No help or wrong help for Detroit 3968Brent P Actually, no. They are trying to sell a product and have a send workforce to accomplish that goal. The unions did not design and build the turds...
Open with an insult, always grand.
What was it about: The media mis-reports things all the time and I do care about it. That you did not understand?
There were no " shinanigans on the Chrysler loan discusion ". I'll explain it to you again.
Someone says that if the government helps GM and-or Ford, Chrysler should get the same out of fairness. I respond that chrysler already had theirs. Chrsyler fans get all upset because I used the term 'taxpayer funded'. They loose all track of the point and the thread because they didn't like that term in clbuttic usenet fashion. What do you call an arguement that erupts out of nothing more than that? I call it semantic.
Daniel can write post after post after post where he purposely uses just as or more inaccurate commonly believed items about Ford for the sole purpose of bashing Ford, but I make a mistake with Chrysler and that can't stand. Even when it didn't have a damn thing to do with the point I was making. The difference between 'taxpayer funded' and 'government loan guarantee' (which is really securing the loans with taxpayer funds) was irrelvant for the point I was making.
If you had half a clue, you would realize there is no parallel here between usenet and the media. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Obviously you're just upset about something in the past and see this trivial error in terms as your chance to strike back. Go back to my first post and replace 'taxpayer funded bailout' with bailout secured with a taxpayer backed loan guarantee' and notice how my point doesn't change one bit. Obviously not equal to the reporting on port situation one bit.
But I am glad to know that even the tinest mistake on my part is such a big deal.
