Reply With Quote
He was responding to this poor bas i think.
I'm not defending him.
No lo estoy defendiendo.
He was responding to this poor bas i think.
I guess my main issue with this is that I don't want hard-hitting investigative journalism in the venue of satirical comedy. Stewart said both he and Cramer were "Snake Oil salesmen", but that The Daily Show is labeled as such. I think Stewart is short selling himself. This interview took on a darker tone than your typical good-natured satire skit. Instead of laughing, I found myself grimacing and thinking, "wow, this guy is really ed".
Manny. I'm still NOT defending Cramer.
Then the question you should concerned with is not "why is Comedy Show Guy the one doing this kind of expose?", but "why isn't anyone else in the television media doing this kind of expose?"
That's a good question.
Any idea what the answer could be?
Should he? Darrin is at least being honest with his opinion and assertions.
Thats a lot more than some could say around here (not you in particular, Ink).
Exactly. And if thats Darrin's concern then I share it as I stated in my first posts. Its sad.
I think she is a bas ette . . .
If Cramer was caught off guard he's a ing idiot.
It was 100% clear to me watching the interview that he never had a clue what Stewart's actual argument was. Not even a little bit. I think that he genuinely thought it was all about what he before Bear Sterns tanked and that, therefore, all he'd have to do to rectify the situation is make nice for a few minutes, joke around with Jon Stewart, assert his sincere wish to do right, and offer a few empty apologies for making a mistake.
I could care less about Jim Cramer and I think Stewart is an idiot. What I was saying is that nobody really cared about Jim Cramer - you either liked him or you didn't. It wasn't until he publicly criticized Obama's economic policies that these people went after him.
I think Cramer was surprised because he thinks of himself as "one of them" and couldn't believe a fellow democrat would turn on him so viciously.
Cramer: Me, Me, Me, Me
Stewart: It's not about you, you ing moron. Roll 212.
TDS didn't go after Cramer. It was a critique on CNBC. That egotistical bas couldn't let some criticism go and created this whole storm involving himself.
Stewart didn't go for him initially, if u watched the show it would be clear. He was just the dumb standing up and objecting after Stewart did a bit about his entire network. What prompted the first assault was a guy named Santinelli ( or something like that)-who works for the same network Cramer does- calling people loosers for getting caught in the realestate collapse. Stewart just showed what the people inside the network were saying months before the implosion, and Cramer was one of those people that was featured.
Wether Cramer is a criminal or not, but when did people decide to actually care about Cramer's violation?
It's an honest awnser.
Stewarts attack was two pronged, he say's that CNBC was too pessimistic and contributed to the situation we're in, and then he said they were too optimistic.
I only watch clips from the show, can anyone fill me in what was the whole argument.
Something that ends with "?" probably doesnt classify as an answer. But if i try to answer your answer, people don't give a , never did, never really will. It was just pleasing to see him exposed as an acna that he is, that's all.
The pesimism piece was in another segment, dont know if it was the same show ( not sure). It was a response to the Obama criticism, that he was too pesimistic when he talked about the economic situation and its prospects.
Stewart just showed a few networks (that were accusing Obama of beeing too bleak and therefore bad for Wall street, etc..) serving their audience the same pesimistic bs.
The point was hardly, be less pesimistic and lie to us (like Cramer was arguably doing)---it was, this is how things are now, that's all. If the networks want to accuse Obama of pesimism, let them at least not spread it themselfs.
i meant question.
Sorry to jump on a typo then.
On NPR tonight they talked about this. They focused on whether or not the business media really slacked in informing us about the dangers of what was going on, and what is going on as it develops. They played clips. But it was ironic how they played only the clips of Stewart saying CNBC pretends to do enlighten people with its shows, and actually doesn't do that. The irony comes in where they totally ignore and did not play the clips where Cramer said he was breaking rules and where Stewart burns him on that.
Man, the more I watch that interview the more I cringe. I'm convinced the dude had absolutely no clue what was going to happen to him...
I guess we live in a world where people continue to defend the guy for being unprepared. Cramer is supposed to be the expert, and he just sat there dumb-founded, having assumed that Stewart was an ignorant buffoon. As one commentary said- the comedian was more of a journalist than the supposed journalist. Basically, Cramer was like all bullies- he backed down when confronted.
*the comedian has a writing staff which do all the research.
Cramer has people too. That's who got him on the Martha Stewart show.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
