Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

On Sep 4, 2:51*pm, Rebel1 wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977


U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says


Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner



Read mo http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR


Lying sack of **** !!!

On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977


U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says


Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner



Read mo http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR


Lying sack of **** !!!

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

ord
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)
I would also like to know (at least on the Mustangs) who mixed up
the colors. A lot of them looked like they were aiming for Day-glo...
and missed.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In ,
Rebel1 typed:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt
politicians helped "save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish
them. And "fire" all incumbents, next election.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are both liars and
wrong.

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:

In ,
Rebel1 typed:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt
politicians helped "save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish
them. And "fire" all incumbents, next election.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are both liars and
wrong.


Hahahahahahahaha. And you'd expect them to say otherwise, why? Have you
actually taken a car in for warranty service that was built before the
bankruptcy?


snicker

On Sep 4, 8:16*pm, "Twayne" wrote:
,
Rebel1 typed:

Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt
politicians helped "save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish
them. And "fire" all incumbents, next election.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are both liars and
wrong.

Oh. Well I'll damned sure take the word of a GubmintMotors employee
over a Automotive magazine writer !!

On Sep 4, 11:12*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:





On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, *wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977

U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Read mohttp://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR

Lying sack of **** !!!

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

On Sep 4, 8:51*pm, Rebel1 wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BTW, was it corrupt Rs or Ds?

Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.


*I am usually reluctant to buy anything major from a company that I know to
be in business only a few years. You just don't know if they will be around
in the future for parts or service. Even though they are using the GM name,
by their own words they are not the same company. It reminds me of BMW
buying the Rolls Royce trademark and name and then building their own
factory and filling it full of boat builders.

On 9/5/2011 2:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:





On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977

U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Read mohttp://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR

Lying sack of **** !!!

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

On 9/5/2011 8:50 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 9/5/2011 2:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:





On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians
helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And
"fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977

U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


GM statement on auto industry restructuring

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Read
mohttp://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR


Lying sack of **** !!!

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
even if he just makes himself look even sillier.

"aemeijers" wrote

Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

Harry has not looked at the Vauxhall recently. His Hillman Minx is still
running.

In ,
Harold Burton typed:
In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:

In ,
Rebel1 typed:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt
politicians helped "save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish
them. And "fire" all incumbents, next election.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are
both liars and wrong.


Hahahahahahahaha. And you'd expect them to say otherwise,
why? Have you actually taken a car in for warranty
service that was built before the bankruptcy?


snicker

Yes. a 2009 Cavalier and a 2008 Trailblazer. Both were bought used and the
new-car warranty transferred to me at the time of sale. One turned out to be
a wire loose in the Onstar installation and the other a damaged rear window
crank. No questions asked.

On Sep 4, 3:51*pm, Rebel1 wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

I would not buy anything associated with GovMint motors. They're crap
anyway.

Family member worked with dealers for years and now retired works part
time for a car rental agency and sees all makes of cars.

Comparing cars, his last cars were Nissan and Subaru's.

Both are made in US plants by US workers. The GovMint motors cars may
be made in Mexico or Canada and all are using lot of Japanese parts.
Last "American" car I had was a Ford lemon manufactured in Mexico.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:37:33 -0400, "John Grabowski"
wrote:

Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.


*I am usually reluctant to buy anything major from a company that I know to
be in business only a few years. You just don't know if they will be around
in the future for parts or service. Even though they are using the GM name,
by their own words they are not the same company. It reminds me of BMW
buying the Rolls Royce trademark and name and then building their own
factory and filling it full of boat builders.

I only had a GM warranty on one car, and it worked well.
The Impala spindle issue causing tire wear was never covered by
warranty.
It's one of those defects GM tried to avoid paying for by mostly
denying, because it only happens to some limited number of cars.
They don't want to recall all the Impalas for that.
If they did the right thing and fixed it for people having the wear
problem, this class action would have been avoided.
They've been denying defects forever.
Most of the car manufactures do it, but GM is probably the champ.
I only drive used GM's and have dealt with peeling paint on 2 cars,
and put manifold gaskets in 2 as preventative maintenance.
I would just put the new spindle kit in if I had an Impala and tire
wear.
Think it's a couple hundred bucks
Of course that's why I could retire early - don't spend much on cars.
GM used cars are cheap for a reason.
Suits my purpose well, but people spending big money on new cars have
a right to be ****ed.
What's really stupid is GM letting a lawyer talk about not being
responsible for "old GM."
Shows stupidity has a long life.

--Vic

On Sep 5, 3:53*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote



Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

Harry has not looked at the Vauxhall recently. *His Hillman Minx is still
running.

My last proper Brit car was a Triumph Stag. I think with the
exception of Aston Martin all our cars are bought up by foreigners.
Cars are still designed and made here in vast numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_Stag_1972.JPG
I have never had a Hilman Minx. They were always lemons.

On Sep 5, 3:21*pm, George wrote:
On 9/5/2011 8:50 AM, aemeijers wrote:





On 9/5/2011 2:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:

On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians
helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And
"fire"
all incumbents, next election.

BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977

U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says

Related Articles

Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----

Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----

DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----

Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----

GM statement on auto industry restructuring

---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----

General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson

In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner

Read
mohttp://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR

Lying sack of **** !!!

If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)

Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
even if he just makes himself look even sillier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With cars like this it's not difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20

What an abortion!

On 9/5/2011 11:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 9/5/2011 8:50 AM, aemeijers wrote:





On 9/5/2011 2:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:12 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 3:59 PM, The PHANTOM wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:51 pm, wrote:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians
helped
"save" GM:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html
Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And
"fire"
all incumbents, next election.
BUT WAIT !!! Chairman O'Bama said the he(the taxpayer) would cover GM
warranty repairs !! WTF happened?? Just words,just speeches???
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/903309977
U.S. will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties, Obama says
Related Articles
Remember this day in GM history: The next century of automotive
success starts now
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
Chrysler's survival boils down to a deal with Fiat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
DOWNSHIFT: Obama hands Rick Wagoner a pink slip
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
Chrysler statement from Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
GM statement on auto industry restructuring
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson
In a bid to boost flagging auto sales, the federal government will pay
for any warranty repairs on a General Motors or Chrysler vehicle if
either company can't because of financial problems or a bankruptcy
filing, President Barack Obama said on Monday.
"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler
or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and
repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty
will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because
starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."
GM and Chrysler are at a high risk of bankruptcy as they face some of
the lowest U.S. sales rates in 27 years, analysts have said. The
government on Monday took several actions to help shore up the two
automakers after forcing the resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner
Read
mohttp://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...#ixzz1X12FnipR
Lying sack of **** !!!
If I was one of the many retirees who ended up eating a lot of stock in
the 'old' GM, it'd be a cold day in hell before they ever saw a penny
from me in their dealerships. While that doesn't apply to me personally,
there are only a few of their current offerings I find even slightly
interesting, engineering or styling-wise. Most of them simply look
bizarre, and the ones that don't mostly look like affected retro
designs- ie the Camaro, a 'Hot Wheels' take on what was a nice clean
design in 1967. (In fairness, not that impressed with the Dodge and Ford
retro-rods either. The Dodge looks stoned. Ford is real irritating- the
first 'retro' Mustang looked okay, an homage to the '65. The newer
version looks bloated to my eyes.)
Side rant- enough already with the high-beltline chopped-top look on
most new cars. It is ugly, and when you are inside, you feel like you
are in a bathtub. And don't get me started on the silly-ass wrap-around
cat-eye headlight buckets. If there isn't a light source behind that
area of plastic, it serves no purpose other than driving up replacement
cost.
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.
Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.
Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
even if he just makes himself look even sillier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
With cars like this it's not difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20

What an abortion!

That one looks great compared to some of their other crap.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:46:36 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



With cars like this it's not difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20

What an abortion!

That's the first car I ever drove. When I 14 years old.
It was a repo.
My dad was a repo man then, and had it parked it in front of the house
for a week or so.
Took it out about 3 times, late at night, and once in daylight.
A butter knife would turn the ignition on.
Nice car at that time.
Probably leagues better anything common in England.

--Vic

On 9/5/2011 11:37 AM, Twayne wrote:
In ,
Harold typed:
In ,
wrote:

In ,
typed:
Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt
politicians helped "save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish
them. And "fire" all incumbents, next election.

Made some calls today: GM said you and your article are
both liars and wrong.


Hahahahahahahaha. And you'd expect them to say otherwise,
why? Have you actually taken a car in for warranty
service that was built before the bankruptcy?


snicker

Yes. a 2009 Cavalier and a 2008 Trailblazer. Both were bought used and the
new-car warranty transferred to me at the time of sale. One turned out to be
a wire loose in the Onstar installation and the other a damaged rear window
crank. No questions asked.


ISTR it wasn't ****ant warranty visits like that that were the issue, it
was massive liability exposure from design flaws that went unchecked.
Something about several years of Impala (which had lotsa fleet sales)
having a suspension or brake defect?

I think the judge shoulda made them pick a new name for the company,
personally. And I think they should go back and pay at least a token
payout to all the people holding stock in the old company who got
screwed, before they pay any bonuses or dividends.

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

Not often that the people who finance the bankruptcy
(debtor-in-possession) get to tell the judge how the bankruptcy WILL be
concluded.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:51:55 -0400, Rebel1
wrote:

Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to
get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not
responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE
saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of
the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing
lawyers don't like it.

On 05/09/2011 6:57 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:51:55 -0400,
wrote:

Here's another aspect of the shocking way our corrupt politicians helped
"save" GM:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033461_Ge...ankruptcy.html

Good reason not to buy new ones, either, just to punish them. And "fire"
all incumbents, next election.

You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to
get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not
responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE
saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of
the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing
lawyers don't like it.

Just bull****. Fact is people go to GM in the cities they live and have
problems. That would be GM.new. Consumers don't give a crap about
GM.old and GM.new, that is just political bull**** as it says GM on the
warranty.

What is really happening is GM.new is trying to deny claims, hoping for
$2000 they don't find a good one and lawyer up. I wonder how many are
quietly getting screwed over?

Here is one for ya. I know someone in the business. The latest scam is
to charge the customer saying it isn't covered. If they just pay, then
the dealer submits it to the auto head office for reimbursement, getting
the double dip.

It is just another reason not to deal with GM and other corrupt
CAW/UAW/auto companies.
--
If it is all Bush's fault, then how come Obama is doing much more of the
same and expecting different results?

On 9/5/2011 12:46 PM, harry wrote:

Get a clue, Harry- ALL the manufacturers have succumbed to the current
silly-ass styling fads, and their cars all look alike.

Its actually pretty difficult to even tell the manufacturer of a car
when you are driving down the road because of that. Of course harry just
loves to bash the US for no apparent reason so he never misses a chance
even if he just makes himself look even sillier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With cars like this it's not difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MAFxbpNh20

What an abortion!

Gee, I didn't know they were still making 1958 production year vehicles.
You just made yourself look even sillier.

"harry" wrote in message news:0ea69838-c4be-499c-9189-
Seen the light then? Brits have known all this for decades about
American cars.

*********
The Brits have made cars over the decades that make American iron look
great.

"harry" wrote in message
My last proper Brit car was a Triumph Stag. I think with the
exception of Aston Martin all our cars are bought up by foreigners.
Cars are still designed and made here in vast numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_Stag_1972.JPG
I have never had a Hilman Minx. They were always lemons.

*******
Stags were troublesome too. Many older British cars have
returned to the earth from which they sprang.

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

On 9/5/2011 5:57 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

You obviously didn't read the article. The new GM is not trying to
get out of the warranties. What they are doing is saying they are not
responsible to defend lawsuits against the OLD company. They ARE
saying that they will stand behind the EXPRESS written provisions of
the old companies warranties. Of course, the ambulance chasing
lawyers don't like it.

That's true, but I'm sure that "Rebel1" is not alone in failing to
understand the distinction. The person mentioned in the article does not
have a warranty claim, the vehicle is out of warranty. Part of the
government bailout deal was that the new GM honor warranties of the old
GM, which they are doing.

If GM wants to build any credibility, they need to go beyond just
honoring the express written provisions of the old warranties, even
though they have no legal obligation to do so.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell Toupee wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.

--
aem sends...

On 9/6/2011 7:04 PM, Larry wrote:
"Kurt wrote in message m...
The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than
the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.


but what is really expensive is when your customers stop buying your cars and start buying Toyotas.

Back in 1984 I got ****ed on a warranty repair claim and have been buying Toyotas ever since...6 of them to be exact.





Um, lessee- 27 divided by 6- 4.5 years each? Not much of a lifespan for
a Toyota. Or are you a multiple-car household?

(I like Toyotas, at least until their current bizarre styling. And in
my experience, once you learn their little quirks, they last a long time.)

--
aem sends...

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.

"aemeijers" wrote in message ...
On 9/6/2011 7:04 PM, Larry wrote:
"Kurt wrote in message m...
The company did the math and decided the cost of this was more than
the value of the good will. Especially since, if they let this one
through then there will be others. Get REAL expensive real quick.


but what is really expensive is when your customers stop buying your cars and start buying Toyotas.

Back in 1984 I got ****ed on a warranty repair claim and have been buying Toyotas ever since...6 of them to be exact.





Um, lessee- 27 divided by 6- 4.5 years each? Not much of a lifespan for a Toyota. Or are you a multiple-car household?

I own/drive Toyotas. My wife likes her Hondas. She's had 5 of them. What can I say? ;-)


(I like Toyotas, at least until their current bizarre styling. And in my experience, once you learn their little quirks, they
last a long time.)

--
aem sends...

On 9/6/2011 9:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.


Pay attention- the GM board of directors, as the nominal owners and
operators of the 'old' GM.

--
aem sends...

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:33:12 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 9/6/2011 9:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.


Pay attention- the GM board of directors, as the nominal owners and
operators of the 'old' GM.

I still don't understand what that has to do with the bond holders or dealers
who had their property seized.

On 9/7/2011 8:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:33:12 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 9:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.


Pay attention- the GM board of directors, as the nominal owners and
operators of the 'old' GM.

I still don't understand what that has to do with the bond holders or dealers
who had their property seized.

What property? All they lost were now-worthless franchise agreements or
bonds. It wasn't seized- it ceased to exist. Nobody else got it. The
dealers who were cut loose still owned the property, in most cases,
unless GM's real estate arm or similar was leasing it to them.

Just like if a Ma'n'Pa company goes belly up, any unsecured loans they
have out from creditors near the end of the line, are now worthless
scraps of paper.

Try the same thing with markers you have out to a bookie or loan shark,
and you will be able to predict the weather with your knees and knuckles
the rest of your life. If they can't get their money, they use you as an
example to all the others.

--
aem sends...

On 06/09/2011 7:06 PM, aemeijers wrote:
On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.

Bond holder tried to enforce their contract with GM, but Obama
instructed the courts to let GM welsh. Anyone who lends GM money now is
insane. OMG (Obama Must Go) and Bernanke needs to be fired before I
would lend money in the USA. You might be better off in Venezuela thna
the USA right now as a lender.


--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

On 06/09/2011 7:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Actually not. THe majority of holdings were mutuals in 401Ks and
pension plans. Just GM screwing Americans where it counts.


--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:53:18 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 9/7/2011 8:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:33:12 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 9:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:06:14 -0400, wrote:

On 9/6/2011 12:56 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:36:08 -0500, Hell wrote:

On 9/5/2011 2:04 PM, aemeijers wrote:

I suppose they did what they had to do, to keep even more people off
unemployment. But if some Ma'n'Pa company with 49 workers proposed a
similar sweetheart deal, the judge would laugh them out of court.

On the contrary, this is standard operating procedure in the housing
construction and home remodeling business. Incorporate. Build
homes/remodel. Acquire a lengthy list of dissatisfied customers
demanding satisfaction, and creditors demanding payment. Go bankrupt,
dissolve corporation, meaning the corporation issuing the warranty no
longer exists. Reincorporate under a new name, thus neatly avoiding
liability for past work.

The only thing GM did different was to reuse the original name.

GM got rid of those pesky bond-holders, and Republican dealerships, too.


ISTR there is plenty of case law saying that people who play the shell
corporation game, and move assets between succeeding corporations
without a clear paper trail, lose their immunity from suits against
their old companies. IOW, the judge said 'who the hell do you think you
are kidding, here?' They were not really corporations, they were thinly
disguised DBAs.

Huh? GMs bond holders were thinly disguised DBAs? Dealerships?

Standard disclaimer- IANAL, but I did have 60+ hours of business and
contract law back in college, and lotsa 3-day-wonder courses during my
career since then.


Pay attention- the GM board of directors, as the nominal owners and
operators of the 'old' GM.

I still don't understand what that has to do with the bond holders or dealers
who had their property seized.

What property?

GM was property. The dealership was property. It was seized.

All they lost were now-worthless franchise agreements or
bonds.

Property.

It wasn't seized- it ceased to exist.

Bull****. GM continued to operate with new owners (unions and government).

Nobody else got it.

Nonsense.

The
dealers who were cut loose still owned the property, in most cases,
unless GM's real estate arm or similar was leasing it to them.

The franchise agreement was property.

Just like if a Ma'n'Pa company goes belly up, any unsecured loans they
have out from creditors near the end of the line, are now worthless
scraps of paper.

Not at all. The first-class bond holders are in line, *way* ahead of other
creditors, certainly unions.

Try the same thing with markers you have out to a bookie or loan shark,
and you will be able to predict the weather with your knees and knuckles
the rest of your life. If they can't get their money, they use you as an
example to all the others.

What a moronic analogy. Though with Obama and his minions, you may have
something.