Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I never blamed Cramer for losing people money... Ummm, yeah you did. Remember this line? Anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged. You didn't call him out by name but I didn't have to stretch too far to get who you meant. You meant all those at CNBC which includes Cramer. I'm not disagreeing with you but personal responsibility is number one in my book. For the fourth time in this thread if you take your financial planning advice from someone who does not know your situation from Adam you've got no one to blame other than yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Ummm, yeah you did. Remember this line? You didn't call him out by name but I didn't have to stretch too far to get who you meant. You meant all those at CNBC which includes Cramer. I'm not disagreeing with you but personal responsibility is number one in my book. For the fourth time in this thread if you take your financial planning advice from someone who does not know your situation from Adam you've got no one to blame other than yourself. Suggesting that someone, or some institution, is playing a role in the current crises is quite a bit different than suggesting they are responsible for a person losing money. But, again, I'm still bewildered why you decided to take a shot at Stewart, instead of giving him a pat on the back, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Russert was one of the best. Russert was THE best. There wasn't even anyone near him. Anyone who shows any semblance of journalistic integrity will never see the camera because that's just not how it works anymore. We deserve better but we don't demand it - so we get what we get. It's a continuing theme across virtually every spectrum. Stewart is an ideological hack but he has more integrity than virtually anyone in the for profit media. It's going to be interesting to see how he handles the absurdity of the Dummycrats over the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 What's your issue with Stewart? As AD said, Stewart is a liberal dem hack. He won't touch the Messiah, and there's plenty to ridicule already. I used to watch is sometimes with Craig Kilborn, but when he came on and went 100 % attacking the right, I stopped watching it. Kilborn made jokes about everybody and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 As AD said, Stewart is a liberal dem hack. He won't touch the Messiah, and there's plenty to ridicule already. I used to watch is sometimes with Craig Kilborn, but when he came on and went 100 % attacking the right, I stopped watching it. Kilborn made jokes about everybody and everything. Stewart is clearly a liberal, and he doesn't try to disguise it. With that said, he has already taken shots at Obama. Of course, since the guy has been in office for, oh ten minutes, or so, we have yet to really see the outcome of his decisions. But, on the topic of not paying taxes, and such, of some of Obama's nominees, he has taken plenty of shots. (Of course, you would actually have to watch it, and listen to what he's saying, instead of the voices in your head screaming "stupid liberal! Obama's a fool! Socialist!" to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Stewart is clearly a liberal, and he doesn't try to disguise it. With that said, he has already taken shots at Obama. Of course, since the guy has been in office for, oh ten minutes, or so, we have yet to really see the outcome of his decisions. But, on the topic of not paying taxes, and such, of some of Obama's nominees, he has taken plenty of shots. (Of course, you would actually have to watch it, and listen to what he's saying, instead of the voices in your head screaming "stupid liberal! Obama's a fool! Socialist!" to know that. I haven't watched it since the beginning of the year (my schedule has been crazy) but I doubt "The Daily Show" would ever allow the sins that have been exposed thus far to go unpunished. They don't exist because they're partisan. They exist because they're funny and good at what they do. They were just really fortunate to have so much absurdity to cover over the last 8 years at the hand of the so-called "conservatives". They wouldn't be around long if it was an overtly partisan show and they know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I haven't watched it since the beginning of the year (my schedule has been crazy) but I doubt "The Daily Show" would ever allow the sins that have been exposed thus far to go unpunished. They don't exist because they're partisan. They exist because they're funny and good at what they do. They were just really fortunate to have so much absurdity to cover over the last 8 years at the hand of the so-called "conservatives". They wouldn't be around long if it was an overtly partisan show and they know it. My 2 favs are from the inauguration. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...efest-09-obamas http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...bamas-inaugural The second is a direct pop on Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 My 2 favs are from the inauguration. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...efest-09-obamas http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...bamas-inaugural The second is a direct pop on Obama. I'm getting "404 not found", for both links. EDIT: They seem to be working, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 My favorite bit about John Stewart is he admits he is an entertainer, in fact he uses it as a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm getting "404 not found", for both links. I had a similar experience when I emailed Obama's Blackberry asking for examples of the Change We Need to Believe In Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I had a similar experience when I emailed Obama's Blackberry asking for examples of the Change We Need to Believe In Well, maybe, like the links above, you just have to give it some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well, maybe, like the links above, you just have to give it some time. Dude I gave it plenty of time. I emailed Obama and got all kinds of responses. The MILFs and co-ed responses were a nice touch but, uh wait a second. Did I email Obama or Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Suggesting that someone, or some institution, is playing a role in the current crises is quite a bit different than suggesting they are responsible for a person losing money. But, again, I'm still bewildered why you decided to take a shot at Stewart, instead of giving him a pat on the back, here. You called them guilty in this economic debacle. In this debacle people have lost money. So you said they're guilty of people losing money. So if that's not what you're saying I'm not sure what you're saying and maybe neither are you. Now once again show me where I took a shot at Stewart other that asking where he was during the bull market. But if it will make you happy, here you go. Gee that John Stewart did a hell of a job exposing a schmuck. There you feel better? Because I really want to make sure you're not upset with me. Now the real reason I didn't give Stewart a pat on the back is because I didn't think it was necessary to do that because it was done quite well by others in this thread. I don't have to jump on the wagon with everyone else in a thread. I wanted to bring my thoughts on Cramer into it. I mean the thread was about him too wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 You called them guilty in this economic debacle. In this debacle people have lost money. So you said they're guilty of people losing money. Socrates, you are not. Not only have you misquoted me, but your logic is flawed. Otherwise, carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Socrates, you are not. Not only have you misquoted me, but your logic is flawed. Otherwise, carry on... Misquoted? No trying to interpret what you said. You wrote: Anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged. Ok so if someone is deranged for thinking they are innocent more than implies you feel they're guilty. Guilty of what? Well I'm not sure but according to your quote they're guilty of something in this current economic debacle. Well let's see what this current economic debacle is. One of many things going on is people have lost money. So in your mind CNBC is guilty of causing people losing money. Now you may say that I'm twisting your words but Dean, I know you well enough to make a safe assumption that that is what you're thinking. That CNBC (and hence Cramer) is guilty of causing people to lose money. Admit it that's what you think and trying to hide from that isn't working. Now listen man, there is nothing wrong with that line of thinking because to an extent they fueled the fire. But the media always has and always will. My contention in the thread and for the fifth time is that if you base your investment decisions on a recommendation from a guy on a television show called MAD Money it is mostly your own fault. Oh and the John Stewart guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Speaking truth to authority, the Shakespearean fool, John Stewart using his comedy platform to expose bullshi-t when it happens, all these things are the same. You write off what he did because he's on Comedy Central. But if HE'S not going to call out the media and journalists for sucking at their jobs, WHO IS? And do you think if there WAS somebody making declarations and holding the media in check (lord knows they're not part of the ACTUAL media), that they have even a FRACTION of the audience Stewart does? Wait a second...and Im NOT tryoing to be a dick here....seriously. You CANT profess the importance of guys like Stewart and say they are speaking "truth to power" one minute and then the next, write them off as "satire." Which one is it? IS he a man to be taken seriously or is he a jester? He CANNOT be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 You CANT profess the importance of guys like Stewart and say they are speaking "truth to power" one minute and then the next, write them off as "satire." Are you really this stupid? Since when is "speaking truth to power" and satire mutually exclusive? Perhaps you need to learn the definition of satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Are you really this stupid? Since when is "speaking truth to power" and satire mutually exclusive? Perhaps you need to learn the definition of satire. They are not. But in this day and age of cable news, you have the pure news reporting shows, the commentary shows and then sometimes a hybrid. But they USUALLY dont intertwine. BC was stressing the "importance of Comedy Central and IMO raising them to the level of a pure news network. Which IMO, you cant do. Perhaps you need to lean the defenition of shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Perhaps you need to lean the defenition of shut the !@#$ up. And the definition of "defenition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Which one is it? IS he a man to be taken seriously or is he a jester? He CANNOT be both. Why not? A guy like Rush is almost precisely Stewart's Right Wing analog. Both shows are mostly about having fun at the expense of politicians. But both shows also have a serious undertone; concern about the state of certain aspects of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts