160
submitted 1 month ago by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month 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 -2 points 1 month 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.

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month 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

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Oh, I replied to the wrong thing. But at no point did I say that the Onion shouldn't get the site.

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
160 points (99.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7378 readers
772 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS