Jon Stewart Wins Cramer Showdown

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

#3 is dead on. The takedown started after Santelli criticized Obama and after Cramer criticized Obama. If they had not engaged in patriotic dissent against His Lordship, Stewart would have continued overlooking their other sins. Stewart doesn't have time to slam all the douchebags. He only has time to slam the douchebags who speak out against "The One".

Actually 6 points are dead on. Let me ask you this, is Rick Santelli accountable for his comments? That is to say, can he be criticized for throwing a tantrum and calling people facing foreclosure losers?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Actually 6 points are dead on. Let me ask you this, is Rick Santelli accountable for his comments? That is to say, can he be criticized for throwing a tantrum and calling people facing foreclosure losers?

Of course he can. And Stewart may be right He would have been right if he had slammed them before they criticized Obama, too. I don't see what's so controversial about saying that the impetus for Stewart's attack was the fact that they criticized Obama. It seems obvious to me.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Of course he can. And Stewart may be right He would have been right if he had slammed them before they criticized Obama, too. I don't see what's so controversial about saying that the impetus for Stewart's attack was the fact that they criticized Obama. It seems obvious to me.

Fair enough. Personally, I think you're pissed at Stewie because he has taken one too many jabs at your beloved party, network of choice, and your hero Rushbo. Plus, I don't think making a fool out of your secret lover Jonah Goldberg helps his standing.

Folks, organic food is facisit.

[That Guy]

um,

first, i don't think it was a cramer takedown. he was present, but the issue was CNBC and the "experts" being completely blind to reality and not doing proper research with the tools they had as the "premiere financial network".

the reality is they're just an entertainment channel though, so they care about ad dollars and viewership above journalistic standards, which is sad, but pretty common today.


also, the timing was because ricky made some stupid comments alluding that this whole mess is poor people's fault alone as if the greedy mortgage banking industry or lobbyists/politicians had no part in it - so stewart took that to task... then cramer butted in, because he didn't feel that all the comments made were fair, so stewart did a redux.

that explains the timing... no conspiracies needed.

as far as the daily show not always being fair... he only said his show wasn't fair like 14 times during the interview - he has a writing staff of 18 (i think) and editorial control. the unedited interview (over 22min) is online on the daily show's site though, and really cramer and stewart don't have any ill will towards each other; other people just made this out to be a bigger deal than it was - his real beef was with experts' lack of foresight or follow-through, not cramer.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

um,

first, i don't think it was a cramer takedown. he was present, but the issue was CNBC and the "experts" being completely blind to reality and not doing proper research with the tools they had as the "premiere financial network".

the reality is they're just an entertainment channel though, so they care about ad dollars and viewership above journalistic standards, which is sad, but pretty common today.


also, the timing was because ricky made some stupid comments alluding that this whole mess is poor people's fault alone as if the greedy mortgage banking industry or lobbyists/politicians had no part in it - so stewart took that to task... then cramer butted in, because he didn't feel that all the comments made were fair, so stewart did a redux.

that explains the timing... no conspiracies needed.

as far as the daily show not always being fair... he only said his show wasn't fair like 14 times during the interview - he has a writing staff of 18 (i think) and editorial control. the unedited interview (over 22min) is online on the daily show's site though, and really cramer and stewart don't have any ill will towards each other; other people just made this out to be a bigger deal than it was - his real beef was with experts' lack of foresight or follow-through, not cramer.

I just clicked on this thread for the first time and have no clue about any of this stuff but I do know this. CNBC is not a premiere network on any subject and one would be foolish to take any financial advise from them.

[djnemo65]

Let me get this straight Chip. A liberal leaning comedian with a funny popular show is actually, insiduously, a cultural tough guy enforcer for a larger left wing conspiracy to silent dissent? Hehe...

OK, as nutty as this sounds to someone like me, let's pretend it's true for the sake of argument. The show still needs to be funny to work - and it is. Really funny. So what is the crux of your critique? That his timing is questionable? So what if it is? The show is still funny and the essence of his argument, that CNBC failed in it's stated mission, is still correct.

So what really are you saying? That he edits his own show to make himself look better? Woah, shocker. That he doesn't think he should be held to the same objectivist standards as, like, real journalists? Do you? Really? He's not a comedian?

I'm not sure you really have a point here.

And if it's true that he is crushing Obama dissenters then why didn't he take down Krugman - who has been pretty consistently critical of Obama for over two years - when he was on the show recently? Is it because Krugman's a card carrying liberal? Well guess who else is... Cramer!

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Let me get this straight Chip. A liberal leaning comedian with a funny popular show is actually, insiduously, a cultural tough guy enforcer for a larger left wing conspiracy to silent dissent? Hehe...

That's the gist of it... although you should remember that it's "patriotic dissent". As we all remember from the Bush years, being critical of our leaders is our duty as Americans.

Also Krugman's criticism of Obama is from Obama's left - something Stewart probably agrees with. To them the danger is that Obama is not Leftist enough. Santelli and Cramer were coming from Obama's right which is a completely different thing to a committed socialist like Stewie.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

That's the gist of it... although you should remember that it's "patriotic dissent". As we all remember from the Bush years, being critical of our leaders is our duty as Americans.

Also Krugman's criticism of Obama is from Obama's left - something Stewart probably agrees with. To them the danger is that Obama is not Leftist enough. Santelli and Cramer were coming from Obama's right which is a completely different thing to a committed socialist like Stewie.

committed socialists don't make 14$mill a year .

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by That Guy

committed socialists don't make 14$mill a year .

Haha, yeah Stewart is a committed socialist??

[saden1]

What if someone not to the left and not to the right but dead center criticized him? You know, someone just like him? :thumb:

[That Guy]

well, he is left of center, and he does use the "i'm just a comedian" cop out too quickly (if he's just a comedian, why take CNBC to task like that? and it's not like this is the first societal issue he's done this on (crossfire etc)).

[saden1]

Jesus, the fascist takeover has begun.

Hitler Youth 2.0?

[saden1]

The saga continues...real amazing stuff.

[dmek25]

i was wondering if anyone else read about that dumbass

[MTK]

The one thing I'll always remember about Dykstra, besides the wad of tobacco he always had in his lip, was the year he came out all jacked up with about 20 extra lbs of muscle. One of the most glaringly obvious examples of roid abuse I had ever seen.