this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7299 readers
517 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But that makes no sense. It's an auction. There's a time limit. It's not an acquisition. You're being forced to sell something.
You know what else makes no sense? Letting someone bid on his former property using money he owes to the people selling.
Why does that make no sense? He has debts to pay, can't cover them, and so his assets are sold at auction to pay them off. Same thing happens to people every day via civil forfeiture.
Edit: clearly people cannot read. The Onion should have been sold the website for the winning bid that they submitted at an auction. End of story.
okay, but he's trying to buy the thing he says he can't afford with money he claims he doesn't have, which is (allegedly) why he he can't pay the debts he owes. you're creating a false equivalence. no one gets this treatment. this is magical rich white guy thinking, and the court is going "oh what's that? you're rich and white? sure! you take all the time you need to get the money together to buy back your propaganda machine. meanwhile these parents of kids who would have started college this year… um… i guess they can go get fucked. fuckin' poors"
Holy shit is no one reading the words I'm saying. In no sane universe should Alex Jones get to buy the site back. I'm saying in an auction, the Onion submitted the winning bid and should have gotten the site sold to them.
because that's the opposite of what you said? you were replying to someone saying that by saying what they were saying wasn't reasonable and this situation the court has created seems fine
Oh, I replied to the wrong thing. But at no point did I say that the Onion shouldn't get the site.
Because he's trying to use the money he owes to buy back his stuff, when it should have been seized too