Welcome to The Huffington Post, the new blog/news portal run by my old friends Arianna Huffington and Andrew Breitbart.
Most of the attention this new project is going to receive will be focused on its monstrous blog, but in the long run, I suspect that the Huffington Post may come to be valued as much for its function as a news aggregator. Breitbart is a genius and the Huffington Post could well become the new Drudge Report.
16 hours ago
8 comments:
...and Arianna Huffington could well become the Queen of England...
They really need to eliminate the annoying "daily blog" banner after every three posts.
Jason O.
What is most upsetting about Huffington's new blog is my discovery that Jim Lampley is a moonbat liberal. Today he has some crackpot conspiracy theory about how Bush and Rove stole the election based on, get this: Vegas book odds the day of the election. Lampley believes that based on exit polls Kerry was playing at 2-1 odds, and that this expert scientific calculation can mean only 1 thing: Rove rigged the machines to produce a Bush win. It's the same Diebold-Rove-Bush theory that is simply bullshit, but it's upsetting to hear Lampley parrot the idea. How can some of the most sensible boxing commentary come from such an absolute idiot?
Problems with The Huffington Post:
-Difficult to navigate. Why are blog posting mixed in with the news headlines?
-Boring. Do I really care about Russell Simmons criticisms of Abe Foxman?
-Beholden to b-list celebrities that kiss Arianna's ass. Jim Lampley? Elaine Benes? Really?
I had the exact same reaction about Lampley. I'm not sure if it's good for the republic that luminaries such as Lampley will use this vehicle to reveal themselves as nitwits.
Re the Huffington Post, Lileks has it right - there's too much crap that you have to dig through to get to the good stuff. The novelty of reading Larry David's wife's analysis of the Ford Motor Company's business strategy will quickly wear off.
Last thing - inquiring readers would like to know the nature of the relationship between Huffington and JVL.
"What is most upsetting about Huffington's new blog is my discovery that Jim Lampley is a moonbat liberal."
That one hit me too, I was like WTF. Maybe George F will knock him down a peg during the next fight on HBO.
I actually had to google the correct spelling of Lampley's name before I was convinced that the post was from HBO's Jim Lampley. I was shocked that boxing's voice of reason was a nutcase. I watched the famed Bowe-Gullota 1 fight on HBO many years ago, the one that ended in a riot at MSG, and remember Lampley's cool under fire while his daughter was somewhere down in the meelee. His ringside commentary stood in stark contrast with the crew calling the basketbrawl incident earlier this year. Mike Tirico and Stephen A. Smith could learn a lot from a pro like Lampley. I guess it was wrong of me to assume that calm sensibility was not compatible with moonbat liberalism. I'm holding out for Lampley's next post which explains that the moonbat post was really Roy Jones Jr. who sat down at his computer while he was away.
Why do you people think that no conspiracy is true?
Why do you think that the election wasn't stolen here, despite the exit polling numbers - but believe it was in the Ukraine?
How would you conservatives feel if Barbara Streisand owned the voting machines in swing states that showed, in exit polling, that Bush was going to win and then Kerry took it?
Free and fair elections aren't a "moonbat liberal" notion - you should be interested in it, too. If you aren't, say "bye bye" to democracy.
Why do moonbat liberals refuse to acknowledge that in Ohio in 2004 not a single Diebold voting machine was used? Why do moonbat liberals always see a conspiracy when something turns out opposite to their expectations? Conservatives don't need to see a conspiracy theory to prove election fraud. In Wisconsin they can prove it, no conspiracy necessary. Why do moonbat liberals refuse to accept what the leadership of their own party already acknowledges, that there was no conspiracy to rig the election? You see, it isn't that Republicans aren't concerned with election fraud, it's that they are concerned with election fraud that actually exists, like when illegal aliens and convicted felons vote, or when people vote more than once. These are the types of fraud that you can prove. Cloak and Dagger conspiracies about corporations and clandestine operations with high-ranking officials attempting to rig machines to produce a result opposite of the voter's intent is something that requires the involvement of so many people that it is quite ridiculous to imagine that you could actually cover it up. Salman Rushdie put it best when he said that he was positive that Oswald killed Kennedy because the US is such an open place it would be impossible for such a cover-up to take place.
Post a Comment