If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Balloon Juice)   On Tuesday, Soledad O'Brien insulted a Romney spokesman by pointing out he was full of shiat. Well, she went on TV yesterday and apolog - wait, strike that. She pointed out again how full of shiat he was   (balloon-juice.com) divider line 227
    More: Followup, Soledad O'Brien, John Sununu, soylent greens, second shift, romney  
•       •       •

6788 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Aug 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 04:10:32 PM

imontheinternet: Did some actual reporting slip past the corporate overlords at CNN? What are they going to do if this inspires other reporters to do their jobs for the first time in a decade or so?


More updates from the Twitterverse, undoubtedly.
 
2012-08-16 04:10:40 PM
I'd fark her
 
2012-08-16 04:11:03 PM
Well he was full of shiat.
 
2012-08-16 04:11:16 PM
So CNN is trying out the whole journalism thing now? They really are out of ideas...
 
2012-08-16 04:11:55 PM
It amazes me that no one holds them accountable for their lies, not the public, not the journalists, not the law, nothing. They can say whatever retarded thing they wish and the vast majority of people (idiots) believe it as fact.
 
2012-08-16 04:13:05 PM
And apparently Pawlenty went on her show with the same talking points on Tuesday, and also got hit in the nose with a rolled up newspaper of justice. BAD DOG! BAD DOG!
 
2012-08-16 04:13:40 PM

Quasar: Man, that lady is unflappable. She could not be flapped.


Seriously, take any random screenshot of O'Brien and Sununu, any random frame, and odds are it'll have O'Brien smiling all sweetness and light on one side, and Sununu a gibbering buffoon on the other.
 
2012-08-16 04:14:12 PM

Diogenes: I wish Sununu would learn how to be a decent human being.


He could start by learning how to dress himself for a tv interview. It looks like he slept in those clothes and woke up 2 minutes before he went on the air.
 
2012-08-16 04:14:20 PM
John "Havana" Sununu, the Cuban born, Lebanese and El Salvadorian who talked Bush into raising taxes and appointing a liberal to the Supreme Court.
 
2012-08-16 04:15:54 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Diogenes: I wish Sununu would learn how to be a decent human being.

He could start by learning how to dress himself for a tv interview. It looks like he slept in those clothes and woke up 2 minutes before he went on the air.


Is he a booze hound? Cause it looks like he's wearing the uniform.
 
2012-08-16 04:16:44 PM
Soledad O'Brien is like Anderson Cooper, it seems like every so often they just randomly get tired of "infotainment" and turn into real journalists for a few days until they get it out of their systems.
 
2012-08-16 04:16:50 PM

imontheinternet: Did some actual reporting slip past the corporate overlords at CNN? What are they going to do if this inspires other reporters to do their jobs for the first time in a decade or so?


There have been various reports of journalism breaking out. I'm sure the news corporations will be able to contain it.
 
2012-08-16 04:18:28 PM

Coolfusis: DamnYankees: Wow, its like actual journalism or something.

And it won't matter in the slightest. The people who are smart enough to see through the lies aren't going to vote GOP, and the people who aren't will attack anything that doesn't agree with them. The CBO will be a mouthpiece of George Soros, world-renown economists (liberal and conservative alike) will be communist conspirators, and confirmation bias will once again put the entire country at risk of economic meltdown.


I think it gets better every time a reporter does their job.

Think where we have come since the Bush administration. It's not perfect, but every time a reporter refuses to let a half-truth go unchallenged WE are better off.
 
2012-08-16 04:22:04 PM
Real Journalism......
 
2012-08-16 04:22:51 PM
www.examiner.com 

Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn voters so the politicians don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
 
2012-08-16 04:22:59 PM
Fired for 'irreconcilable differences' in 3....2...
 
2012-08-16 04:23:24 PM
"María de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien" is a pretty awesome name.

// she avoided death by Sunununu-sununununu
 
2012-08-16 04:23:52 PM
FTFA

Finally, there's some limit to the number of lies the media will tolerate and that limit is probably being reached with the Romney campaign. There's a general air of disrespect from the Romney people, they campaign almost totally on falsehoods, and they do so arrogantly.

This...is actually pretty true. Kudos to your blog for not sucking entirely.

/amorphous "you"
//not YOU you
 
2012-08-16 04:24:10 PM
Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?
 
2012-08-16 04:24:49 PM

Pincy: mrshowrules: I called it right when this first came up

1) Boehner asks CBO what would happen if Obamacare was repealed
2) CBO says Medicare costs would increase by $716B
3) derpasphere: Obama cut Medicare by $716B

Pretty much this.

I still don't get how Republicans are trying to create this false outrage over lies about Obama cutting Medicare when Ryan's own budget plan would have really cut Medicare. I guess they are relying on the willful ignorance of their base not to want to notice the hypocrisy.


They are literally trying to convince voters over 55 that Obama is destroying Medicare today and the only way to protect it (at least for them) is to reform it which will only effect people under 55 anyways.

The problem is that the only people who believe them are the idiots already voting for him.
 
2012-08-16 04:25:52 PM
Soledad better find a new home. she's not going to be long for the network since they announced that they are switching to reality-show programming next year
 
2012-08-16 04:25:53 PM
Sununu is a big piece of shat,



/NH resident.
 
2012-08-16 04:25:59 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Soledad O'Brien is like Anderson Cooper, it seems like every so often they just randomly get tired of "infotainment" and turn into real journalists for a few days until they get it out of their systems.


I love her.
 
2012-08-16 04:26:29 PM

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?


if i'm following this right, her point is that it doesn't reduce benefits, but rather inefficiencies and payments to insurance companies in that amount. so she is correct in the sense that medicare, as a benefit, is not reduced at all.
 
2012-08-16 04:28:28 PM

sprawl15: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Can somebody fill me in on the $700 billion Medicare lie?

The lie is the source of the $700 billion. Sunununununnuunununuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (and the Romney campaign) is claiming that it's a reduction in services, when it's not.


Right. It's a reduction in payments to providers of those services. So of course, they'll be more than willing to keep on providing services.

I don't get that last part.
 
2012-08-16 04:29:03 PM

Dinki: And the GOP shills will go on every other 'news' show, spout off the exact same lie, and the interviewer will let it slide without blinking an eye.


Well they'd HATE to be accused of a Liberal Bias, a very serious accusation that carries the penalty of......nothing. Nothing whatsoever. But it's SCARY AND HURTFUL!!
 
2012-08-16 04:29:05 PM

thomps: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?

if i'm following this right, her point is that it doesn't reduce benefits, but rather inefficiencies and payments to insurance companies in that amount. so she is correct in the sense that medicare, as a benefit, is not reduced at all.


Exactly. And they aren't even actual cuts. The $700b is a reduction in projected increases.
 
2012-08-16 04:29:10 PM

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?


Nope. the money wasn't cut, it's just not expected to be paid out. The funds would have been spent on waste and price increases, rather then providing care. It's pretty much the same style of savings private companies have done, and that the GOP actually advocated for. They really are just trying to deflect from thier benefits cuts in their budget, by pulling a 'both sides are bad so..'
 
2012-08-16 04:29:21 PM

carrion_luggage: [www.examiner.com image 400x300] 


It's a human opossum sitting at a table like it's people.
 
2012-08-16 04:29:45 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

sure is a lot of this going on here..........the smell is overpowering. And, I quit reading before page 2

And, your blog sucks
 
2012-08-16 04:30:27 PM

tedthebellhopp: Sununu is a big piece of shat,



/NH resident.


Agree. Always has been. Masshole here.
 
2012-08-16 04:31:01 PM

imontheinternet: thomps: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?

if i'm following this right, her point is that it doesn't reduce benefits, but rather inefficiencies and payments to insurance companies in that amount. so she is correct in the sense that medicare, as a benefit, is not reduced at all.

Exactly. And they aren't even actual cuts. The $700b is a reduction in projected increases.


i really appreciate that the guy can run ads simultaneously criticizing the president's out of control spending and ads criticizing his out of control spending decreases
 
2012-08-16 04:31:13 PM
HOw can these mother farkers sleep at night? Lying the way they do. These people have no morals.
 
2012-08-16 04:31:18 PM
I'm sure she thinks that she is so smart because of what TPM told her.

cdn.pjmedia.com
 
2012-08-16 04:31:39 PM

Death_Poot: sure is a lot of this going on here..........the smell is overpowering. And, I quit reading before page 2

And, your blog sucks


You have nothing.
 
2012-08-16 04:31:46 PM
Approves:

i.usatoday.net
 
2012-08-16 04:32:37 PM

imontheinternet: Exactly. And they aren't even actual cuts. The $700b is a reduction in projected increases.


If you use a coupon at the grocery store, you are slashing food benefits for your family.
 
2012-08-16 04:32:47 PM

thomps: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?

if i'm following this right, her point is that it doesn't reduce benefits, but rather inefficiencies and payments to insurance companies in that amount. so she is correct in the sense that medicare, as a benefit, is not reduced at all.


I can understand that, but I have a hard time believing that the government managed to find a way to save $711 billion due to inefficiencies in the system without affecting befits at all.

This seems to be much more insightful than what was greenlit anyway.
 
2012-08-16 04:34:33 PM

Alphax: Death_Poot: sure is a lot of this going on here..........the smell is overpowering. And, I quit reading before page 2

And, your blog sucks

You have nothing.


I didnt say I did, I said that the smell in here is overpowering.
 
2012-08-16 04:34:54 PM

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?


No; the $700 billion was saved from elsewhere, not cut from benefit programs.

The ACA has provisions to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. The CBO estimates that these provisions would result in saving about $700 billion; repealing those provisions would obviously result in not saving that $700 billion.
 
2012-08-16 04:35:10 PM

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Text of Paragraph
"Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 6079 affect spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The ACA made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period. (Those budgetary effects are summarized in Table 1.)"

If repealing the changes to Medicare and other federal programs nets $711 billion dollars, wouldn't that mean that the money was removed, "cut", from those various programs? In that sense, isn't OBrien wrong?


H.R. 6079 is the Obamacare repeal. Read the last sentence like this: "In total, CBO estimates that repealing [Obamacare] would increase net federal spending by $711 billion over the 2013-2022 period."

Now, what SunnO))) is arguing is that the Obamacare spending reduction comes from cutting benefits. I.e., that Grandma gets a smaller check or lower health care access. The reductions don't come from cutting benefits, they come from things like reducing Medicare payments to hospitals that provide shiatty service and run high re-admittance rates. If they improve their service and reduce their re-admittance rates, they get paid better and end up lowering health care costs indirectly by reducing the burden on hospital resources.
 
2012-08-16 04:35:19 PM
Does he have some kind of dimensia or something? The stuttering, the "uhs", giving a different number every time...

He acts like my Grandpa did while he was recovering from brain surgery.
 
2012-08-16 04:35:52 PM

The Why Not Guy: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 320x190]


She looks like she's about to say "U mad, bro?"
 
2012-08-16 04:36:20 PM

Death_Poot: Alphax: Death_Poot: sure is a lot of this going on here..........the smell is overpowering. And, I quit reading before page 2

And, your blog sucks

You have nothing.

I didnt say I did, I said that the smell in here is overpowering.


you might have a mental illness if you can smell stuff through the internet...
 
2012-08-16 04:37:09 PM

I Said: Good. For. Her.

Every news org should be treating lies in this fashion.


As mentioned on another thread, the threat of them losing "access" to certain people prevents them from letting their inner Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite surface and call the GOP's BS out for what it is.
 
2012-08-16 04:37:42 PM
Soledad O'Brien may just be the female equivalent of the BBC's Jeremy Paxman. Now someone please let him interview RoRy.
 
2012-08-16 04:37:45 PM
How desperate are you for some simple honest jounalism when you turn Soledad into some hard hitting reporter. Don't worry cons she'll be right back to throwing softballs at you in a day or two. She would never be where she is today if she was a real reporter.
 
2012-08-16 04:37:48 PM
FTFA - It's pretty clear that she and her producers were well-prepped with actual facts, and that she didn't give a shiat whether she offended the delicate feelings of John Sununu.

Her attitude needs to be adopted by more jouranlists (especially when dealing with politicians).
 
2012-08-16 04:39:01 PM

Rwa2play: As mentioned on another thread, the threat of them losing "access" to certain people prevents them from letting their inner Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite surface and call the GOP's BS out for what it is.


Which is what allowed O'Brien to do this - she's not a political reporter and doesn't rely on access to make her living.
 
2012-08-16 04:39:41 PM

Bob16: How desperate are you for some simple honest jounalism when you turn Soledad into some hard hitting reporter. Don't worry cons she'll be right back to throwing softballs at you in a day or two. She would never be where she is today if she was a real reporter.


We the People are VERY desperate indeed.
 
Displayed 50 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report