Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (148471)	7/17/2002 3:08:23 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578651

He/she is liable if any aspect of his/her responsibility fails to function properly. A failure to meet debt payments is just one part of that liability. Actually, it is all supposition on your part because the article did not stipulate that the liberal was a general partner. That said, it is true that Generals frequently contribute little money, which he did. However, they GENERALLY are exposing themselves to personal liability for the debts of the partnership, which in the instant case appeared to be nil (since the pension fund put up the money to purchase the property). The exposure is not always personal.......a corporation can go in as a general [like it appears happened in the McAuliffe case], and not an individual, and while the corporate veil can be pierced, it does provide some protection against lawsuits. Honestly, I have no interest in discussing this subject with someone who has no comprehension of the basic concepts. You don't want to discuss it because you are in over your head. I lived this sht for ten years.......I know all the basic concepts very well. Whatever else you say, this guy was clearly giving up something in exchange for a deal that sweet.* What did he give up........he's a rep in NY; the deal was in FLA? Show me the evidence you have that he provided favors in lieu of? I am waiting. Unlike the unfounded allegations you've made against Bush & Cheney, where they receive nothing of significant value. Bush made 800k on the trade.......that's not chump change. Cheney made a very good salary as CEO of HAL when HAL was selling oil equipment to Iraq who's leader Cheney now wants to take out. What happened? Did Saddam not make good on his payments?!! Excuse me End of conversation. You, like most liberals, would argue with a fencepost. I have concluded that in your case, at least, the fencepost would likely understand the issues better than you would. Oops, I forgot you have a very high IQ and I'm a moron. So sorry for questioning your wisdom, oh great one!