Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You could indeed put a tariff on some goods made in China, but what if they responded by placing tariffs on some of your important Chinese exports.
If you look closely you'll see that China does in fact impose tariffs.
This statement is false
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, not sure if it's any of your business but
If this is how you feel, then you shouldn't air your wares.
This statement is false
Christian Graus wrote:
However, because she and Donna are good friends, she knew all the welfare they got, and even before other things like a health care card, they were making more money than us once my taxes had kicked in to give them handouts. They just spent it all on crap and we saved hard to get into a family home in time for the birth of our first child. Some people are just like that.
And you judge them. People that are contributing to your welfare by paying rent. And not only judge them, but air their wares on a public site. Maybe that isn't really your province. Maybe, you should really enjoy your success instead of being hung up on other's failures because they might limit the increase of the success that you already enjoy.
This statement is false
_Damian S_ wrote:
government has no business attempting to manipulate the market
and
_Damian S_ wrote:
there should be limits on the amount someone can borrow
The market is always going to react in its own short-term interest. It will only limit if not bailed out after a catastrophe. We have a shared interest in mitigating that. That catastrophe that is required to self-correct the market is something we as a society really can't afford. So, how does this limit get imposed if Government has no business to manipulate the market? Now to add some personal context: I agree to limited manipulation. The regulatory type. The root is the bad mortgages. But no-one would have really purchased the securities containing them if they weren't first bundled in a decent rated package. Here's a funny. The guy that created credit-default swaps to help correct the savings and loan debacle in the early 90s approached Greenspan, then Chairman of the Fed, and stated that while they held a benefit and were a powerful tool, they needed to be regulated due to their nature. (Paraphrasing) But Greenspan said No. The market would regulate itself. And it decided no, it wouldn't. Later Greenspan is stating in public record in a Senate hearing that he under-estimated the "human greed factor". So, while it sounds good to say that the government should stay out of the market, I mean that's what's been sold for the last 30 years, I really wonder why.
This statement is false
You're jumping into an old riff. Over the past few years Christian has exhibited an insensitivity to the idea that not all folk are as well off as he, and he justifies it because he's earned it in one way or another. And while that may be true, fatty has always given him crap for it. While he boasts of his standing and will publicly state his success in detail, he'll also show incredible disdain for poor people, so while professing to be a staunch Christian (not in name only) he seems to miss out on what Mathew 25 is all about. And this is evidenced when talking about single mothers on welfare in his homeland. Kinda like the attitude here in the US in the 80s. This is just another tired old CP saga playing itself out.
This statement is false
It would probably need to be functional more than object oriented, or at least a hybrid. Have fun.
This statement is false
Taking a private conversation and publicizing isn't appropriate.
This statement is false
As well as you for you dragging a post from a private forum and posting into a public one. Quite the mature action there jorgy.
This statement is false
Christian Graus wrote:
He needs to choose something he likes.
Kinda arrogant isn't it, to presume what another needs... I think you need to get over it.
This statement is false
I actually used that in the 90s for about a week. heh
This statement is false
No need to lower yourself and be a jerk in response. I hate to say it, but after watching your parlance for the last couple of years with Josh has convince me that you have asked for what you've got. Seek and find.
This statement is false
Christian Graus wrote:
To suggest there's an optimal programming font, is the height of ignorance.
You used to be a personality here bent on helping people. Now you're reduced to complaining about the quality of questions and trolling Josh. Nietzsche has some interesting insights regarding staring into the abyss you might do well to digest. It suggests that it won't be long before we see no difference between you and what you think you're combating.
This statement is false
You really are a pratt at times Christian. You insist on badgering Josh even when he posts reasonable material. Why bate him like this? You do a great disservice to this site when you troll in this manner and I find it reprehensible.
This statement is false
Fair enough, but you could have allowed Tim to lobby for you since he claims friendship with you and for quite a few years has been a voluntary burr in CSS's backside. Just saying, but I won't belabor it anymore.
This statement is false
What I'm confused about is why you chose confrontation as a means to correct the situation, when politeness and grace would have carried you much further.
This statement is false
I'd migrate with the pack.
This statement is false
Well, to be fair my day job is on Linux using C++. :) Point taken regarding the patent. The license topic seems to be akin to Big O's birth certificate. :laugh:
This statement is false
Be a fun test case for Mono.
This statement is false
But I'd be just as interested in staying here. Don't feed the trolls. It has to be followed to work though.
This statement is false
I'd be interested.
This statement is false