• sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

      • sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        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.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 days ago

          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”

          • sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 days ago

              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