It's a Wonderful Life' idiocy stems from the same mistake, as I told like four pages ago. The two things simply are not interchangeable.

Next time you want to argue about something, swamp, do yourself a favor and get someone to vet your posts before you make them.

Tom Sawyer did not have a white picket fence. At least he didnt call it that. And the description didnt seem to fit.

And the point is that the term White Picket Fence became a euphemism for living in your own house away from the city.

You also seem to want to redefine suburbs.

Posted by creilmann on 1/16/2011 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 1/13/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):
No, creil didn't have the exclusive burden of proof. You both had it. He met his, you didn't. You lose.

Christ. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

He followed your lead. Pump as much data as you can into the argument and maybe no one will notice that it isnt relevant.

I clearly met the criteria for my side. I created enough doubt of the other position.

He made the claim. The suburbs were created by an active Government.

I provided simple facts that anyone with a computer or a library card can look up.  There was no attempt to muddy the argument, a tactic that you often resort to.  Your whole questioning of who caused this government intervention and why is an example of this tactic which is why I refuse to engage in it.  If it was important to the conversation then I would address it, but it's not.  

The suburbs are a result of heavy government intervention.  If anyone else has a valid argument against that claim, I'd be happy to discuss the topic with them.  Swamp does not have that.  The talking heads that he listens to did not prepare him for this kind of argument, so all he can do is attempt to "create doubt" about my points.  Problem is, my points are rooted in facts.  

I would hope you would allow a follow up...

1 Is Government intervention and Government action the same thing?

2 By your standard is anyting in America free? Isnt the level of Government action so high that almost anyting would fit your standard? Let me ask is Microsoft free?

3 Can you now define suburbs. It seemed that you tried to redefine what a suburb was to fit your argument. You claimed that a series of cities that everyone considers suburbs were not, but you never explained what is a suburb.

4 You never explained your position on zoning. It stood out as something you put great stock in, but it seemed absurd to me. How could zoning create the suburbs.

And I stand by my big point....You cannot have random "Intervention". It has to be planned and have a purpose.

Help. I can't stop watching this:

Battle Hymn of Sarah Palin

And what do you think of it?