Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Stewart Crushes CNBC

Recs

13

March 09, 2009 – Comments (8) | RELATED TICKERS: CN , BC

Now this is some pretty funny stuff.

Deej

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 09, 2009 at 6:16 AM, TMFDeej (99.46) wrote:

I absolutely hate Kudlow, Cramer and Slow Money, but in the interest of full disclosure I actually like Joe Kernan and Carl Quintanilla.  They both come across as likable, funny guys who one would want to have a beer with.

Deej

Report this comment
#2) On March 09, 2009 at 7:29 AM, BGriffinFlorida (25.98) wrote:

TMFDeej,

I agree generally with your comment.  But your last line made me throw up a little in the back of my mouth. 

I'm back after brushing my teeth.  I just want to make you aware of the reaction you may cause in some of us who are not ready to forget what mistakes brought us to this point..

I doubt I am alone, in feeling that rating someones professional aptitude as acceptable because they 'come across as likable, funny guys who one would want to have a beer with'  is a major reason our nation is in this horrendous predicament.

One of the lessons we need never forget is:

>>>Regardless of how much fun you might have drinking with a retarded cowboy, 

if you think he is a good candidate for a position of authority,

then you are not yet sober enough to vote',<<<</em>

Report this comment
#3) On March 09, 2009 at 7:46 AM, TMFDeej (99.46) wrote:

Why would the fact that I think that Carl and Joe are funny "reporters" and that they seem cool make you want to puke.  I like Tom Brokaw and would love to hang out with him as well.  Same with Jon Stewart.  Does that make you feel sick? 

I'd love to hang out with Trish Regan and some of those hot talking heads that they have on HLN as well. 

THESE PEOPLE ARE ENTERTAINMENT.  THEY ARE NOT "People of authority." 

They're talking heads doing what they get paid to do. Nothing more.

If you or anyone else truly takes investment advice that they hear on CNBC seriously then you get what you deserve.

What a huge absurd leap to say that our nation is in the terrible shape that it's in right now because of a couple of anchors on television.  Perhaps that's not what you were saying.  Correct me if I am wrong.

I'd love to see who you voted for.  Me, I couldn't stomach voting for either candidate this time around.  I would have voted for a third party if there was a legitimate candidate, but there was not.

Deej

Report this comment
#4) On March 09, 2009 at 8:12 AM, dp23peace (< 20) wrote:

2010 Follow up interview:   CQ: "Stanford, one question before I let you go...is it fun being a prisoner?"  Just then his large boyfriend grabs him by the collar and says 'it's time'.  As he is being dragged away he replies to the question; "no, no it's not."

 

 

Report this comment
#5) On March 09, 2009 at 8:30 AM, CycleFreak7 (22.66) wrote:

I love Stewart's show (and Colbert's also). Watch them daily. CNBC is not something I want to defend, but those clips were taken out of context. Also, the information reported was what the companies were telling them.  The silly softball questions lobbed at Thain and Stanford were truly worthy of ridicule though.

As much as I enjoy the show, however, Stewart's sycophantic love affair with Obama is starting to really get to me. Had Bush shoved through the massive spending bill that the (fake) stimulus represents, he would have been skewering that administration non-stop.  So far? Barely a mention.

Obama states that 35 - 40,000 troops will remain in Iraq well into 2011. Stewar'ts reaction? He compares past speeches from Bush with Obama's and differentiates on one word. Hardly a harsh (or, actually, funny) treatment.

I am not sure how long it will take, but I can see it beginning already. Obama's promoted-by-the-media status is falling apart. As well it should.

Face it Stewart, you are much funnier tearing our fumbling politicians to pieces. 

Report this comment
#6) On March 09, 2009 at 10:10 AM, outoffocus (23.66) wrote:

What a huge absurd leap to say that our nation is in the terrible shape that it's in right now because of a couple of anchors on television.  Perhaps that's not what you were saying.  Correct me if I am wrong.

I believe what BGriffin is implying is that we elected a president because he seemed like someone we'd "like to have a beer with", which is not a good reason to vote for someone.  We should elect leaders based on their ability to lead, not to drink.

Report this comment
#7) On March 09, 2009 at 11:09 AM, TMFDeej (99.46) wrote:

I suppose that might be what he meant, outoffocus, but that certainly isn't what he said.  He specifically criticized my post because I said that I liked the Squawk Box anchors and would want to have a drink with them.  They hardly are elected officials.  Far from it.  I'd love to have a beer with McCain and Obama, too but I didn't vote for either of them.

Deej

Report this comment
#8) On March 09, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Merlyn144 (29.50) wrote:

"CNBC is not something I want to defend, but those clips were taken out of context."

CycleFreak7, most of Jon Stewart's clips are taken out of context.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement