you missed jon stewart's point. Stewart was saying CNBC should be more responsible in their reporting and should NOT advertise themselves as financial wizards if all they really is a bunch of financial wizard wannabes.
why do act like you were just caught off guard by a hidden camara on your computer? and then can't figure out how to shut it down. the stuff in between was not as interesting.
It's not that he picked on CNBC for their inaccuracies you moron....he picked on Santelli's hypocritical statement where he called average Americans who bought mortgage in sub-prime losers for not being responsible while not understanding that it was the banks who screwed up and Santelli favored bank bailout...STFU
@StewieGriffin360 Stewart blamed Santelli for what Jim Cramer said, and mischaracterized Santelli's comments. In particular, Santelli did not support the bailout of the banks - his most often expressed advice is that the federal government needs to stop trying to manipulate the market and, above all, stop spending taxpayer dollars.
But Santelli is associated with the Tea Party. This means that Jon Stewart felt the need to attack him. Apparently the best he could manage was to lie about him.
You've nailed it buddy! I'm hardly a Cramer fan but after a day like today where Obama has cost the average Amercian an awful lot of money, maybe guys like Cramer and Stewart been seen only for what they are - entertainment. We should all be appauled at what is going on - Liberal or Democrat.
Oh, but it IS, the most... THE most... ridiculous thing you've watched. Your words. Thanks for the recognition. I achieve new milestones every day. Thanks for watching.
is this right wing fanatic a retard or what?...i mean seriously..you are defending a news corporation, with that said...HOW DUMB ARE YOU REALLY??...get your ass away from the tv and open your eyes. when was the last time ANY..i´ll say it again because you seem slow... ANYYYYYYY... political party in the U.S. has done anything for their own people?. say homelessness for an example.. billions for iraq but not even 10 billion to get rid of homelessness in this great country of ours?
continuing here.... or are you 1 of those self-serving individuals that say give me my share and F- the rest....because you sure look like own, and thats the disease thats tearing this country down so do us a favor and attract attention to the countless things worth making a sacrifice for instead of your enormous ego.
i can sort of agree with what your saying. but i dont know whether or not you watch CNBC alot, but i do, and i am able to wholeheartedly say that although they are wrong sometimes, ALOT of times they are right. theyre huans afterall. and not for nothing, jon stewart hasnt been correct in everything he has stated.
That is the whole rant. Santelli is an idealogue (he refers to himself as such). Stewart just doesn't like his ideology. Notice he used clips from OTHER commentators to discredit Santelli, commentators who Santelli has actually been very critical of like Cramer. Makes no sense. Not funny.
So...let me see if I get this correctly...he's bitching out to Stewart...to make his e-cock look bigger? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand why he's being so overly critical towards a COMEDIAN. Grow a fricken funnybone.
How does J. Kimmell get a show and j. stewart doesn't? Well... Stew is so obviously leaning in a liberal direction.; Somethinhg which is what is making Letterman unbearable these days.
Even Maher will never make it to primetime.
If stew want his late night bcast, he's gotta be more apolitical. Just the way it is.
Polarizing means cutting out audience and sponsors. Never works.
Well, I really don't think Stewart would really make the switch like that. He's a political observer, a satirical version of O'Reilly if you will.
What really made me laugh was that people were thinking that Stewart legitimately had an issue with CNBC, when REALLY, CNBC created an issue with Stewart by sicking Kramer on him.
And to those of you "die hard liberals" who thinks this guy should go fuck himself? ...Well, he's got the right to, so...go fuck yourself.
Well, really stewart began the attack. first by calling out Rick Santelli, and then CNBC as a whole. Cramer decided to go after Stewart out of his own will for defending a colleague and the company for which he works.
Well, Santelli wasn't solely blaming homeowners. His comments dealt with a proposed plan to bailout irresponsible mortgage takers. His problem with the plan was that it would then spur people to default on homeloans b/c they would get bailed out. As far as the donharrold video, i just saw the one where he trashed Cramer about his advice on Bear Sterns. Cramer WAS right, and he is still right. If you had money in a Sterns account it would be safe (i.e. JPMorganbuy out). wasnt talkin about stocks.
Stewarts comments werent on the whole santelli thing, it was about the calling homeowners irresponsible for not forseeing this ''act of god''. Even most of the best economics in the world didnt see it coming, so calling it an act of god is in place here. Stewart showed that either the economics at cnbc are bad for not forseeing this clear crisis. Or the homeowners couldnt foresee this, even if they watched cnbc all the time.
Homeowners didnt need to foresee anything to act responsibly. Whether or not you foresee anything, doesnt constitute responsibility. Responsibility rests on controlling all aspects of your life. Simply relying on forever rising housing prices to be able to pay a loan is irresponsible. They should have said "i cannot afford this normally, so i wont buy." Responsible=saving for a rainy day. Irresponsible=buying something you cant afford. And actually, alot of people DID see it coming.
Who saw it coming beforehand? After every big event there are hundreds of people who said ''I told you so''. But who was speaking out on it clearly, beforehand.
And for the standard storie of a lot of homeowners see: watch?v=5iZBRrP5J5Q
Alot of hedgefund owners who placed bets against the rising housing market because they saw that it was not possible for it to continue. People who truly understood the rising economy saw the crisis coming; some didn't. But, the fact that some did, goes to show that it wasn't some out-of-nowhere event. It had causes that are clearly visible if you know where to look.
There are some many economics, someone is bound to predict the right move. And that some werent comfortable and lowered investments in certain areas out of procaution isnt realy that big of a deal. And did you watch the video, this isnt about highly educated fully informed top of the line, one in a million economics.
No they didn't just lower investments, they placed straight out bets that the market would fall. There is no way any market can rise so much so quickly and not come crashing down. And you're right: this isn't about top of the line economics. It is about the average person, who, no matter how you paint the picture, were irresponsible for living extremely far beyond their means and taking on as much risk as the irresponsible banks. They could have said no to the loan, but they didn't.
Call it whatever you want. Stewart implied "satirically" that Santelli's rant was about "homeowners" when it was about the Obama stimulus plan, not just the specifics but the entire ideology. Stewart's "satire" was inaccurate and misleading. Watch the UNEDITED Santelli clip and tell me what you don't agree with.
THANK YOU!!! i watched the santelli report LIVE, when he ripped up the paper that detailed obama's plan, etc. all santelli was sayin was that obamas plan wasnt very good. and like this dude said, stewart began to critisize CNBC for creating the allure of Fast Money. New Flash: if you invest solely on what cramer tell you 2 do, you 4got to read the disclaimer that CNBC posts that states you should consult you personal financial adivisor for you own sitiuation. FUCK JON STEWART!
haha this guy is killing me, I know you get all excited laying down the truth and what not, but you smack your lips constantly like a hooker begging for a cock
Murdoch owns the terrible news things that keep the world stupid (i.e. Fox News, NY Post, etc.). Credible sources like The New York Times, NBC and others are either independently owned (while publicly traded) or owned by Viacom.
It may not stand for "Crystal News Ball Corporation" but one sure as hell would not know it from all the BULLSHIT that comes out of their mouths. CNBC always claim to know what's going on. No you should not buy stocks cause CNBC says so. Unfortunately due to all the CEO reach arounds seen on CNBC others do making the market unstable and something that should be avoided by all but gamblers.
To people looking to CNBC for advise, They don't think the market has ever made a mistake. 1 fucking star
Wrong! CNBC is a stock ticker/financial news station. They report accurate stock quotes in a timely manner. Yes, occaisoionally they report advice for investors, but you're not supposed to take everyones adivce. their advice is merely an extra perk, water-cooler type reporting that one should take with a grain of salt and CONSULT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR for your personal investments. CNBC is a new channel for day traders and brokers on Wall St. to know what they should invest in.
He knows exactly what he is talking about. He is showing what a hypocrit santelli is by saying that the houseowners should have seen the crisis coming, while cnbc experts didnt.
stop taking stewarts words as fact. I saw the santelli report LIVE on CNBC. what he said was that obamas plan to bail out irresponsible loanees was unfair for those who have been paying their mortgages. he never said that thy should have seen it coming. he said that they should have never taken out a loan they knew they were never going to pay. and guess what: CNBC has been just as critical of irresponsible banks as they are of irresponsible loan takers.
The home owners relied on rising or not dropping house prices. He blames them for not seeing this crisis coming, because only with this crisis they got in trouble, that are not stewarts words but santellis.
if homeowners relied on that they are RETARDED!!! no market, none. i repeat: NONE has ever risen so much in such a short amount of time and not collapsed. EVER. and santelli DIDNT say that. his major problem was obamas plan of bailing out irresponsible loan takers (sub prime borrowers) with otherwise responsible mortgage holders' tax money. santelli never said that home owners shouldve seen the crisis coming. he was simply saying that no matter what u dont take out a loan u can pay bak.
What this is about is if homeowners where irresponsible. Homeowners where only irresponsible if they could know that they wouldnt be able to pay of the loans and they still toke them. Then they would only be irresponsible if they could see this crisis coming (because only such a crisis could drop the house prices so much that they got in trouble). CNBC reported contandly that the crisis wasnt so bad, even they didnt see the crisis coming...
no. homeowners that took on loans WAY out of their income potential are irresponsible. this crisis errupted when irresponsible banks/mortgage companies began handing out loans w/ stated income rather than actual income. basically the lender would give you a form and tell you to write down how much you made. you would say that you made $1 million. and they wouldnt care to investigate what you actually made just so the loan would get pushed through thus irresponsible mortgage takers aka liars
Wonder why nobody got in trouble before the crisis and the system worked fine? That because they could pay of the loan AS LONG AS THE PRICES ROSE. As long as the house prices didnt drop they where fine and there was no problem. The problem came when THE HOUSE PRICES DROPPED. Then AND ONLY THEN they couldnt pay anymore. Thats what this is about and thats why stewarts point is so valid.
Your exactly right. except your also not. housing prices began falling because people began to not be able to pay their mortgages because they were living beyond their means. making $30,000/year is not enough to pay off a $1 million mortgage. once foreclosures began rising, housing fell and the "house of cards" began tubling. it was an extremely vulnerable system; a bubble was created. the bubble burst around early 2007 and the we saw the effects of a burst housing bubble in august of 2007.
Yes it was a buble, created by goverment stimalances and banks taking to much risks and not informing their clients enough (sure you can get a loan that high, it wont be a problem). Blaming homeowners here is hypocritical for santelli, as cnbc didnt see the crisis coming. And what amount you can responsibly loan depends on housing prices, if they go down, what you can afford for a loan also goes down, however the actual loan doesnt.
well no the bubble wasnt created b/c banks took toom much risk. too much risk was a result of a bubble and lack of diversification of assets. and santelli never solely blamed homeowners, he just merely pointed out that they too were at fault. and loaning responsibility has nothing to do with prices. it has to do with ability to repay. trying to repay a mortgage with money taken from refinancing a mortgages (only possible is prices ^) is utterly irresponsible for loaness, like lie about income
Both can only be done with banks help and they where the experts here. And again, only irresponsible if the housing market collapsed, which nobody expected. Thats the point.
Expecting the worst means buying houses a lot cheaper than you can do responsibly or not buying one at all. The reason people chose to do it is mainly because the banks needed to sell mortages. Remember, we are talking here about the high school drop-outs so the speak. They barly know anything about housing markets, they know that when ''bank people'' tell them they can loan that much, they can. That why the banks carry the blame, not the high school drop-outs.
okay, thats your point well it's wrong. It is irresponsible because they (homeowners) lied and the banks didn't care. Basing your ability to pay off a house simply on rising house prices is a failure to properly diversify and have a "rain day fund" thus, irresponsible.
They usually (cant speak for all of them) didnt lied, they had unstable incomes or were on welfare, when they have the max they can get because of bad banks getting them loans (and getting bonusses for themselves) only the slightest drops of housingprices or income makes them lose their house.
Actually ALL of the sub-prime mortgages were based on people who didnt deserve them b/c they lied about the true amount they made. If they had unstable income, they reported stable, high income, aka LIES. the banks geave them loans for bad reason, hoping that they'd be able to make $ 4ever. and if you rely on keeping a house solely on hopes of a market that never drops, even slightly, you are irresponsible. the whole bonus issue, is a different argument that has no basis in this one
Im not talking about rich bankers, im talking about the middle man on the street who gets payed (extra) for each mortage he sells. Sure, some people reported wrong incomes, but these people werent encouraged to check it by their pay system. Even if they suspected it, it would cost them money.
oh in that case then yes. that goes to show the irresponsibilty that the banks had. 100% irresponsible for creating, selling and pushed mortgages w/o checking income. but mortgage takers who lied about income and thus made mortgages sub-prime and risky are irresponsible since they shouldnt have accepted a mortgage in any way, shape or form. just b/c the bank sells it, doesnt mean you have to buy it
everything you just wrote is the epitome of being irresponsible other than "get a house by getting a mortgage." bottom line is that they lied (irresponsible, unethical), relied on what someone else told them not on research done by them(irresponsible), and are "excused" from any wrong doing because theyre "drop outs" (i.e. they werent responsible enough to finish). if they didnt have sufficient knowledge of how 2 buy a house, they shouldnt have bought one.
Most of them didnt even lie, thats the point. Most of those salesmen were happy to give out loans to anyone who they could talk into. Thats because of those bonusses. How should they know what that person has in bonusses or how reliable that person is. If you have an (below) avarage, lets say, IQ thats not the kind of thing you automaticly do, checking everything out.
They were definetly foolish, but not irresponsible and you cant forbid them to make large purcheases.
but you see most of them did actually lie. stated income loans were the majority during the housing boom. and i restate one of my points: if you don't understand the housing market/loan systems, i.e. have a low IQ, then you shouldnt get involved with buying a home. and the thing is that most these people didnt have low IQs they had average IQs. and another thing, foolishiness is irresponsibility without action. they took the loan (action), thus weere irresponsible
So your saying, we should forbid stupid people from buying houses? The only way to make that possible is to burn the constitution. And even then, having to fill in a iq test before every mortage sale...
no, i will never forbid anyone for entering the marketplace as i am a true capitalist. however, as a true capitalist you should be willing to face consequences for your failed actions. mortgage takers who defaulted failed in their enternace to the marketplace, so they should face the fact that they, too were irresponsible. in a utopian world they woulndt even dare to enter into something they didnt understand. this is not a utopia.
The idea is that the homeowners arent responsible because this crisis is a (its a real legal term) ''act of god''. A crisis they couldnt have forseen and arent to blame for. For example a huricane, you dont say to the people in new orleans ''you should have build stronger houses''. Even the best economics in the world didnt see this crisis coming.
Okay, that "real legal term," though yes used in legal settings, has not been used to definitively describ this crisis. As a synonym, possibly. As far as the whole New Orleans thing, i would say that "No not stronger houses. But, stronger levees." They did know about possibilty of flooding, thus the city encircled by levees. Some did know about the possibility of levee failure; urged for better 1s. Just like some economists DID see a housing bubble w/ trillions of derivatives based on it.
And the result should have been that banking policy's should have stricted with regards to giving out loans and banks should have come clean in how much their exposed to this. That would have prevented this crisis.
LMFAO I think u have no idea what your talking about...
Last I check Clinton left a surplus and then your so called "conservative" Bush family spent our country into bankruptcy. If you can't see the NEO-cons drove our country into the dirty you are the moron. Look at you, I mean come on, I can tell you are not part of the 1% that made out over the last decade and raped the American economy
@imorio Actually I do know what he was talking about. TDS schtick is taking on the media... with humor, which is great. But when you take 'punch and jab' to crusade levels, you had better A. know what you're talking about and B. be prepared to go 'off-brand' from punch and jab. I don't think the Daily Show could do either. It's about crossing a line, setting standards for others that they would be challenged themselves to meet on a relevant, sustainable and credible basis.
RE: your supper- witty comment on Obama (Buddy can you spare some change- ha ha) Just curious- WTF do you right wing assholes suggest to fix the economy your dickhead overpriveleged GOP president left us- MORE TAX CUTS?? I'm willing to bet you grew up in the suburbs surrounded by similarly overpriveleged white boys. I bet you went to a fuckin fraterniity- you walking dittohead, pathetic CLICHE. Get a life.
Yes, I am sure Boondoggle had thought he was going to receive a round of virtual high-fives for posting a sloppy, snarky stab at Stewart. Whatever could possibly go wrong with such noble ambitions?
Anyway, the proverbial stop-watch has recorded the time of Boon's breakdown under all the unmanageable attention by threatening to close "this thing down tomorrow." Who had '7 Days'? You may collect your bet earnings now.
You are a complete putz. If I read your rationale correctly CNBC should not be watched, trusted or listened to by anyone. That was Jon Stewart's point; so you agree with him actually
The problem is CNBC are talking heads for wall street, and not reporting the truth to the American People, thats the point. They need to do there jobs, and stop being financial advisers if there only going to repeat the lies wallstreet tells them. Then have the nerve to get on tv us losers
CNBC claims that they have KNOWLEDGE (which was in their little slogan/commercial if you didn't notice) so people getting their information from a tv show were expecting so-called "experts" like Jim Cramer to actually know a little about the stock market. Also, CNBC was defending CEOs and hiding the truth about big business from its viewers, and it still wants to be seen as a credible news source??? Jon Stewart's attacks were, well, right on the money.
Just look at your comment. You're defending people who invested because of a commercial proclaiming CNBC had "knowledge." So this theoretical person sees this commercial than does everything that everyone on this station suggests? How stupid do you think people are?
Because, silly me, I expect journalists to be seeking the TRUTH!!
They're supposed to separate whats is BONAFIDE from what is BS. They're not supposed to be lackeys for big business and the government... It then ceases to be News and becomes Propaganda and Advertisement. There is a distinct difference. You obviously don't get it, again.
pretty lame and dense commentary. CNBC proclaims its status as an informed source for financial information. I doubt very seriously that you or your "research" does better than them.
I take it Obama isn't your "pal". Too bad, he's ours, and he won.
I have always wanted to know what a youtube video would look like when authored by Jon Stewart......that is, if he lacked basic comedic timing, demonstrated an unsureness of his own punchlines, and had his inability to grasp the concept of satire-versus-news overshadowed only by his embarrassingly inept yet blatant attempts to hide his video posting regret with self deprecation.
We look forward to being underwhelmed by your insight on current events again, soon.
You are full of it...We know who the crooks are...we know who caused this debacle...we know who the demogogues are who blame unqualified homeowners. The fix was in from the beginning...as long as investors were buying the bad securities, everything was fine. Santelli is a self-righteous prick.
Wow Boondoggle. You're so insightfuls. So...Let me make sure I got this; I shouldn't base my opinion on a TV show, but I SHOULD base my opinion on a YouTube video broadcast by some Santorum swallowing breast-feeder going;
Yeah, too bad Obama didn't continue to deregulate the markets the way it's been done for the last thirty years so we could continue to have derivative trading that was really no more then a government endorsed ponzi scheme. What a shame. And the tax cuts for the top 1% were such a boon to the economy that we should have just placed the higher tax burden on the working and lower class. How could he have been so blind.
I lost no money in the stock market. But I find it hilarious that one commercial where they talk about .... Did you think retirement was going to be an express lane.... LOL Ya you all used to have commercials saying retiring was easy just call the money managers.
1:20!!! One Min and Twenty Sec!!!!!! That was 1:20 of my life I am never going to get back. Stupid post, and boy are a smug asshole or what? This has nothing to do with Jon Stewert or Jim Cramer, this is just about you being an ass I and I felt compelled to tell you that.
Well said. CNBC talks about the FINANCIAL MARKETS - so they will be wrong some of the time - it's just a mater of probability.
Picking some of the times they've been wrong and playing them in sequence is simply wrong and misleading. CNBC should air 20 jokes in a row when Jon Stewart wasn't funny (wouldn't be hard to find that footage - trust me)
You got it backwards: your boring video is a rant. Jon Stewart's take on CNBC was priceless comedy and naked truth. Nice view up your nostrils there. And gotta love the thin lipped mouthful of marbles/vacant self-satisfied expression. Your point? lay off poor little CNBC? Blame the president of 45 days? Lets be douches?
heres a question I'd like to ask. how are your stocks doing, boondoggle? are you as fucked as everybody else in the U.S? I hope not, because if you are I don't see a reason for anybody on the entire internet to give a fiddler's fuck about what you think. Unless you're giving the people concrete advice, shut the front door, will ya?
Oh..hello! Did you even watch the Daily Show segment? Jon Stewart didn't once mention his own personal financial investments -- or blame CNBC for any money that he personally lost from their crappy advice. His point was to call out CNBC for claiming to be experts on ecomony when they often get it wrong. The point was that shows like Fast Money, and Squawk Box ARE just TV shows and they shouldn't be held to the standard of being experts.
Also, if you supposedly watch everyday, then you would know that Jon Stewart has actually been critical of Obama at times .
On Inauguration Day he did a segment comparing Obama's rhetoric to Bush's, a comparison that didn't go over so well with his audience and actually made me a little sick to my stomach. Another was debating the actual meaning of "residual force" in Obama's Iraq plan.
CNBC has people that claim to be experts about the economy and wall street. Yet they had no idea what was coming or how bad it would be. Obviously they deserve the ridicule.
As for the bail outs, the repubs are the ones that started that with Bush's TARP program. Since repubs usually claim to be against that kind of thing, they deserve to be ridiculed about it as well.
The dems on the other hand tend to support stimulus packages and bailouts, so there was no surprise there.
Capitalism (read 'GREED') is what got us into this mess and frankly there should be no bailouts for anyone, either homeowners or banks. Let them all fry and the people who played by the rules can buy up the scraps. The liberals should not be blamed for bailouts since it is the conservative banker types who failed and are asking for the money. So how can conservatives ask for the money and then blame dems for giving it to them?
Wow. This is why America the great is now full of Americans the stupid. Liberal vs conservative... every issue, every time, every excuse. Dammit I really was hoping that McCain/Palin won just for this kinda stuff...
Left vs. Right,
Liberal vs Conservative.
White and black... its all the same fight isn't it?
Instead of the arguing why don't both parties in the good old USA suck it up, sit down and figure it out?
Prolly cause its better to keep idiots like this in their coffers and control...
Yeah CNBC got royally roasted, but if Steward had investigated a bit further, its Obama and his tax evading Fed Reserve Banker turned Treasurer who are enabling all these banks as badly as Bush ever did. Obama has already failed as a president, his cheerleaders just need to turn round and look at the scoreboard.
Marxists like Stewart dont have a problem with CNBC until he turns on the messiah. Santelli is a great American. Too bad most Americans think the garbage coming from Stewarts show is real news.
The evening news we 'old guys' grew up with, along with the morning paper, were businesses that sold advertising and subscriptions... and we bought it.
I have no idea what the great anchors would say about that, but I'll ask them if I get a chance to go to Evening News heaven; which would be hell because I'm really shooting to meet the anchors of Dream Trip Vacation News Heaven.
People can delete their own stuff. Review the comments and the ratings: I never delete or remove. I accept all comments... even though most comments seem to mysteriously contain the word 'douche'.... which is 'refreshing' but, not really the best sounding word.
john stewart is an idiot, obama isn't for change he's doing the same stuff bush did, only bigger. people think government spending is good for the economy, well bush spent more money than any other president in history so why isn't the economy any good??
Rick Santelli is a GREAT American and is dead on right, Stewart can go fuck himself
ok dumb dumb. If you say so. haha. Bush spent money on the war and "homeland defense." He almost brought public works projects and R&D to a grinding hault. That's the difference. And it is huge!
I'm afraid you missed the point my friend. This wasn't his rage at loosing personal money. How is it exactly that you can watch a man speak, then act as though you know his mind. You my friend are the one acting as though you have a crystal ball.
Its always a tip of when the nararator quickly identifies the sides but never focuses on the actual issues. The whole one side versus the other is silly seeing that its all mixed up anyway.
And this whole bail out thing was started by Bush then carried out by Obama. Its not a conservative or liberal play, its the only play left on the table.
Sir, you're retarded. First of all, how do you start with "oh hello?" Aren't you he one that pressed record? How were you surprised? haha. Second of all, if you watched, he was pointing out the hypocricy of Santelli being mad about homeowner bailouts and yelling that they were mad on Wall St. when they are receiving 50 times more money! Im pretty sure Mr. Stewart is financially secure. His MAIN point was that if you're sole purpose is to cover business matters, how do you miss so much fraud?
Oh, Hello. Thank you for responding. CNBC is not the Crystal News Ball Network. I'm pretty Crystal Clear about that. I think the Oh, Hello thing is pretty funny though, if not... "endearing"
you missed jon stewart's point. Stewart was saying CNBC should be more responsible in their reporting and should NOT advertise themselves as financial wizards if all they really is a bunch of financial wizard wannabes.
jaeg70 1 year ago
why do act like you were just caught off guard by a hidden camara on your computer? and then can't figure out how to shut it down. the stuff in between was not as interesting.
john48martin 1 year ago
It's not that he picked on CNBC for their inaccuracies you moron....he picked on Santelli's hypocritical statement where he called average Americans who bought mortgage in sub-prime losers for not being responsible while not understanding that it was the banks who screwed up and Santelli favored bank bailout...STFU
StewieGriffin360 1 year ago
@StewieGriffin360 What are you, his lawyer? Go back to slip and fall!
Boondoggle129 1 year ago
@StewieGriffin360 Stewart blamed Santelli for what Jim Cramer said, and mischaracterized Santelli's comments. In particular, Santelli did not support the bailout of the banks - his most often expressed advice is that the federal government needs to stop trying to manipulate the market and, above all, stop spending taxpayer dollars.
But Santelli is associated with the Tea Party. This means that Jon Stewart felt the need to attack him. Apparently the best he could manage was to lie about him.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@StewieGriffin360
Even though I think Santelli is a dick I'm pretty sure he was against the Bank bailout.
murdabitches 10 months ago
Are you stoned or just simple?
Dactuck 2 years ago
@Dactuck I'm not stoned or simple: I'm just awesome
Boondoggle129 1 year ago
You've nailed it buddy! I'm hardly a Cramer fan but after a day like today where Obama has cost the average Amercian an awful lot of money, maybe guys like Cramer and Stewart been seen only for what they are - entertainment. We should all be appauled at what is going on - Liberal or Democrat.
gniknerrad 2 years ago
Do you even watch CNBC? Its the biggest joke to watch.
Seems you live in your moms basement after watching cnbc
AmritSinghAuja 2 years ago
@AmritSinghAuja Mom won't let me live in her basement. Dad already lives there.
Boondoggle129 1 year ago
this is probably the most ridiculous thing ive watched.
and im not going to waste my time explaining why
wrm10290 2 years ago
Oh, but it IS, the most... THE most... ridiculous thing you've watched. Your words. Thanks for the recognition. I achieve new milestones every day. Thanks for watching.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
is this right wing fanatic a retard or what?...i mean seriously..you are defending a news corporation, with that said...HOW DUMB ARE YOU REALLY??...get your ass away from the tv and open your eyes. when was the last time ANY..i´ll say it again because you seem slow... ANYYYYYYY... political party in the U.S. has done anything for their own people?. say homelessness for an example.. billions for iraq but not even 10 billion to get rid of homelessness in this great country of ours?
Wisdom187 2 years ago
continuing here.... or are you 1 of those self-serving individuals that say give me my share and F- the rest....because you sure look like own, and thats the disease thats tearing this country down so do us a favor and attract attention to the countless things worth making a sacrifice for instead of your enormous ego.
Wisdom187 2 years ago
My God, you're annoying.
CNBC is the most worthless show on TV -- it should be called "Pompous, Incompetent Bores Are Us".
somersetdc 2 years ago 7
CNBC job is the report and analyzed business and economic news. They failed in their responsibility, that's why i agree with Jon
uzoma0024 2 years ago
i can sort of agree with what your saying. but i dont know whether or not you watch CNBC alot, but i do, and i am able to wholeheartedly say that although they are wrong sometimes, ALOT of times they are right. theyre huans afterall. and not for nothing, jon stewart hasnt been correct in everything he has stated.
tonytone73 2 years ago
dick
2JOAOJJJJ 2 years ago
go fuck yourself you condascending right wing douche bag.
manolonusa 2 years ago
Satire is only funny to me when it reveals truth.
watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA
That is the whole rant. Santelli is an idealogue (he refers to himself as such). Stewart just doesn't like his ideology. Notice he used clips from OTHER commentators to discredit Santelli, commentators who Santelli has actually been very critical of like Cramer. Makes no sense. Not funny.
cyberben3d 2 years ago
So...let me see if I get this correctly...he's bitching out to Stewart...to make his e-cock look bigger? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand why he's being so overly critical towards a COMEDIAN. Grow a fricken funnybone.
AnARSProductions 2 years ago
Stew was contemplating a run as a serious journalist, for a few days there. We could all tell.
The guy is as hilarious as hell and he somehow conveys being pissed about being on hulu and cable.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
How does J. Kimmell get a show and j. stewart doesn't? Well... Stew is so obviously leaning in a liberal direction.; Somethinhg which is what is making Letterman unbearable these days.
Even Maher will never make it to primetime.
If stew want his late night bcast, he's gotta be more apolitical. Just the way it is.
Polarizing means cutting out audience and sponsors. Never works.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Well, I really don't think Stewart would really make the switch like that. He's a political observer, a satirical version of O'Reilly if you will.
What really made me laugh was that people were thinking that Stewart legitimately had an issue with CNBC, when REALLY, CNBC created an issue with Stewart by sicking Kramer on him.
And to those of you "die hard liberals" who thinks this guy should go fuck himself? ...Well, he's got the right to, so...go fuck yourself.
AnARSProductions 2 years ago
Well, really stewart began the attack. first by calling out Rick Santelli, and then CNBC as a whole. Cramer decided to go after Stewart out of his own will for defending a colleague and the company for which he works.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Disputable, satelli blamed the homeowners, that can be seen as the first attack.
Also, ''donharrold'' as some youtube vids about cramer. He showed that cramers adviced A first and a week later called people who did A stupid.
imorio 2 years ago
Well, Santelli wasn't solely blaming homeowners. His comments dealt with a proposed plan to bailout irresponsible mortgage takers. His problem with the plan was that it would then spur people to default on homeloans b/c they would get bailed out. As far as the donharrold video, i just saw the one where he trashed Cramer about his advice on Bear Sterns. Cramer WAS right, and he is still right. If you had money in a Sterns account it would be safe (i.e. JPMorganbuy out). wasnt talkin about stocks.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Stewarts comments werent on the whole santelli thing, it was about the calling homeowners irresponsible for not forseeing this ''act of god''. Even most of the best economics in the world didnt see it coming, so calling it an act of god is in place here. Stewart showed that either the economics at cnbc are bad for not forseeing this clear crisis. Or the homeowners couldnt foresee this, even if they watched cnbc all the time.
imorio 2 years ago
Homeowners didnt need to foresee anything to act responsibly. Whether or not you foresee anything, doesnt constitute responsibility. Responsibility rests on controlling all aspects of your life. Simply relying on forever rising housing prices to be able to pay a loan is irresponsible. They should have said "i cannot afford this normally, so i wont buy." Responsible=saving for a rainy day. Irresponsible=buying something you cant afford. And actually, alot of people DID see it coming.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Who saw it coming beforehand? After every big event there are hundreds of people who said ''I told you so''. But who was speaking out on it clearly, beforehand.
And for the standard storie of a lot of homeowners see: watch?v=5iZBRrP5J5Q
imorio 2 years ago
Alot of hedgefund owners who placed bets against the rising housing market because they saw that it was not possible for it to continue. People who truly understood the rising economy saw the crisis coming; some didn't. But, the fact that some did, goes to show that it wasn't some out-of-nowhere event. It had causes that are clearly visible if you know where to look.
tonytone73 2 years ago
There are some many economics, someone is bound to predict the right move. And that some werent comfortable and lowered investments in certain areas out of procaution isnt realy that big of a deal. And did you watch the video, this isnt about highly educated fully informed top of the line, one in a million economics.
imorio 2 years ago
No they didn't just lower investments, they placed straight out bets that the market would fall. There is no way any market can rise so much so quickly and not come crashing down. And you're right: this isn't about top of the line economics. It is about the average person, who, no matter how you paint the picture, were irresponsible for living extremely far beyond their means and taking on as much risk as the irresponsible banks. They could have said no to the loan, but they didn't.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Call it whatever you want. Stewart implied "satirically" that Santelli's rant was about "homeowners" when it was about the Obama stimulus plan, not just the specifics but the entire ideology. Stewart's "satire" was inaccurate and misleading. Watch the UNEDITED Santelli clip and tell me what you don't agree with.
cyberben3d 2 years ago
WHere's the clip? Can you find it?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
THANK YOU!!! i watched the santelli report LIVE, when he ripped up the paper that detailed obama's plan, etc. all santelli was sayin was that obamas plan wasnt very good. and like this dude said, stewart began to critisize CNBC for creating the allure of Fast Money. New Flash: if you invest solely on what cramer tell you 2 do, you 4got to read the disclaimer that CNBC posts that states you should consult you personal financial adivisor for you own sitiuation. FUCK JON STEWART!
tonytone73 2 years ago
Comment removed
XDCAMTV 2 years ago
haha this guy is killing me, I know you get all excited laying down the truth and what not, but you smack your lips constantly like a hooker begging for a cock
dogshitninja 2 years ago
So, dogshit ninja, with what do people fight you, a pooper-scooper?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Dude, its just a comedy show, get over it.
Damento12 2 years ago
You're one of those clowns from the mentos ads, right?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
No, I am not. I'm just wondering why someone made a RE video about about a satirist....
Damento12 2 years ago
Like it matters Rupert Murdoch runs most of the major papers out there. I hope they fall!
SJSAVAGE666 2 years ago
Murdoch owns the terrible news things that keep the world stupid (i.e. Fox News, NY Post, etc.). Credible sources like The New York Times, NBC and others are either independently owned (while publicly traded) or owned by Viacom.
tonytone73 2 years ago
A prognosticator with a cowbell and an anchor with a fake news show divide the nation as the newspapers fall one by one...
Apocalyptic sounding, isn't it?
Doesn't it seem like the the next sentence here should be: "and Earth, Wind and Fire shall play in the house of a nation..."
This is getting creepy. (especially you SJSavage666)
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Just calling you on your BS. I am creepy. And you should be scared. Hope you never see me around....
Not to mention I live in Hollywood- so NBC is around the block. I'll keep an eye out, don't you worry
SJSAVAGE666 2 years ago
It may not stand for "Crystal News Ball Corporation" but one sure as hell would not know it from all the BULLSHIT that comes out of their mouths. CNBC always claim to know what's going on. No you should not buy stocks cause CNBC says so. Unfortunately due to all the CEO reach arounds seen on CNBC others do making the market unstable and something that should be avoided by all but gamblers.
To people looking to CNBC for advise, They don't think the market has ever made a mistake. 1 fucking star
stang661 2 years ago
CNBC has one purpose: Eye candy to make anyone nearby look like they're working. It's just a joy stick short of being a video game.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Wrong! CNBC is a stock ticker/financial news station. They report accurate stock quotes in a timely manner. Yes, occaisoionally they report advice for investors, but you're not supposed to take everyones adivce. their advice is merely an extra perk, water-cooler type reporting that one should take with a grain of salt and CONSULT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR for your personal investments. CNBC is a new channel for day traders and brokers on Wall St. to know what they should invest in.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Man, you really dont know what stewart was talking about, do you?
imorio 2 years ago 4
I think the problem is more that Stewart doesn't know what he's talking about.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
He knows exactly what he is talking about. He is showing what a hypocrit santelli is by saying that the houseowners should have seen the crisis coming, while cnbc experts didnt.
imorio 2 years ago
stop taking stewarts words as fact. I saw the santelli report LIVE on CNBC. what he said was that obamas plan to bail out irresponsible loanees was unfair for those who have been paying their mortgages. he never said that thy should have seen it coming. he said that they should have never taken out a loan they knew they were never going to pay. and guess what: CNBC has been just as critical of irresponsible banks as they are of irresponsible loan takers.
tonytone73 2 years ago
The home owners relied on rising or not dropping house prices. He blames them for not seeing this crisis coming, because only with this crisis they got in trouble, that are not stewarts words but santellis.
imorio 2 years ago
if homeowners relied on that they are RETARDED!!! no market, none. i repeat: NONE has ever risen so much in such a short amount of time and not collapsed. EVER. and santelli DIDNT say that. his major problem was obamas plan of bailing out irresponsible loan takers (sub prime borrowers) with otherwise responsible mortgage holders' tax money. santelli never said that home owners shouldve seen the crisis coming. he was simply saying that no matter what u dont take out a loan u can pay bak.
tonytone73 2 years ago
What this is about is if homeowners where irresponsible. Homeowners where only irresponsible if they could know that they wouldnt be able to pay of the loans and they still toke them. Then they would only be irresponsible if they could see this crisis coming (because only such a crisis could drop the house prices so much that they got in trouble). CNBC reported contandly that the crisis wasnt so bad, even they didnt see the crisis coming...
imorio 2 years ago
no. homeowners that took on loans WAY out of their income potential are irresponsible. this crisis errupted when irresponsible banks/mortgage companies began handing out loans w/ stated income rather than actual income. basically the lender would give you a form and tell you to write down how much you made. you would say that you made $1 million. and they wouldnt care to investigate what you actually made just so the loan would get pushed through thus irresponsible mortgage takers aka liars
tonytone73 2 years ago
Wonder why nobody got in trouble before the crisis and the system worked fine? That because they could pay of the loan AS LONG AS THE PRICES ROSE. As long as the house prices didnt drop they where fine and there was no problem. The problem came when THE HOUSE PRICES DROPPED. Then AND ONLY THEN they couldnt pay anymore. Thats what this is about and thats why stewarts point is so valid.
imorio 2 years ago
Your exactly right. except your also not. housing prices began falling because people began to not be able to pay their mortgages because they were living beyond their means. making $30,000/year is not enough to pay off a $1 million mortgage. once foreclosures began rising, housing fell and the "house of cards" began tubling. it was an extremely vulnerable system; a bubble was created. the bubble burst around early 2007 and the we saw the effects of a burst housing bubble in august of 2007.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Yes it was a buble, created by goverment stimalances and banks taking to much risks and not informing their clients enough (sure you can get a loan that high, it wont be a problem). Blaming homeowners here is hypocritical for santelli, as cnbc didnt see the crisis coming. And what amount you can responsibly loan depends on housing prices, if they go down, what you can afford for a loan also goes down, however the actual loan doesnt.
imorio 2 years ago
well no the bubble wasnt created b/c banks took toom much risk. too much risk was a result of a bubble and lack of diversification of assets. and santelli never solely blamed homeowners, he just merely pointed out that they too were at fault. and loaning responsibility has nothing to do with prices. it has to do with ability to repay. trying to repay a mortgage with money taken from refinancing a mortgages (only possible is prices ^) is utterly irresponsible for loaness, like lie about income
tonytone73 2 years ago
Both can only be done with banks help and they where the experts here. And again, only irresponsible if the housing market collapsed, which nobody expected. Thats the point.
imorio 2 years ago
No one expected? I bought a house expecting the worst. The worst came, and I'm fine.
Why couldn't the 8 million defaulters do the same?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Expecting the worst means buying houses a lot cheaper than you can do responsibly or not buying one at all. The reason people chose to do it is mainly because the banks needed to sell mortages. Remember, we are talking here about the high school drop-outs so the speak. They barly know anything about housing markets, they know that when ''bank people'' tell them they can loan that much, they can. That why the banks carry the blame, not the high school drop-outs.
imorio 2 years ago
okay, thats your point well it's wrong. It is irresponsible because they (homeowners) lied and the banks didn't care. Basing your ability to pay off a house simply on rising house prices is a failure to properly diversify and have a "rain day fund" thus, irresponsible.
tonytone73 2 years ago
They usually (cant speak for all of them) didnt lied, they had unstable incomes or were on welfare, when they have the max they can get because of bad banks getting them loans (and getting bonusses for themselves) only the slightest drops of housingprices or income makes them lose their house.
imorio 2 years ago
Actually ALL of the sub-prime mortgages were based on people who didnt deserve them b/c they lied about the true amount they made. If they had unstable income, they reported stable, high income, aka LIES. the banks geave them loans for bad reason, hoping that they'd be able to make $ 4ever. and if you rely on keeping a house solely on hopes of a market that never drops, even slightly, you are irresponsible. the whole bonus issue, is a different argument that has no basis in this one
tonytone73 2 years ago
Im not talking about rich bankers, im talking about the middle man on the street who gets payed (extra) for each mortage he sells. Sure, some people reported wrong incomes, but these people werent encouraged to check it by their pay system. Even if they suspected it, it would cost them money.
imorio 2 years ago
oh in that case then yes. that goes to show the irresponsibilty that the banks had. 100% irresponsible for creating, selling and pushed mortgages w/o checking income. but mortgage takers who lied about income and thus made mortgages sub-prime and risky are irresponsible since they shouldnt have accepted a mortgage in any way, shape or form. just b/c the bank sells it, doesnt mean you have to buy it
tonytone73 2 years ago
All they knew was:
1. We can get a house by getting a mortage
2. According to the ''bank man'' its safe.
These are high school drop outs we're talking about remember.
imorio 2 years ago
everything you just wrote is the epitome of being irresponsible other than "get a house by getting a mortgage." bottom line is that they lied (irresponsible, unethical), relied on what someone else told them not on research done by them(irresponsible), and are "excused" from any wrong doing because theyre "drop outs" (i.e. they werent responsible enough to finish). if they didnt have sufficient knowledge of how 2 buy a house, they shouldnt have bought one.
tonytone73 2 years ago
Most of them didnt even lie, thats the point. Most of those salesmen were happy to give out loans to anyone who they could talk into. Thats because of those bonusses. How should they know what that person has in bonusses or how reliable that person is. If you have an (below) avarage, lets say, IQ thats not the kind of thing you automaticly do, checking everything out.
They were definetly foolish, but not irresponsible and you cant forbid them to make large purcheases.
imorio 2 years ago
but you see most of them did actually lie. stated income loans were the majority during the housing boom. and i restate one of my points: if you don't understand the housing market/loan systems, i.e. have a low IQ, then you shouldnt get involved with buying a home. and the thing is that most these people didnt have low IQs they had average IQs. and another thing, foolishiness is irresponsibility without action. they took the loan (action), thus weere irresponsible
tonytone73 2 years ago
So your saying, we should forbid stupid people from buying houses? The only way to make that possible is to burn the constitution. And even then, having to fill in a iq test before every mortage sale...
imorio 2 years ago
no, i will never forbid anyone for entering the marketplace as i am a true capitalist. however, as a true capitalist you should be willing to face consequences for your failed actions. mortgage takers who defaulted failed in their enternace to the marketplace, so they should face the fact that they, too were irresponsible. in a utopian world they woulndt even dare to enter into something they didnt understand. this is not a utopia.
tonytone73 2 years ago
The idea is that the homeowners arent responsible because this crisis is a (its a real legal term) ''act of god''. A crisis they couldnt have forseen and arent to blame for. For example a huricane, you dont say to the people in new orleans ''you should have build stronger houses''. Even the best economics in the world didnt see this crisis coming.
imorio 2 years ago
Okay, that "real legal term," though yes used in legal settings, has not been used to definitively describ this crisis. As a synonym, possibly. As far as the whole New Orleans thing, i would say that "No not stronger houses. But, stronger levees." They did know about possibilty of flooding, thus the city encircled by levees. Some did know about the possibility of levee failure; urged for better 1s. Just like some economists DID see a housing bubble w/ trillions of derivatives based on it.
tonytone73 2 years ago
And the result should have been that banking policy's should have stricted with regards to giving out loans and banks should have come clean in how much their exposed to this. That would have prevented this crisis.
imorio 2 years ago
LMFAO I think u have no idea what your talking about...
Last I check Clinton left a surplus and then your so called "conservative" Bush family spent our country into bankruptcy. If you can't see the NEO-cons drove our country into the dirty you are the moron. Look at you, I mean come on, I can tell you are not part of the 1% that made out over the last decade and raped the American economy
SJSAVAGE666 2 years ago
@imorio Actually I do know what he was talking about. TDS schtick is taking on the media... with humor, which is great. But when you take 'punch and jab' to crusade levels, you had better A. know what you're talking about and B. be prepared to go 'off-brand' from punch and jab. I don't think the Daily Show could do either. It's about crossing a line, setting standards for others that they would be challenged themselves to meet on a relevant, sustainable and credible basis.
Boondoggle129 1 year ago
Well, why don't you tell us what the point is?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
RE: your supper- witty comment on Obama (Buddy can you spare some change- ha ha) Just curious- WTF do you right wing assholes suggest to fix the economy your dickhead overpriveleged GOP president left us- MORE TAX CUTS?? I'm willing to bet you grew up in the suburbs surrounded by similarly overpriveleged white boys. I bet you went to a fuckin fraterniity- you walking dittohead, pathetic CLICHE. Get a life.
bigdummysm 2 years ago
Yes, I am sure Boondoggle had thought he was going to receive a round of virtual high-fives for posting a sloppy, snarky stab at Stewart. Whatever could possibly go wrong with such noble ambitions?
Anyway, the proverbial stop-watch has recorded the time of Boon's breakdown under all the unmanageable attention by threatening to close "this thing down tomorrow." Who had '7 Days'? You may collect your bet earnings now.
1simulacrum 2 years ago
You are a complete putz. If I read your rationale correctly CNBC should not be watched, trusted or listened to by anyone. That was Jon Stewart's point; so you agree with him actually
krullican 2 years ago
wow...you're an idiot. your video was a complete waste of time.
btw...you should see a dr. about your peculiar mannerisms. im sorry if you have parkinsons.
txmoney 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this. Most of the comments below only go to prove how ignorant, misinformed, and simple Jon Stewart's message is.
rawbeezeitz 2 years ago
YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT, MORON!
awes1913 2 years ago
excellent counterpoint
rawbeezeitz 2 years ago
The problem is CNBC are talking heads for wall street, and not reporting the truth to the American People, thats the point. They need to do there jobs, and stop being financial advisers if there only going to repeat the lies wallstreet tells them. Then have the nerve to get on tv us losers
crazyriri1985 2 years ago
CNBC claims that they have KNOWLEDGE (which was in their little slogan/commercial if you didn't notice) so people getting their information from a tv show were expecting so-called "experts" like Jim Cramer to actually know a little about the stock market. Also, CNBC was defending CEOs and hiding the truth about big business from its viewers, and it still wants to be seen as a credible news source??? Jon Stewart's attacks were, well, right on the money.
WizardessAlyssa 2 years ago
Just look at your comment. You're defending people who invested because of a commercial proclaiming CNBC had "knowledge." So this theoretical person sees this commercial than does everything that everyone on this station suggests? How stupid do you think people are?
rawbeezeitz 2 years ago
Looks like this guy totally missed the point...
It isn't about having a 'crystal ball'!
Journalists are supposed to seek truth and do homework and expose lies! These crooks at CNBC were helping to conceal them from the general public.
Which is well and good, but they need to refrain from calling themselves a news network and admit they're a puppet for crooks on Wall St...
jlpcmg 2 years ago
WHy do you think that because something is on TV that it's real or bonafide?
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Real and Bonafide are the exact same thing you sound like an uneducated douche..
You think your so smart. Get a clue buddy
SJSAVAGE666 2 years ago
I'll take that advice or counsel. Thanks for the feedback or suggestion.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Because, silly me, I expect journalists to be seeking the TRUTH!!
They're supposed to separate whats is BONAFIDE from what is BS. They're not supposed to be lackeys for big business and the government... It then ceases to be News and becomes Propaganda and Advertisement. There is a distinct difference. You obviously don't get it, again.
jlpcmg 2 years ago
i'm 36 seconds into this and this guy has already made a clown of himself. let's see how this pans out...
[PLAY]
longbeach156 2 years ago
oops! looks like it goes nowhere worthwhile. thanks for dogging us on for 1:20...
longbeach156 2 years ago
This guy is such a dumbass it's actually pretty funny
SJSAVAGE666 2 years ago
Another well constructed argument
rawbeezeitz 2 years ago
Make and argument, don't just attack people.
itsallgood5000 2 years ago
I put your comment on my whiteboard. I won't erase it.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
pretty lame and dense commentary. CNBC proclaims its status as an informed source for financial information. I doubt very seriously that you or your "research" does better than them.
I take it Obama isn't your "pal". Too bad, he's ours, and he won.
OrmEmber 2 years ago
The threading system was probably designed without the video authors who auto-refresh their own pages in mind.
1simulacrum 2 years ago
Biting my lip here, babe.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
It's a bit late for you to claim any sort of self restraint.
1simulacrum 2 years ago
Your efforts to come across as creepy via referring to yourself in the plural noun form and posting eight consecutive messages has been noticed.
A+
1simulacrum 2 years ago
I have always wanted to know what a youtube video would look like when authored by Jon Stewart......that is, if he lacked basic comedic timing, demonstrated an unsureness of his own punchlines, and had his inability to grasp the concept of satire-versus-news overshadowed only by his embarrassingly inept yet blatant attempts to hide his video posting regret with self deprecation.
We look forward to being underwhelmed by your insight on current events again, soon.
1simulacrum 2 years ago
You are full of it...We know who the crooks are...we know who caused this debacle...we know who the demogogues are who blame unqualified homeowners. The fix was in from the beginning...as long as investors were buying the bad securities, everything was fine. Santelli is a self-righteous prick.
somersetdc 2 years ago
hahahaha LMAO. Is this a looser or what. "i watch you show everyday" hahaha well keep watching buddy
itweety21 2 years ago 2
live from his father's basement: boodoggy! now go get dad his pants
khunopie 2 years ago
1:20 of my life lost to a douchebag....
DiabloesLoco 2 years ago
Wow Boondoggle. You're so insightfuls. So...Let me make sure I got this; I shouldn't base my opinion on a TV show, but I SHOULD base my opinion on a YouTube video broadcast by some Santorum swallowing breast-feeder going;
"myeuh myeh muh MYYEHhhhhh. Muh myemuMEHHHHHH!"
Knock knock.
Who's there?
You.
You who?
You fucking suck.
cbarryslough 2 years ago
you ve got to be kididing this real life not fox news the only dick is you now gopray to hanty or rush so join the the club mindless
jopre1 2 years ago
I can't believe this guy is totally losing sight of reality.
colloquialchinese 2 years ago
You just....totally missed the point.
Ippus 2 years ago 2
Yeah, too bad Obama didn't continue to deregulate the markets the way it's been done for the last thirty years so we could continue to have derivative trading that was really no more then a government endorsed ponzi scheme. What a shame. And the tax cuts for the top 1% were such a boon to the economy that we should have just placed the higher tax burden on the working and lower class. How could he have been so blind.
See.....satire. Sarcasm. Jokes.
Try t keep up yuppy sock puppet.
ImTheGrey 2 years ago
your body language gives you away.
smarmy is appropriate.
GODLUBE 2 years ago
"Oh hello, I'm a smarmy douche rocket incapable of understanding satire."
velirien 2 years ago
"im gonna vblog about stuff and act like I know what im talking about." <--- That's you. That's what you sound like.
LTM360 2 years ago 2
You are a bigger douche bag than jim cramer!
smittyinjapan 2 years ago 2
Obviously this guy is a douche, but Cramer wasn't the only one Stewart attacked.
ThousandSunAnger 2 years ago
Fuck You!
tava82 2 years ago
I lost no money in the stock market. But I find it hilarious that one commercial where they talk about .... Did you think retirement was going to be an express lane.... LOL Ya you all used to have commercials saying retiring was easy just call the money managers.
Hephasteus9 2 years ago
here's my advice, stop blowing rush limbaugh's dick. ok? good...
bolderr 2 years ago 4
1:20!!! One Min and Twenty Sec!!!!!! That was 1:20 of my life I am never going to get back. Stupid post, and boy are a smug asshole or what? This has nothing to do with Jon Stewert or Jim Cramer, this is just about you being an ass I and I felt compelled to tell you that.
jpedaline 2 years ago
"Jon Stewart recently blamed CNBC and CNBC reporter Rick Santelli and other CNBC reporters for all of America's problems."
All of America's problems? I'd like to see where he showed any indication of this.
AnonymousMuffin54 2 years ago
what a dumbass
djaxelito 2 years ago
...did you really say that?
toab 2 years ago
Well said. CNBC talks about the FINANCIAL MARKETS - so they will be wrong some of the time - it's just a mater of probability.
Picking some of the times they've been wrong and playing them in sequence is simply wrong and misleading. CNBC should air 20 jokes in a row when Jon Stewart wasn't funny (wouldn't be hard to find that footage - trust me)
itsallgood5000 2 years ago
Your dull rant is a waste of time. Thanks jerk
phattmatt50 2 years ago 2
I bet you are a Cramerican.
bowenbo 2 years ago
You got it backwards: your boring video is a rant. Jon Stewart's take on CNBC was priceless comedy and naked truth. Nice view up your nostrils there. And gotta love the thin lipped mouthful of marbles/vacant self-satisfied expression. Your point? lay off poor little CNBC? Blame the president of 45 days? Lets be douches?
hamnose 2 years ago 2
heres a question I'd like to ask. how are your stocks doing, boondoggle? are you as fucked as everybody else in the U.S? I hope not, because if you are I don't see a reason for anybody on the entire internet to give a fiddler's fuck about what you think. Unless you're giving the people concrete advice, shut the front door, will ya?
cygnus2112 2 years ago
Just sore cuz CNBC got PWNED
SKFD68 2 years ago
Sir, all your comments have accomplished is to further the opinions that Republicans tend to be douche bags.
GaelicHead 2 years ago
Oh..hello! Did you even watch the Daily Show segment? Jon Stewart didn't once mention his own personal financial investments -- or blame CNBC for any money that he personally lost from their crappy advice. His point was to call out CNBC for claiming to be experts on ecomony when they often get it wrong. The point was that shows like Fast Money, and Squawk Box ARE just TV shows and they shouldn't be held to the standard of being experts.
Also..."skewerfication?!"
benjaminbor30 2 years ago
Also, if you supposedly watch everyday, then you would know that Jon Stewart has actually been critical of Obama at times .
On Inauguration Day he did a segment comparing Obama's rhetoric to Bush's, a comparison that didn't go over so well with his audience and actually made me a little sick to my stomach. Another was debating the actual meaning of "residual force" in Obama's Iraq plan.
benjaminbor30 2 years ago
i still think you're an idiot.
Ciaran2011 2 years ago
CNBC has people that claim to be experts about the economy and wall street. Yet they had no idea what was coming or how bad it would be. Obviously they deserve the ridicule.
As for the bail outs, the repubs are the ones that started that with Bush's TARP program. Since repubs usually claim to be against that kind of thing, they deserve to be ridiculed about it as well.
The dems on the other hand tend to support stimulus packages and bailouts, so there was no surprise there.
moulingalette 2 years ago
Capitalism (read 'GREED') is what got us into this mess and frankly there should be no bailouts for anyone, either homeowners or banks. Let them all fry and the people who played by the rules can buy up the scraps. The liberals should not be blamed for bailouts since it is the conservative banker types who failed and are asking for the money. So how can conservatives ask for the money and then blame dems for giving it to them?
dgreener1 2 years ago
In what way was that an answer to Jon Stewart? First a personal attack and than something about obama? what point are you trying to make?
nickvanhinten 2 years ago 4
video needs more head bobbing
combustingboy 2 years ago 3
Not much substance here.
ragdrazi 2 years ago 3
Ouch...watch the ratings on this one! It's falling like the DOW.
CNBC should feature you on Mad Money to get that index up. Sad.
You're not interesting. Hey people get back to TDS.
392redienhcs 2 years ago 3
Wow. This is why America the great is now full of Americans the stupid. Liberal vs conservative... every issue, every time, every excuse. Dammit I really was hoping that McCain/Palin won just for this kinda stuff...
Left vs. Right,
Liberal vs Conservative.
White and black... its all the same fight isn't it?
Instead of the arguing why don't both parties in the good old USA suck it up, sit down and figure it out?
Prolly cause its better to keep idiots like this in their coffers and control...
DjCarbonCopy 2 years ago
Pretty dumb video. Of course you should be thanking people for watching this crap...and not killing themselves after.
nyguy 2 years ago 2
Most TV shows today serve mainly two purposes;
to distract you from what is REALLY happening around you, and to PROTECT corporate America.
KILL YOUR TV.........use the web!
tannersanta 2 years ago 3
you sir are unbelievably gay
neilious01 2 years ago 4
Yeah CNBC got royally roasted, but if Steward had investigated a bit further, its Obama and his tax evading Fed Reserve Banker turned Treasurer who are enabling all these banks as badly as Bush ever did. Obama has already failed as a president, his cheerleaders just need to turn round and look at the scoreboard.
strannick32 2 years ago
your cool
exethan 2 years ago
Marxists like Stewart dont have a problem with CNBC until he turns on the messiah. Santelli is a great American. Too bad most Americans think the garbage coming from Stewarts show is real news.
joe128pack 2 years ago
The evening news we 'old guys' grew up with, along with the morning paper, were businesses that sold advertising and subscriptions... and we bought it.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
I have no idea what the great anchors would say about that, but I'll ask them if I get a chance to go to Evening News heaven; which would be hell because I'm really shooting to meet the anchors of Dream Trip Vacation News Heaven.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
So apparently if your comments provide a crushing blow to this guys arguement as well as his delivery, he simply deletes it. hahaha
wtf84b 2 years ago 2
People can delete their own stuff. Review the comments and the ratings: I never delete or remove. I accept all comments... even though most comments seem to mysteriously contain the word 'douche'.... which is 'refreshing' but, not really the best sounding word.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
"even though most comments seem to mysteriously contain the word 'douche'.... which is 'refreshing' but..."
This was pretty funny.
MeesterRogers 2 years ago
lol 1 star
NyJeo 2 years ago
john stewart is an idiot, obama isn't for change he's doing the same stuff bush did, only bigger. people think government spending is good for the economy, well bush spent more money than any other president in history so why isn't the economy any good??
Rick Santelli is a GREAT American and is dead on right, Stewart can go fuck himself
mattgeb84 2 years ago
ok dumb dumb. If you say so. haha. Bush spent money on the war and "homeland defense." He almost brought public works projects and R&D to a grinding hault. That's the difference. And it is huge!
wtf84b 2 years ago 2
hmmmm, the ways i see it. I just saw a dick.
up2nothing 2 years ago
It's not a rorschach test.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Rated 1 by over 300 people. Haha
O
W
N
E
D
numnunums 2 years ago
That's cause there can only ONE star here: Me.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Whats this garbage? Quit bitching like a bitch
numnunums 2 years ago
I'm afraid you missed the point my friend. This wasn't his rage at loosing personal money. How is it exactly that you can watch a man speak, then act as though you know his mind. You my friend are the one acting as though you have a crystal ball.
InteGrayting 2 years ago
Ahhh... "It's all bush's fault". I frankly, just finished using "It's all Clinton's fault" last week.
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Its always a tip of when the nararator quickly identifies the sides but never focuses on the actual issues. The whole one side versus the other is silly seeing that its all mixed up anyway.
And this whole bail out thing was started by Bush then carried out by Obama. Its not a conservative or liberal play, its the only play left on the table.
firsttimecaller4u 2 years ago
Unappealing... ur ratings says it all... u suck....
me98321 2 years ago
Wait a second, one star doesn't mean "NUMBER ONE?"
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Sir, you're retarded. First of all, how do you start with "oh hello?" Aren't you he one that pressed record? How were you surprised? haha. Second of all, if you watched, he was pointing out the hypocricy of Santelli being mad about homeowner bailouts and yelling that they were mad on Wall St. when they are receiving 50 times more money! Im pretty sure Mr. Stewart is financially secure. His MAIN point was that if you're sole purpose is to cover business matters, how do you miss so much fraud?
wtf84b 2 years ago 2
Oh, Hello. Thank you for responding. CNBC is not the Crystal News Ball Network. I'm pretty Crystal Clear about that. I think the Oh, Hello thing is pretty funny though, if not... "endearing"
Boondoggle129 2 years ago
Comment removed
wtf84b 2 years ago
BOTTOM LINE: People must take personal responsibility. But consider this:
In AA, they're called "enablers." In criminal law, they're called "accessories." CNBC could easily and justly be called either.
grimesgw 2 years ago