[dead]
The Onion buys Infowars
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#952Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt you'd call it "fake news" if a corporate acquisition was announced, just because the deal hadn't yet passed regulatory approval. But then again, you clearly seem to have a dog in this fight.
Announcing something that hasn't happened yet makes it false. The correctly should be something like "The Onion is attempting to buy Infowars"
Right, but one wonders why the parent commenter is not gleefully commenting about "fake news" on all of these articles: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys
This seems to be a notable story and doesn't need nakedly partisan hair-splitting.
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#953Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?
The EU is governed by the European Commission, which is not elected. Say what you will about reactionary British conservatives, the fact remains that the EU is not a particularly democratic organisation.
It only shows that you have no clue how EU and it's institutions works, how they are chosen (and elected) and why it was done this way :D yes, it's a huge compromise to satisfy both direct democracy via PE and member state governments. What's more, the actual composition of the government in most of the countries is not elected either (you as a populace don't vote who would be your prime minister, nor it's cabinet... or who will new president nominate)
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#954Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onion did not win the auction. The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. The judge is going to toss that out. Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
> The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase. The ONLY source o…
I'm not going to speculate on what the trustee's motivations may have been, but according to the reports we have so far, no public auction was held. Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#955Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-64... "Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez that Murray changed the auction process only days before, deciding not to hold a round Wednesday where parties could outbid each other. Sealed bids were submitted last week, and the trustee chose only from those, Cicack said." "“We’re all going t…
Sealed bids is a perfectly normal way to do auctions though.
Changing the bidding process days in advance and then accepting the lower bid (out of two) seems less normal though. I think it's obvious they're trying to stop Jones and his associates from simply buying back the business.
I'm not sure of the legal details but apparently the judge had misgivings about the procedure so here we are
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#956Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difficulty with this is that anything that isn’t a hard 180 involves continuing to publish approximately the same type of content for a while, which is probably unpalatable to The Onion. Anything that is a small enough course correction to retain its audience is too small a shift to get away from that hateful nonsense. It’s a nice idea to try to steer people away, but you have to start off by driving in the same…
I have an inkling that Poe’s Law could almost bridge the gap in some way…
"they're turning the frogs straight!"
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#957Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
> Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. That's actually very rare. Most cases get settled out of court and most court case don't make it to appeal; thus no legal precedent. > Shouting Fire in a theater This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. > sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are…
I was more referring to his whole demographic mistakenly believing the first amendment should mean you get to be a kook or an asshole with no consequences.
And he’s definitely experiencing consequences.
Also on the Sandy Hook case, Remington settled out of court, which prevents setting precedent on culpability in gun violence.
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onion did not win the auction. The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. The judge is going to toss that out. Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
> The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase. The ONLY source o…
"At a court hearing Thursday afternoon in Houston, the trustee who oversaw the auction, Christopher Murray, acknowledged that The Onion did not have the highest bid but said it was a better deal overall because some of the Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to pay Jones’ other creditors."
https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-64...
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#959Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase. The ONLY source o…
I'm not going to speculate on what the trustee's motivations may have been, but according to the reports we have so far, no public auction was held. Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were. Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the sc…
> but according to the reports we have so far
Reports from who? The auction, especially with the media coverage of the auction, was very public and publicly listed [1]. The bidding was sealed and under an NDA, which is exactly what you'd want when selling such a controversial property.
> Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Prejudicial to who? And again, we do not know what the original bids were. We know what one of the original bids was and not the other because of the aforementioned NDA.
> Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Jones also alleged that nobody died at sandy hook. He alleged, on multiple occasions, that the parents of dead children were crisis actors working for demons. He also alleged that the democrats would steal the election and that the DOJ/CIA/FBI/CDC/FEMA/etc were all planning a coop. Jones alleges a lot of shit. Why do you believe him?
His MO is to say 10000 lies and then whenever anything in reality comes anywhere close to 1 of his lies, he brags that it is absolutely proof that he's correct about everything. He's literally predicted that Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton would be assassinated. He's predicts riots and civil unrest every year. Every single time there's a mass shooting event he calls it a false flag.
I urge you to think critically about this. For starters, what exactly would the DOJ do in his lawsuits? Let's assume that Jones' claim is correct and the CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS/DEA all got together to go after him.
1. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow strong armed not only the 2 Judges of his case, but also the appellate judges and the supreme court judges who have each ruled against him on appeal?
2. Do you believe the DOJ somehow strong armed the 2 juries against Jones? And do you believe after that strong arm those Jury members decided to stay quiet?
3. And if you believe both of those things, why do you believe that Trump can somehow make a difference here? How can you believe that a DOJ with enough power to literally strong arm the supreme court is going to just roll over for Trump?
4. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow managed to fully cover all of this up, yet somehow the one person who figured it all out was the alcoholic Alex Jones? The very target of the conspiracy? There was no other corroboration?
And one further thing to consider. The lawsuits against Alex Jones started in 2018, very much while Trump was president. Why do you believe that Trump would be the person to "get to the bottom of this" when if we believe Jones, it was Trumps DOJ plotting against him.
Re: The Onion buys Infowars
#960Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway. They're giving up money that a higher bidder would have paid for infowars. Essentially the difference between The Onion's bid, and the bid of whoever else would buy.
That is not going to be permitted by the judge or other bidders
They mean this is what _in practice_ they give up. In theory they can give up more, but this is the actual money difference from what they would have gotten otherwise in reality.