[danthedart]

[quote=SD Transplant]Dan,

I was hoping you were just joking during your first comments, but I see you’re defending Cramer all the way. I don’t watch Cramer’s show much, but I’ve seen it a few times. Come on…..Cramer is a tool, and he got called/caught in a funny skeet because his big mouth coudn’t take a comediant’s criticism. He could bearly keep a straight face when Stewart provided great evidence during the 2006 shady advise on hedge funds (manipulate the sheeple). He’s just a puppet for the many CEOs he has been interviewing..

Whom do you preffer? Steward being funny (maybe annoying to some) or Kramer the finacial advisor/trader and screwing people with his idiotic advice?[/quote]

Cramer was wrong. I’m not defending him about that. He runs an entertainment TV show. Stewart? He does the same. They both run snake oil operations right? But Cramer is the one pretending to be serious and Stewart is the one who admits he’s not serious? That’s what I have a problem with.

NOW Cramer is the one who is admitting he’s an entertainer and NOW Stewart is the one trying to make a serious critique and do “investigative journalism” some peoples words. ITS NOT. That’s what I have a problem with. Don’t eat up everything Stewart is saying just because he’s a funny guy.

He’s not making a serious critique. Nothing he has said gets to the root of ANY problem. He has VERY little understanding of the economy and how we got here. The easiest thing for him to do is blame CNBC because they are visible. It’s a BLAME GAME. We love to see a lynching.

The rest of us cheer him on because we want someone to blame. I don’t care for Cramer. I don’t like his predictions and how many times he called a housing bottom… but Stewart is doing the ABSOLUTE same thing. The difference?

Stewart is a hero in your eyes and Cramer is a villian.

They’re BOTH snake oil salesman and NO Stewart doesn’t come clean with that, not on last nights episode anyway. He pretends that or thinks that he’s making a serious critique when he has 0 substance.

[danthedart]

He’s making a serious critique at CNBC and Cramer?

If this is a serious critique, its really flawed. We have to rehash the same argument again. Again, who would blame CNBC and Cramer for this economic crisis? Why single them out? I don’t consider that a serious critique. I consider that a ratings play.

Cramer is an easy target. He made bad stock picks on TV. Stewart got him on the show to humiliate him, and he did it. So what? That doesn’t mean he has a serious critique of anything. That doesn’t mean that Stewart knows anything about investing or how the market works.

All he knows is that Cramer was wrong…and Stewart is quick enough and witty enough and funny enough to blast Cramer into the ground.

[danthedart]

He’s making a serious critique at CNBC and Cramer?

If this is a serious critique, its really flawed. We have to rehash the same argument again. Again, who would blame CNBC and Cramer for this economic crisis? Why single them out? I don’t consider that a serious critique. I consider that a ratings play.

Cramer is an easy target. He made bad stock picks on TV. Stewart got him on the show to humiliate him, and he did it. So what? That doesn’t mean he has a serious critique of anything. That doesn’t mean that Stewart knows anything about investing or how the market works.

All he knows is that Cramer was wrong…and Stewart is quick enough and witty enough and funny enough to blast Cramer into the ground.

[danthedart]

He’s making a serious critique at CNBC and Cramer?

If this is a serious critique, its really flawed. We have to rehash the same argument again. Again, who would blame CNBC and Cramer for this economic crisis? Why single them out? I don’t consider that a serious critique. I consider that a ratings play.

Cramer is an easy target. He made bad stock picks on TV. Stewart got him on the show to humiliate him, and he did it. So what? That doesn’t mean he has a serious critique of anything. That doesn’t mean that Stewart knows anything about investing or how the market works.

All he knows is that Cramer was wrong…and Stewart is quick enough and witty enough and funny enough to blast Cramer into the ground.

[danthedart]

He’s making a serious critique at CNBC and Cramer?

If this is a serious critique, its really flawed. We have to rehash the same argument again. Again, who would blame CNBC and Cramer for this economic crisis? Why single them out? I don’t consider that a serious critique. I consider that a ratings play.

Cramer is an easy target. He made bad stock picks on TV. Stewart got him on the show to humiliate him, and he did it. So what? That doesn’t mean he has a serious critique of anything. That doesn’t mean that Stewart knows anything about investing or how the market works.

All he knows is that Cramer was wrong…and Stewart is quick enough and witty enough and funny enough to blast Cramer into the ground.

[danthedart]

He’s making a serious critique at CNBC and Cramer?

If this is a serious critique, its really flawed. We have to rehash the same argument again. Again, who would blame CNBC and Cramer for this economic crisis? Why single them out? I don’t consider that a serious critique. I consider that a ratings play.

Cramer is an easy target. He made bad stock picks on TV. Stewart got him on the show to humiliate him, and he did it. So what? That doesn’t mean he has a serious critique of anything. That doesn’t mean that Stewart knows anything about investing or how the market works.

All he knows is that Cramer was wrong…and Stewart is quick enough and witty enough and funny enough to blast Cramer into the ground.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj][quote=danthedart] Stewart is just as much a snake as Cramer or any other entertainer is.

[/quote]

Yeah, but Stewart admits he’s a snake… IN THE INTERVIEW. In fact, I believe he says something on the order of, “Look, I sell snake oil here too, but that’s how I bill it – my show’s not meant to be taken seriously. You [Cramer, CNBC] market yourselves as serious.”

In other words, Stewart acknowledges that he’s nothing more than an entertainer and not to be taken seriously. Cramer and CNBC market themselves as “serious news.” When in fact they are not. They’re just entertainment. Not altogether too far removed from Jon Stewart, as things turn out. Oh the irony.[/quote]

Agreed… but the thing is that he’s being given so much credit for asking good questions. He says that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but people all over the media and some on this forum do take him seriously. Look at this:

“It’s easy to blow him off as a “comedian” but it says a lot when a “comedy” show asks more important questions than the “news” shows out there. It’s no wonder why the younger generations get their news from Stewart and Colbert rather than Blitzer, Williams, or Couric.”

You think nobody is taking him seriously?

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj][quote=danthedart] Stewart is just as much a snake as Cramer or any other entertainer is.

[/quote]

Yeah, but Stewart admits he’s a snake… IN THE INTERVIEW. In fact, I believe he says something on the order of, “Look, I sell snake oil here too, but that’s how I bill it – my show’s not meant to be taken seriously. You [Cramer, CNBC] market yourselves as serious.”

In other words, Stewart acknowledges that he’s nothing more than an entertainer and not to be taken seriously. Cramer and CNBC market themselves as “serious news.” When in fact they are not. They’re just entertainment. Not altogether too far removed from Jon Stewart, as things turn out. Oh the irony.[/quote]

Agreed… but the thing is that he’s being given so much credit for asking good questions. He says that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but people all over the media and some on this forum do take him seriously. Look at this:

“It’s easy to blow him off as a “comedian” but it says a lot when a “comedy” show asks more important questions than the “news” shows out there. It’s no wonder why the younger generations get their news from Stewart and Colbert rather than Blitzer, Williams, or Couric.”

You think nobody is taking him seriously?

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj][quote=danthedart] Stewart is just as much a snake as Cramer or any other entertainer is.

[/quote]

Yeah, but Stewart admits he’s a snake… IN THE INTERVIEW. In fact, I believe he says something on the order of, “Look, I sell snake oil here too, but that’s how I bill it – my show’s not meant to be taken seriously. You [Cramer, CNBC] market yourselves as serious.”

In other words, Stewart acknowledges that he’s nothing more than an entertainer and not to be taken seriously. Cramer and CNBC market themselves as “serious news.” When in fact they are not. They’re just entertainment. Not altogether too far removed from Jon Stewart, as things turn out. Oh the irony.[/quote]

Agreed… but the thing is that he’s being given so much credit for asking good questions. He says that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but people all over the media and some on this forum do take him seriously. Look at this:

“It’s easy to blow him off as a “comedian” but it says a lot when a “comedy” show asks more important questions than the “news” shows out there. It’s no wonder why the younger generations get their news from Stewart and Colbert rather than Blitzer, Williams, or Couric.”

You think nobody is taking him seriously?

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj][quote=danthedart] Stewart is just as much a snake as Cramer or any other entertainer is.

[/quote]

Yeah, but Stewart admits he’s a snake… IN THE INTERVIEW. In fact, I believe he says something on the order of, “Look, I sell snake oil here too, but that’s how I bill it – my show’s not meant to be taken seriously. You [Cramer, CNBC] market yourselves as serious.”

In other words, Stewart acknowledges that he’s nothing more than an entertainer and not to be taken seriously. Cramer and CNBC market themselves as “serious news.” When in fact they are not. They’re just entertainment. Not altogether too far removed from Jon Stewart, as things turn out. Oh the irony.[/quote]

Agreed… but the thing is that he’s being given so much credit for asking good questions. He says that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but people all over the media and some on this forum do take him seriously. Look at this:

“It’s easy to blow him off as a “comedian” but it says a lot when a “comedy” show asks more important questions than the “news” shows out there. It’s no wonder why the younger generations get their news from Stewart and Colbert rather than Blitzer, Williams, or Couric.”

You think nobody is taking him seriously?

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj][quote=danthedart] Stewart is just as much a snake as Cramer or any other entertainer is.

[/quote]

Yeah, but Stewart admits he’s a snake… IN THE INTERVIEW. In fact, I believe he says something on the order of, “Look, I sell snake oil here too, but that’s how I bill it – my show’s not meant to be taken seriously. You [Cramer, CNBC] market yourselves as serious.”

In other words, Stewart acknowledges that he’s nothing more than an entertainer and not to be taken seriously. Cramer and CNBC market themselves as “serious news.” When in fact they are not. They’re just entertainment. Not altogether too far removed from Jon Stewart, as things turn out. Oh the irony.[/quote]

Agreed… but the thing is that he’s being given so much credit for asking good questions. He says that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, but people all over the media and some on this forum do take him seriously. Look at this:

“It’s easy to blow him off as a “comedian” but it says a lot when a “comedy” show asks more important questions than the “news” shows out there. It’s no wonder why the younger generations get their news from Stewart and Colbert rather than Blitzer, Williams, or Couric.”

You think nobody is taking him seriously?

[danthedart]

[quote=afx114][quote=danthedart]Are you kidding me? Stewart skewered CNBC and Cramer before ANY of those TV appearances. Stewart provoked this to get ratings. You need to look at the context.[/quote]

And Stewart skewered CNBC (Cramer was just one of many skewees) because Santelli stood him up and left his show without a guest. You need to look at the context.
[/quote]

Yep, Stewart wanted to lay into somebody (to get ratings) and since he couldn’t get Santelli, he chose to provoke a fight with Cramer. Thanks for showing me the context.

[danthedart]

[quote=afx114][quote=danthedart]Are you kidding me? Stewart skewered CNBC and Cramer before ANY of those TV appearances. Stewart provoked this to get ratings. You need to look at the context.[/quote]

And Stewart skewered CNBC (Cramer was just one of many skewees) because Santelli stood him up and left his show without a guest. You need to look at the context.
[/quote]

Yep, Stewart wanted to lay into somebody (to get ratings) and since he couldn’t get Santelli, he chose to provoke a fight with Cramer. Thanks for showing me the context.

[danthedart]

[quote=afx114][quote=danthedart]Are you kidding me? Stewart skewered CNBC and Cramer before ANY of those TV appearances. Stewart provoked this to get ratings. You need to look at the context.[/quote]

And Stewart skewered CNBC (Cramer was just one of many skewees) because Santelli stood him up and left his show without a guest. You need to look at the context.
[/quote]

Yep, Stewart wanted to lay into somebody (to get ratings) and since he couldn’t get Santelli, he chose to provoke a fight with Cramer. Thanks for showing me the context.

[danthedart]

[quote=afx114][quote=danthedart]Are you kidding me? Stewart skewered CNBC and Cramer before ANY of those TV appearances. Stewart provoked this to get ratings. You need to look at the context.[/quote]

And Stewart skewered CNBC (Cramer was just one of many skewees) because Santelli stood him up and left his show without a guest. You need to look at the context.
[/quote]

Yep, Stewart wanted to lay into somebody (to get ratings) and since he couldn’t get Santelli, he chose to provoke a fight with Cramer. Thanks for showing me the context.

[Author]

Posts