951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller... we've had them.
They've mostly kept a low profile since the Great Depression though. And plenty would be oligarchs were taxed out of the upper class by the WW2 tax brackets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking away some amount of wages is very much a thing, as everyone who ever divorced can tell you. You better not ask how math works there, because it’s not fun .
As I said to someone else, taking some feasible payment from income is different from rendering someone unemployed. If you took a construction worker's tools, a taxi drivers car, or anything like that, then you put them out of business and render them incapable of paying. As far as divorce or child support, the same principle applies (or ought to). If the worker cannot sustain himself and his necessary expenses, he w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're stretching it. In the US the government can't arrest for causing offense to someone specifically because of the 1st amendment...You can get sued for libel (very high bar and it's notoriously difficult in the US) but you're not going to be rounded up and put into a corrections facility for being offensive. This is the perfect illustration of the first amendment in the US vs the UK. In the UK a violent Maoist (r…
> for being offensive. The Sandy Hook parents received death threats for years because of him. That’s not “being offensive”, it’s tormenting people and putting their lives in peril. https://archive.ph/20221013141353/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Example lines of inquiry: How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of these concepts are specifically defined in law, whereas “lie” is not. You are made of marshmallows! Sue me.
> You are made of marshmallows! This is defamation, which is also against the law. However, the damages here are incredibly minor, and thus not worth punishing. Most people probably don't believe you. However, if I made a lie about you that caused you to lose your employment and become unhireable, is that also protected speech? You don't have a right to harm others with lies. You don't have a right to lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? Jones was arguing that the families shouldn't be able to do that but the article doesn't say anything about whether he won that argument and the only reason it specifies for why the judge rejected the sale is this: > Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook f…
Once secret bids are known, and the auction is conducted again, usually the party with the biggest pockets then just wades in and takes it. Once the price is known, several parties tend to walk away.
This is why you disclose the current winning bid, which will be over the second highest current bid. If that's already more than you're willing to pay then you weren't going to win anyway. If it isn't, you can put in your bid and then the previous winning bidder has to outbid you again. Which they might do, but you don't know that and until the bid is above what you're willing to pay you don't lose anything by placing bids which as far as you know might actually win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can support people's right to say what they want, while also saying it's against the house rules to impersonate other people. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
But it's not impersonation. Jones was ordered by a court to give up all the Infowars assets, including the brand and the associated social media handles. The sale is on hold for legal reasons but that's beside the point.
Both that and the InfoWars exchange were property transfers. The first a market transaction, the second by court order.
Probably needs to be settled before Trump gets in?
Trump, nor any other president, can eliminate the court's decision. A president's power would be limited to appointing judges in open positions, so potentially the responsible appeals court (up to the SCOTUS) could be influenced, but not controlled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All parties were not happy with the bid, which is why this went to a judge.
That's confusing. We know from the reporting that some parties were happy with the bid. I guess, you mean "not all parties were happy..."? (Please note: this is not a case of ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) ≣ ¬∀x ∈ X P(x). ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) means "for all x not-P", while ¬∀x ∈ X P(x) reads "there exists no x that P", i.e. there is no party that is happy with the bid, which is either a false statement or not the intended meaning. This is act…
This is probably the correct decision. Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash, and in the case of a bankruptcy, cash completely trumps any notion of "giving up debt." Especially when the debt being settled is astronomically large and you are giving up a very small portion of it ($7 million out of $1.5 billion). The other creditors are far better off getting more cash, and those $7 million of claims are wor…
Unfortunately, giving the victims no choice in who owns this stuff means allowing it to be reused for the same harm.
Money is not the only variable in the equation. This is not a legal interpretation of the judges decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it a little strange, though, that the system notionally decided that the families are owed an enormous amount of economic power as compensation for the nasty behavior of Alex Jones' media company, but at the same time it's obliging them not to use that economic power to prevent the sale of the media company to a "new owner" still affiliated with an unrepentant Alex Jones, who will undoubtedly continue the nasty…
Selling to a business involved with the individual that lost in court.. It seems like a Fraudulent Conveyance to my non lawyer self (but I could be wrong) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance