On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 1:46*pm, "
wrote:
.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

Banging your head against the wall isn't going to make your bad
information right. (Good thing you feel no pain, eh?)

Obviously your brain isn't functioning. Good thing? I doubt it, but since
you're a Canuckistani, I really don't much care.

GM went with their tail between their legs looking for a hand-out. The
lender had some conditions. The rest is history.
GM was a badly managed company which didn't think it had to adjust to
the times. Arrogant cocksuckers, really. They got what they deserved
and so did those who bought into that arrogance by buying shares. Free
enterprise my friend... a double-edged sword.

No, violation of the Constitution was *not* one of the "conditions", nor could
it have been.

Oh... and officially there may not have been any need for a proper
bankruptcy proceeding. GM rolled over on its back willingly, nobody
forced them to leave the ship like rats.

You're wrong. Their bond holders were supposed to have a say in their
"execution".

No wonder you and Stein agree. You're both revisionists.

What a fricking pot you are.