Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Shaps]

ROFL.. but I thought they said that the Tech companies don't do that hahahaha.. now MSNBC is worried lol.

[Seran]

The post of mine you quoted said exactly that it is the FBI that does criminal charges. In the case you are speaking of they did not. So there is no felony here. It wasn't a criminal charge or criminal trial. You said he was a felon, you said he was convicted of a felony, he was not. You said they charged Elon Musk with a felony, which they cannot do. Again, you were just wrong.

You know, if you split enough hairs you might end up convincing yourself of the validity of your own argument, but I'm not buying it. I said my concern was felonious acts of insider trader trading, then proceeded to point out where the SEC charged him with the same felonious acts of securities fraud. That he settled the case to avoid a criminal referral doesn't dismiss the underlying acts. He broke a law, got caught, was called out, admitted his culpability and settled.

[Gelston]

You know, if you split enough hairs you might end up convincing yourself of the validity of your own argument, but I'm not buying it. I said my concern was felonious acts of insider trader trading, then proceeded to point out where the SEC charged him with the same felonious acts of securities fraud. That he settled the case to avoid a criminal referral doesn't dismiss the underlying acts. He broke a law, got caught, was called out, admitted his culpability and settled.

It isn't splitting hairs. You accused him of having a felony. He didn't. He never went to any trial, he was never found guilty of having a felony. I guess you just enjoy saying anyone ever accused of anything is guilty though.

Again, the SEC cannot accuse anyone of a felony act. They can only turn over their investigation to the FBI which can then accuse someone of a felony act. If he had committed a felony, the FBI would be going at him. The also investigate independently, regardless of any deal with the SEC.

[Parkbandit]

You know, if you split enough hairs you might end up convincing yourself of the validity of your own argument, but I'm not buying it. I said my concern was felonious acts of insider trader trading, then proceeded to point out where the SEC charged him with the same felonious acts of securities fraud. That he settled the case to avoid a criminal referral doesn't dismiss the underlying acts. He broke a law, got caught, was called out, admitted his culpability and settled.

This is on par with your confusion about 50% increase in stock price.

[Seran]

It isn't splitting hairs. You accused him of having a felony. He didn't. He never went to any trial, he was never found guilty of having a felony. I guess you just enjoy saying anyone ever accused of anything is guilty though.

Again, the SEC cannot accuse anyone of a felony act. They can only turn over their investigation to the FBI which can then accuse someone of a felony act. If he had committed a felony, the FBI would be going at him. The also investigate independently, regardless of any deal with the SEC.

The SEC charged him with securities fraud, you obviously didn't read the link. You're so busily trying to downplay the fact in front of you that it's mystifying. I like even more than you keep trying to reinterpret what I said. It's funny.

[Seran]

This is on par with your confusion about 50% increase in stock price.

Yeah, I thought that was funny too, comparing a $51 closing with a $54 buyout offer and calling that a 50% premium. Gelston is a fool.

[Alfster]

Yeah, I thought that was funny too, comparing a $51 closing with a $54 buyout offer and calling that a 50% premium. Gelston is a fool.

No. You argued that 33.99 to 54 wasn't somehow at least 50% increase.

How much of an increase is that? Please . No one spoil this

[Gelston]

The SEC charged him with securities fraud, you obviously didn't read the link. You're so busily trying to downplay the fact in front of you that it's mystifying. I like even more than you keep trying to reinterpret what I said. It's funny.

The SEC can't really "charge" anyone with anything. They sue for violations. If something is criminally illegal, they send the information to the FBI. Nothing they do is criminal, at all. Again, you're just 100% wrong.

[Gelston]

Yeah, I thought that was funny too, comparing a $51 closing with a $54 buyout offer and calling that a 50% premium. Gelston is a fool.

The premium was based on when he made the offer, not what if jumped to. Stop being dense. Admit you are wrong.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I thought that was funny too, comparing a $51 closing with a $54 buyout offer and calling that a 50% premium. Gelston is a fool.

lol wut?

This is what you posted:

$33.99 - 54.20 is not 50%. Nor is what he paid to purchase a 9% stake at all relevant to purchasing a 100% stake. Nice failed attempt at pass interference.

Someone with the tiniest bit of self awareness would just let this go... but you don't because somehow in your tiny little head, you still think that 33.99 to 54.20 is not at least 50%...

Because you are the dumbest among everyone here.. and thus our GOAT Retard Champion. I'll have to take down one of Backlash's quotes in the Retard Hall of Fame for this retardation.