Naomi Klein - Charlie Rose Interview
Top Comments
All Comments (23)
-
@silviezimmer agree-he seems out of his league through everything after the "hello's".
-
@pedbaron you aren't doing your research-friedman advocated state intervention to protect the markets and shareholders. "no one" gets privileges is not true, either-in free market philosophy, the debts of the elite are always socialized, while the public wealth is privatized. the books in your local library (or google) can easily show you this.
-
Charlie, sticking up for his rich friends. Look at his eyes, looking off camera.
-
@pedbaron you have to study to be that dumb ?
there never was a deregulation of .com, since it wasn't regulated to start with!
It may be an argument for unregulated market, but not deregulation.
Now, but aside the regulation that your corrupt politician put in as favour to their contributor, normal regulation are put in place when there is abuse and complete deregulation is an invitation to repeat those abuse, as what was done in the banking sector illustrate perfectly.
-
It is always refreshing to see a very successful capitalist bash capitalism.
-
Naomi is much smarter than Rose. Some things go way over his head too easily.
-
Truth to power? You're dreaming.
-
Bad interview. Rose seems hung up on a point that his audience (assuming a reasonable intelligence) has moved on from, making for a very constipating experience.
-
@silviezimmer Did you see his interview with Morris and McNamara? He and Errol Morris more or less spent the entire hour more or less cajoling McNamara to speak out against the Iraq War. He's doing what good interviewers do: Presenting the counter arguments and allowing the guest to refute them.
Don't think I've ever seen Charlie Rose so combative with a guest.
Kudos to Naomi Klein for not getting frustrated and for being able to get her "truth-to-power" message across, despite Mr. Rose's frequent interruptions.
Zonkerino 4 months ago 6
Charlie Rose is combative with anyone who speaks out against capitalism or U.S. foreign policy. He's combative with Noam Chomsky even when Chomsky simply states facts and Rose has nothing to say. He's not interested in asking questions. He's much more suited to interviewing celebrities who have nothing to say.
silviezimmer 4 months ago 4