http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/ ... interview/

Thoughts?

still don't know why other tv anchors would want to go on the daily show. Jon Stewart is an amazing debater and shuts them down. Cramer understood Stewarts point, that cnbc could have said something sooner. It was rather hilarious how badly Stewart had Cramer cornered on the hedge market part with clips of words from his own mouth.

Something funnier is how Jon Stewart took down Crossfire off the air by appearing on the Crossfire show a few years ago.

just watched the crossfire episode. so awesome.

The press' fabled "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" are secondary to its laziness and sensationalism biases.

Exactly. I cringe whenever a white woman is missing.

Just watched the unedited version last night. I really can't fathom why Cramer would agree to go on the show. He had to know he was walking into a buzz-saw. The only thing more mystifying is trying to understand why Cramer is still on TV. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone finds him remotely credible.

Indeed. That it was an actual cited reason why Crossfire was canceled is amazing

The idea of Jon Stewart reporting puzzles me.

1) He is an admitted socialist
2) He has stated time and time again that his reporting shouldn't be taken seriously
3) Americans take him seriously (albeit those of a certain age range)

Before I ever listen to someone's humor (humor has a habit of sucking people in), I read about their philosophy of politics and life. I can enjoy Jon Stewart's jokes because I refuse to take his political views seriously. I fear many Americans (especially after the Jim Cramer roast) will take his political views seriously because he makes them laugh.

Can you please show me where Jon Stewart has admitted to being a "socialist." This whole red scare crap resurgence is such a load.



Or it could be because Jon Stewart has more integrity and honesty in his pinky than 99% of so-called newsmen and women. Americans don't take his political views seriously b/c his funny - Americans are becoming more liberal, overall. And thank god for that. I mean it's a sad state of affairs when you hear more honest discussion of issues of economics, policy, social affairs, etc., on a freaking comedy show than on news outlets. Whatsmore, how do you explain comedians whose political views you agree with, that you find unfunny? Janeane Garafalo, for one, in my case.

also, and what law of nature says that just because somebody is funny they are not allowed to have political views much less ask real questions. It's not Jon Stewarts job to report financial news. However when he got an opportunity to say something, he spoke.

You know what... I can make an equally irrational statement:

If you are are religious in anyway, you should not be allowed to discuss politics.

That's just as absurd as saying because someone is in comedy they can't discuss finances.

Jon Stewart stated some of his political views during a Larry King Interview from 2000. You are looking for a comment by Stewart near the bottom of the page.

If you are accusing me of "red scare" then I would hope that Jon Stewart's own words will produce a future silence when I post about the problems/ills of socialism on this board and correctly label those who are socialists.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.00.html



I would like to know what you consider as criteria for labeling Stewart as displaying 99% more integrity and honesty than news reporters? Jon Stewart lost nothing by criticizing CNBC! Why? He is NOT a stock analyst or a reporter but yet he sets himself up as a pseudo-reporter by scewering them as if he is looking out for Americans. If/when Jon Stewart becomes either a stock analyst or a reporter and does a better job of it then you will have a clear comparison. If you want I can give you a criticism of Stewart to demonstate the clear double standard:

Example: Stewart said you can make 1 million dollars by trusting CNBC analysts if you first have 100 million dollars. The stock market declining by 50% since the middle of 2008 means a person with 100 million dollars would still have close to 50 million dollars in wealth. Was Jon Stewart lying with his statistical representation? Does he lack an adequate background in mathematics as he has made this gross error?

Jon Stewart is not held to the same standards and thus my example is moot. Stewart should not be taken serious as a reporter or political guru. However, he is being taken seriously (obviously you take him seriously) and he knows it.

Once again the correct manner in which to enjoy Jon Stewart is to appreciate him for his comedic genius but to ignore/reject his political and philosophical views.

Again your argument is utterly pointless and flawed. By your very same point you make about not taking Stewart seriously you also make this claim:

People who believe in Religion should not be taken seriously when talking about scientific facts in Global Warming. Their opinions simply don't matter.

You lose nothing by Criticizing Obama... WHY? Because your a person on the forums.

So, I shouldn't take anything you say seriously either. Because after all, if your not in the same arena as the people you critique you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Rick Santelli is a reporter. Why should I take his political and philosphical views seriously in matters of macro economics?


Again: Your entire argument is flawed. Just because somebody IS one thing. Does not mean they can NOT raise a valid point about ANOTHER thing. Just because one person is a republican, doesn't mean they won't have a great idea concerning Stem Cell Research. Just because a Teacher teaches Math DOES NOT mean that he doesn't have great ideas on Socialism.

And... for the last point. There is nothing wrong with Socialism. Country is already full of it and has been for centuries. We are a republic Bro. Republics + Socialism are like Chocolate and Peanut Butter. They go hand in hand as long as they stay out of each others sectors.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He also says he could be described as a Democrat or Independent. Funny how you're only throwing socialist around, though.

And, while you're at it, maybe you can tell me what qualifications Rush Limbaugh has and why all his followers accept what he has to say as being well-informed on any subject. Pshaw.

It would seem so. Especially when he makes statements like this.


Uh, just because you failed to recognize the hyperbole in that statement doesn't invalidate the joke.

I didn't make that point, you did! I think expressed idea or critiques by those who have a theological educational background should not be valued higher than those who have earned science degrees on matters of science. The reverse is true, I don't think scientists can claim to have a better understanding of theology than a theologian because they have a science degree. You can also factor in experience in a certain field as well. You would consider it absurd for Jon Stewart to be skewered by Jim Cramer or Rick Santelli on the art of telling a good joke but you have no problem buying into Jon Stewart's critique of their work. I saw several inadequacies in Jon Stewart's report and I also saw the big gaping problem of Jon Stewart not actually addressing their criticisms of the President's policies.



This is not the same as my criticisms of Jon Stewart. If I were criticizing his comedic value then you would have a valid point but that is not what I am criticizing.



You'll find no complaint from me concerning people having a brilliant idea in a seperate field of study or mastering two fields of study. I do take exception to the idea that someone having a vested interest in critiquing a field that they have little knowledge of and it being accepted as gospel truth without equal criticism. Jon Stewart's ideas have been embraced by the media and his blasting of Cramer and Santelli greatly valued not due to the logic of his argument or material but its comedic value. I would have far greater confidence in the expressed appreciation of Stewart's humor than that of "hey Stewart's right and Cramer is wrong." Cramer is wrong on what? Stock predictions? What stock predictions has Stewart made in the past year of value? Santelli is wrong on bailing out homeowners? What logic can be presented by Stewart demonstrating that bailing out homeowners would be of value to the country? What argument provided by Stewart can show that redistributing this wealth will cause current homeowners to pay their existing mortgages?



Socialism or rather socialists is/are a plague on society that seeks to enslave people making them dependants of the state. The ideas/values of freedom cannot co-exist with a government who owns the means of production (socialism) and values the collective society above that of the individual. I think the outrage over CEO pay is just one example that supports my view.