AOL Buys the Huffington Post for $315 Million

Oh no! AOL has now fallen to the Commies!!!! Commissar Huffington shall sink the whole ship in no time!

I didn't know AOL had $315 million.

This is why you should do a welfare check on your elderly family members. It was revealed by a ex-employee of AOL that their "dirty little secret" is that 75% of the people that are subscribers are people that have broadband and don't even realize that they no longer need AOL.

So please, stop by grammy's house next weekend and cancel her AOL account. You're doing the world a favor. Thanks.

Damn I didn't know AOL were still in business thought they got bought out years ago buy C&W [EDIT: C&W only bought AOL UK, for $688]

AOL = Fail. Time Warner\AOL Failed buying the Huffington Post for $315 will equal fail. You would think they would have learnt from their first big failure. Hopefully this failure will end up putting this company out of business for good. hey AOL i got some ocean front property in Arizona you can buy too.

Damn, C&W bought AOL UK for only $688? i would've bought them for $700 even though i would've to give up on the new gaming pc i've been wanting..

So a communist blogger that does nothing but spout nonsense is a "journalist" but the entire fox news network is a bunch of hacks? What planet is this guy living on?

Not sure what rock you've been living under....but TW/AOL didn't fail here...AOL failed. TimeWarner and AOL parted company some time ago... AOL actually failed by merging with Time Warner... AOL stock and profits immediately started to plummet as soon as the TimeWarner merger was signed. The decision was made by TimeWarner to immediately discontinue the most popular "service and content" that AOL provided it's users and decided to start focusing on "premium features" like a per-month subscription based version of Kaspersky Antivirus...which then moved to McAfee AntiVirus.... Charging $10-$20/month for a product that was only $40-$50 on the store shelves severely hurt AOL.

AOL is a worthless, dishonest company that would be better off not existing

Whats this communist shit? She's Greek.

Wait-A-Aminute, the owners of FOX News (Fair and Balance my ass.. and everyone knows it) aren't American. Top two owners are an Australian who created the trash-mags like World Weekly-something (BAT BOY, 1000lb man eats self, etc) and a Saudi Arabian. They ain't American... and they have the Muslim connection that nobody else has.

"Arianna is a singularly passionate and dedicated champion of innovative journalistic engagement, and a master of the art of using new media to illuminate, entertain and enhance the national conversation,"
I read that and spit coffee all over my LCD.

btw how is socialism working for greece? are they still bankrupt like america?
14.127 trillion gone...and growing! tell me again socialist programs work after looking at the 6 biggest expenditures america makes usdebtclock.org

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend.

You've got, the Huffington Post.

You do realize that the US is the only country in the western world that considers socialist programs to be bad.

That is why America is the greatest contry on the planet!

You do realize that the US earns more money then the top 5 other western countries combined.

AOL buys Huffington Post for 315 million AOL CD's

You made a typo. I assume you meant to write cuntry.

Amusing trivia, Arianna Huffington also voices a bear in The Cleveland Show. True story.

We're not greece. Much our are debt is not by social setup we have. If you go that route, even the MILITARY is part of our socialist system. You'll need to STOP using our roads, our public schools, our libraries, our internet, the stop lights, the food you eat (FDA - you know), the water you drink, the air you breathe. There are countries out there with little or NON social infrastructure whatsoever. You can leave any time... and will be thankful that WE DON'T live that way.

Yes the USA has a debt problem, but both sides have GOT TO STOP pissing on each other and Fracking do something. GOP ain't doing anything. What bills for jobs have they proposed since being in control of congress in January. ZERO! But they voted for their bi-weekly vacations... yep, that's a fact.

House republicans are NOT doing anything, honoring their plege not to pass major legislation. Every two weeks followed by a week off. They call it "Constituent Work Week" check out their holiday no-work schedule: http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml

So far, the GOP is working on abortions by redefining rape and incest?! Here is such a law on the table: if a pregnant woman is about to die and abortion is the only way to save her life, the hospital can't perform the surgery... so both the woman and the baby dies.

How about the FRACKING JOBS?! How about cutting all the pork, including the military - which is budgeted more than the rest of the world combined.

you know why? cause when the government dictates to you how you have to give them all of your money so that they can give it to some poor slob who cant/wont work for himself/herself and they sit on their lazy back side all day having kids so the government will give them more money to support them then buying a 90,000 pound car with their welfare check money.... that pisses Americans off. I guess it comes from the centuries of rule by monarchs over in europe that you guys are used to being told to give your money to the man at the top so he can give you some back (i.e. feudalism or share cropping) but here in America we work for our own money and its the progressives (or to the English the labour party) that want to say "hey person who makes more than the federally mandated minimum wage... you are making too much money so we have to take your money and give it to someone who doesnt have as much as you do so it will be "fair" ...and you want to be fair right?" Well the actual answer is no I dont want to be "fair" if being fair is me working my ass off twice as hard to give some one else half my money... if I wanted to do that Id get married! We here in America believe that you get rich by 1 of 3 ways for the most part (excluding the lottery and get rich quick schemes)..1. hard work 2. being born into money and 3. gaming the system.

illustrative examples for #1:
Michael Dell, Rush Limbaugh (regardless of his politics he got where he is through hard work), jeff bezos, michael bloomberg (before he got into politics), richard branson, henry ford

examples for #2
paris hilton (need I say more?)

examples for #3
michael moore (though he does work hard at his "movies" he blames capitalism for holding people down while he rakes in 220million for 1 of his movies... hypocrite much?), george soros (who got rich by starting hedge funds betting against several countries currencies and collapsing their dollar...oh yeah and hes doing it here in the us now)

I'm somewhat scared of AOL at the moment, buying up companies left right and centre.

You and all other conservatives have gotten it all wrong. You think that the poor are poor just because they are lazy/stupid/crooks and therefore deserve to be poor. Even though that applies for some of them, it's not a rule. The guy that works his ass off at McDonalds or Walmart or any other similar low wage, poorly regarded job will never get affluent not because he is lazy or not working hard enough, but simply because the structure of the capitalist system is such that he needs to be poor so that his boss gets rich off him. By cutting down on any social benefits, subsidies and state-sponsored/paid services, you punish an awful lot of hard working people into eternal poverty. Instead of acknowledging that all working people should deserve a standard quality of life (even if it needs to be supported by social benefits and state sponsored services), you want to make everyone pay for all services they use, therefore excluding the poor from a quality of life that only the rich will be able to afford. As for the rich, no matter how hard you work, you won't become rich unless you start making money out of other people's work (and in some cases like Bankers, Stock Brokers, Hedge Fund capitalists etc, other people's money). Nobody can escape that. You can only get rich by making other people work hard for you, and reap the benefits of THEIR hard work. Work your ass off on your own, and eventually you will only manage to own a house by the time you die, so that your children will not have to pay rent. As for those who start as lowly clerks and end up being managers, by rising up the corporate ladder by means of promotion, they don't exacly get rewarded for their hard work, they rather get into a position that they too can profit from other people's hard work.

Regarding the hordes of trailer-park-living, producing-scores-of-children-unemployed-lowlives you have, you should blame not welfare benefits or socialism themselves, but rather the stupid and ineffective way these are implemented, together with the social structure that creates them. Do all these slobs deserve those benefits? Most of them not. Using this though as an excuse to demonise socialist policies is lame. If your system breeds millions of ghetto-living slobs, it's not just their fault, the structure of the society is flawed and something needs to change. It is as if you dump your trash into corner of your house, it will become infested with parasites, and all the cockroach spray in the world will not suffice. It's not the parasites that are the root of the problem, it is the trash they feed upon and the trashy corner they populate. Their existence is no longer just their problem, it's yours too, and by getting fenced off in suburbia you won't solve it. As all other problems, it needs money, strategy, and changing attitudes to be solved. So stop blaming socialism and start working on it.

As for Greece, it was not socialist policies that doomed its economy. It was more than one and a half century of crooked politicians created by a political system rotten to its core. It was crookery permeating through all layers of Greek society, becoming a contagious disease. Even though disonest citizens never became a majority, they managed to amass such power in a system ineffective to curb their corrupt practices, so that in the end, people who maintained their integrity never stood a chance. Couple that with a collective tendency for unruliness and disobedience, and you have the recipe for disaster.

Will the U.S. ever end up broke like Greece? I doubt it. Your financial woes have different origins. Your recipe for disaster has different ingredients. If you sink deeper into recession, it's not socialist policies themselves, it's most probably the way you're implementing them, together with numerous other things you're doing wrong. It's actually the capitalist system eating itself and falling apart. Read more about the global financial crisis and you will agree too.

mendocino, good words there.

But asking a Teabagger to read, do research is like expecting a dog to learn how to operate a car (okay, some do - but its rare).

They don't know what fascists are, they don't understand how govt. works or how it should work. They campaigned on jobs and reforming DC, but instead have spent time working on taking away womans rights and giving themselves much needed vacation time. Look up the video on you tube or whatever on a guy called "Bill OReilly" and "ocean tides"... this guy thinks its God or magic that makes tides go in and out... then when people explain to him several times that its the moon, then its God that keeps the moon going around the earth. This guy is a fracking idiot - and he's their #1 or #2 source of information about govt. and the world.

So belardo,
What women's rights have the Teabagger's worked hard on trying to take away? How does Govt. work? And why do you reley on what one tv personality says about the tides? Because somebody is (OReilly) ingnorant about tides........ does not stop the moon from creating them.

So mendico,
"Even though that applies for some of them, it's not a rule. The guy that works his ass off at McDonalds or Walmart or any other similar low wage, poorly regarded job will never get affluent not because he is lazy or not working hard enough, but simply because the structure of the capitalist system is such that he needs to be poor so that his boss gets rich off him"

First it applies to some of them ...and not a rule......then your second sentence is a rule (as you state it)!... and also not true.

What is " eternal poverty" and define it on a global level.

"Instead of acknowledging that all working people should deserve a standard quality of life" Why don't you get some international standards and bring them into this discussion!

"Work your ass off on your own, and eventually you will only manage to own a house by the time you die, so that your children will not have to pay rent"

And then your children can work on providing even more for thier children!....

but no because you said

"You can only get rich by making other people work hard for you, and reap the benefits of THEIR hard work. "

So my children can not benifit from my hard work. I do well and my children should suffer?
But no, I should not work hard, I should not try to improve, I shall not yearn for my children to achieve even more that i have or could have achieved......only if my goverment deems it! What ....should we go to the caste system? Should I be a coal miner because my Irish family was?

Oh yeah and when I was wrong before

"The guy that works his ass off at McDonalds or Walmart or any other similar low wage, poorly regarded job will never get affluent not because he is lazy or not working hard enough, but simply because the structure of the capitalist system is such that he needs to be poor so that his boss gets rich off him."

but now you acknowledge it does happen but only because they have other people working for them!

" As for those who start as lowly clerks and end up being managers, by rising up the corporate ladder by means of promotion, they don't exacly get rewarded for their hard work, they rather get into a position that they too can profit from other people's hard work."

Ok get out your pick, rake, hoe and start your garden! You will never be happy having to work for anybody, but will prob. starve to death taking care of yourself. Also you appear to be from a different country after repeatedly refering to "your"
"Your financial woes "
"Your recipe for disaster "
" you're implementing them"
"you're doing wrong"

" It's actually the capitalist system eating itself and falling apart. Read more about the global financial crisis and you will agree too."
Please Don't ask to come here!

The problem with the system that we have in America is that it has to many "social" systems and policies in place.

Good luck
Mac

WOW how many people are still using 9$ amonth dialup to give AOL that kind of money? We are a sad contry when that many people still use dialup. No wonder everybody looks down on us.

OMG I worked in arzona at a computer shop and EVERY SINGLE SNOWBIRD (Old person who goes to arizona to escape the winter) USES AOL AND BROADBAND. The big deception is that they think they need to keep paying it so they can keep their free email acount working.

Shame on you AOL for taking advantage of the elderly. Shame on you.

Hey, macusn,

This reply is way too belated, and I apologise for that, but I did not have access to the internet for a while.

What I'm trying to say is that even though (up to now) capitalism seemed to be the most functional and the longest endured socio-financial system out there, its one-size-fits-all approach is getting old, both functionally and ethically.

Is it fair when children benefit from their ancestors hard work? Of course! However, the problem is that if your parents/ancestors were slobs, you start your life with a very raw deal. It shouldn't be like this.

The other problem is that not everyone is equally gifted. Capitalism currently punishes everyone who is not exceptional in terms of intelligence, judgement, charisma, (and partially physical endurance) to obscurity. Of course you can start a clerk and work your way up the corporate and financial ladder, but not without the aforementioned qualities. Not eveyone is that gifted. Some people just want (or, let's face it, can only be) to be the bus driver, the guy who works at McDonalds, the guy working at the gas station, etc. I have the impression that "unrestricted" capitalism currently is dooming these people to poverty. My impression is also that it is difficult to eradicate the lower class without "socialist" policies. Even if that means that the rich will become just a bit "poorer" in the process. Don't get me wrong, some people need to be managers and job owners, and of course they deserve to get more money. The difference is that they could still get a bit less money and live equally well, so that the guys at the bottom have a good standard of living too. And I doubt that a "less state" neo-liberalist/anarchocapitalist formula can provide for that.

As for examples, I feel that a lot of people in the US tend to ignore the system in place in central & northern european countries. There, "socialist" policies generally work (even if they need adjustment, admittedly). The society there is much more balanced, I think (after having lived there for quite some time). On the contrary, countries like Greece (where I come from) avoided fiscal doom just out of plain luck, but not having provided for the future, eventually and inevitably sealed their fate. As for the U.S. I wouldn't want to live there for various reasons, the financial policies being the least of my concerns, but that is not the point of the discussion.

To conclude, I reckon that more social-friendly policies, the much hated in the US "social state" (higher lowest salaries, more holidays, a 35 hour per week or lower working week, social benefits, subsidized public services and health system, and a robust public sector) in a loosely-capitalist context is the way to go. I also reckon that this system has worked in most central & northern European countries. I also believe that the higher standard of living people working in low-prestige (and salary) works have, the less people will be living of social benefits. As for integration of slobs and slum-dwellers, you can't have that either without a "social state".

My two cents.