On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Vivec<[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok..so you don't know what the first line means either. And that is > apparently the argument which sets the tone for his entire rebuttal. > Therefore...you don't really understand what he's saying either.
If they were to complicated to understand and value how could they collapse? It was a bet on housing and the housing market failed. No mystery is what I believe he's saying. > And no I wasn't making fun of his editor, I really wanted to see if you > understood what the guy was saying. Especially since you are agreeing with > his rebuttal. > When you say he is not defending Goldman Sachs, that's all I care about. > If he is basically agreeing that they are corrupt and shoulder a lot of > blame for this and past financial crises, > then Taibbi being an asshole is irrelevant. He's saying Taibbi is wrong about his facts and analysis. That has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs being good or bad. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:300168 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
