patrick.net

"You’re not going to believe a word I say on the subject which is why I want YOU to research it for yourself and discover how silly your beliefs are."

Think through what you just said. Let's pick it apart piece by piece:

You start out by saying I'm not going to believe a word you say. So by definition, arguing with me is pointless according to you (and also a great copout.) Smart people usually end it here.

But then you say that you expect me to go out and prove your argument for you. If only people were that helpful. Yet you just claimed that I'm anything but helpful.

Then you have the nerve to say I'm the one with silly beliefs.

Yeah, good luck with that method of argument.

You then turn around and engage in an argument of equivalence and redirection:

"So I guess my question is why you demand all kinds of evidence from me when you’re totally 100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything you’ve said in this entire thread? "

For starters, that's a loaded question. I disagree with you that I'm "100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything I've said in this entire thread." I just provided URL's. In any case, YOU are the one demanding I do YOUR research for you even as you just said I'm "100%" incapable of doing so.

Again, amazing.

PolishKnight says

For starters, that’s a loaded question. I disagree with you that I’m “100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything I’ve said in this entire thread.” I just provided URL’s

You did?

No offense, but doesn't a case of Obama suing because minorities weren't getting loans prove exactly the opposite of what you are arguing? If the banks were writing these loans, there would be no lawsuits, right?

And your wiki quote says things "could" have happened. We're not interested in what "could" have happened. The bubble is over--what we need to find is what DID happen.