Whatever thread that you found yourself in a logical dead in was something I've long since forgotten, so your childish personal sniping really seems funny.
But for those that weren't paying attention this time:
1) "loan guarantees" = "bailing Chrysler out with taxpayer money"
I was addressing a fairness arguement that chrysler should get whatever the government ends up giving ford and GM. Chrysler had a turn before and Ford and GM didn't get anything. However, rather than comprend that, the chrysler fans got their panties in a bunch over 'taxpayer funded'. My arguement was regardless of the semantics, regardless if it was money directly from the government or a government co-signer, the taxpayers were still on the hook. It might make chrysler fans feel better playing the loan guarantees technicality to make it seem that chrysler wasn't in deep poo, but in the end, the taxpayers had to back up that corporation and chrysler was in deep poo.
2) "No risk means the government was not needed"
It is the chrysler fans arguing it as if the taxpayers were never in danger of being on the hook because chrysler had free-and-clear real buttets more than that of the loans. If so, the buttets could secure the loan and not the taxpayers. When I brought that up, the chrysler fans admitted that the buttets were not real but speculative value of future vehicles sold and that what real buttets there were had already been used to secure loans previously. You want to talk about misleading?
3) Ports.
How you draw that conclusion given my actual views and what I have posted is bogglesome and merely some sort of personal attack. It's sad that you are so bitter about something that you feel the need to write such a post. The media mis-reports things all the time and I do care about it. However focusing on something so trivial as the two words that got chrysler fans' panties in a bunch while droping everything else is clbuttic usenet and nothing more.
