AOL Buys The Huffington Post for $315 Million

TWITTER:
http://www.twitter.com/LDoren

FACEBOOK:
http://www.facebook.com/LeeDoren1

WEBSITE:
http://www.LeeDoren.com

My new intro was made here: http://taliesen.net/ .

Smoking: http://goo.gl/ZwEBk

Al Gore and Keith Olbermann on CurrentTV: http://goo.gl/tdTbd

Rush's Response: http://goo.gl/MKKHN

Arianna Huffington $315 Million to AOL?: http://goo.gl/hJ5mg

Obamacare Cartoon: http://goo.gl/9tl5K

Reagan Liberal?: http://goo.gl/cHaEd

$50 Billion High-Speed Rail: http://goo.gl/HZjb6

48-year-old children's radio: http://goo.gl/A8XTt

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• AOL
• Buys
• The
• Huffington
• Post
• for
• $315
• Million
• Arianna
• Keith
• Olbermann
• CurrentTV
• Lee
• Doren
• HowTheWorldWorld
• How
• World
• Works
• analysis
• video log
• economic
• news
• military
• talk
• financial
• speech
• discussion
• politics
• warfare
• commentary
• interview
• busta
• busta rhymes
• questions
• reilly
• rhymes

[GeneralSuvarov]

You dont care about a lot of thing. Im guessing you dont care about logic either? Back up your reasoning and you'll be bound to be more convincing.

[Xarkonul]

I hope AOL will tone down The Huffington Post’s censorship. I recently got into a debate in one of The Huffington Post’s forums in which I used my “Joe Averageguy” analogy to show that global temperatures have leveled off at best since 1998, and this conclusion came from using The Huffington Post’s own (inflated?) figures. My reward?  The Huffington Post deleted my comments and removed my profile, Xarkonul. You can find more information at my YouTube channel (Xarkonul).

[Jaspian]

Please turn down intro music. Its much louder than your voice!

[moneyworks64]

when i was young i love trains:D, but im 16 now therenot as cool :(

[nightpotato]

@NobodyImportant2008 I'll concede my position enough to say that I agree with this post. Good arguments and points. Makes me want to brush up on my physics.

[NobodyImportant2008]

@nightpotato 'Work' & 'energy' = variables replaced by the actual I\O. 'Work' = 'useful' output energy, whatever form or function. Factories use various sorts of energy & if efficient, perform the same work with less. The result is a product. Products & functions use the same metric. You made aesthetics the main product\function of a system. First it wasn't a result of work\energy, now it doesn't perform useful output\work. Economics is as close as we can get to an 'aesthetic efficiency' rating.

[nightpotato]

@NobodyImportant2008 If we can limitlessly redefine "work" according to function, including extending it to the realm of aesthetics then it bears no resemblance to the kind of "work" I learned in physics.

[NobodyImportant2008]

@nightpotato Economic efficiency = units/cost, not total sales. Don't accuse me of redefining terms if you don't know what they mean. Mechanical efficiency = work output/input, or work/energy as in any conversion. If 'work' is defined by function as you suggested earlier (it is), then efficiency = function/input. Either way, less resources/unit (material, energy (ie from weight, friction, etc), etc) consequently less cost in $.

[TreyParkersBitch]

@Arcorn9000 How are you beating me on an intellectual scale? Your comments make no sense due to being very poorly written with terrible spelling. Also your constant association with me living in this "fantasy world" with the government taking my money and wiping their ass with it-you're just a hate filled individual who classifies anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "stupid Leftist". You fail to take in any facts yourself. Like I said you're a jerk and you bulldoze all that disagree.

[MerlinYoda]

@nightpotato I think that would be sufficient grounds for agreement, yes. Although I have some minor misgivings with the qualifier "high" in that statement, but, in the spirit of finding common ground, I'll let that stand.

The key to me was not so much "of kind" but of, as you allude to, degree (or gradient) ... an unabashed direct subsidy (i.e. "bailout") versus an indirect one even, perhaps, one so indirect that it is an "unintended consequence" of something not even envisioned at the time.