jon stewart killed cramer. did anyone watch?

It's really annoying when people think they make their point better by yelling and screaming and putting it in red 25 point font. Bummer it doesn't make what they say more intelligent.

:cuckoo:

One day he'll wake up from the media induced narcosis he's suffering from, and perhaps his passion will finally serve the commonweal.

Check me if I'm wrong here Ed...

But are you NOT cheerleading, in this very thread, for a 'media personality' espousing a position in support of what you have oft' declared to be the popular consensus, the conventional wisdom?

Which if such is the case (and it is...) would that not make a striking irony (and it does), in that your position is the one which is being "driven by The Media;" what's more, is that while I have specifically engaged your argument and those of your comrades, while you and the comrades have felt compelled to respond, often in NUMEROUS posts, to not a single point of relevance within the argument, in all of these flaccid retorts.

Now reason suggests that where a narcosis (with narcosis being defined as a "narcotic induced stupor" with the metaphoric narcotic, in this instance, being represented by 'the media'...) is presented, the lucid party would be the party which advances a well reasoned, logically valid argument, directed at specific elements of the relevant issue; and decidely NOT the party which hopes to change the subject by arguing around the edges through any number of fallacious obfuscations...

ROFL... Leftists...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for proving my point again for why we don't listen to hormonal teenagers when it comes to national issues.

So what you're saying here, is that you've no means to recognize the essence of her perspective, due to your blind loyalty to a thoroughly discredited ideology and instead choose to avoid her point through the fallacious denigration of her perceived youth?

Sweet fallacious appeal to popularity... a wholly invalid logical construct and as such, a thoroughly untenable species of reasoning; one which bears an indisputable means of proving the depth of your idiocy which is well beyond what anyone, BUT YOU, could have ever hoped to have produced.

:clap2: BRAVO! :clap2:

She writes "I stopped watching cause it looked like Stewart was going to blow Cramer" and not only is that exactly was a hormonal teenager says, but it obviously shows that she watched none of it though rendered an opinion on it which is also exactly what teenagers do. I didn't think that this would have to be explained but you've proven time and time again that you're a complete nutjob so I guess I understand


So you're quoting her testifying that she watched it to the point where she decided that it was two sychophants touching peters in a homo-political-bias and declaring from that statement that she didn't watch it...

BRILLIANT! Oh you're all over IT!

Her comment was fair; it was accurate and it was perfectly understandable... YOu sought to discredit the position inherent in the comment by projecting that the position was immature, thus not worthy of consideration.

Your position is an obfuscation from the point... thus it's fallacious; specifically, you hoped to appeal to what you perceived as a popularly held opinion...

Now you've been called on it; and you argument has been conclusively established as addle-minded drivel of the fallacious variety. Move on Big Daddy... this dog is dead and she ain't comin' back.
 
Last edited:
It should not be ignored that this VERY THREAD demonstrates that the ideological left gets their news from:
"THE COMEDY CHANNEL!"
 
Last edited:
It should not be ignored that this VERY THREAD demonstrates that the ideological left gets their news from:
"THE COMEDY CHANNEL!"

Which is so much more "intellectual" than those stupid radio talk "entertainers".....:eusa_whistle:


Lots of liberal democrats in the business world are beginning to realize that Obama the Magnificent isn’t all he’s cracked up to be…hee hee…. it’s so much fun watching the left eat its own…especially a double-scoop like this one….:lol:
 
So what you're saying here, is that you've no means to recognize the essence of her perspective, due to your blind loyalty to a thoroughly discredited ideology and instead choose to avoid her point through the fallacious denigration of her perceived youth?

Sweet fallacious appeal to popularity... a wholly invalid logical construct and as such, a thoroughly untenable species of reasoning; one which bears an indisputable means of proving the depth of your idiocy which is well beyond what anyone, BUT YOU, could have ever hoped to have produced.

:clap2: BRAVO! :clap2:

She writes "I stopped watching cause it looked like Stewart was going to blow Cramer" and not only is that exactly was a hormonal teenager says, but it obviously shows that she watched none of it though rendered an opinion on it which is also exactly what teenagers do. I didn't think that this would have to be explained but you've proven time and time again that you're a complete nutjob so I guess I understand


So you're quoting her testifying that she watched it to the point where she decided that it was two sychophants touching peters in a homo-political-bias and declaring from that statement that she didn't watch it...

BRILLIANT! Oh you're all over IT!

Her comment was fair; it was accurate and it was perfectly understandable... YOu sought to discredit the position inherent in the comment by projecting that the position was immature, thus not worthy of consideration.

Your position is an obfuscation from the point... thus it's fallacious; specifically, you hoped to appeal to what you perceived as a popularly held opinion...

Now you've been called on it; and you argument has been conclusively established as addle-minded drivel of the fallacious variety. Move on Big Daddy... this dog is dead and she ain't comin' back.


You desperately need to see a shrink
 
She writes "I stopped watching cause it looked like Stewart was going to blow Cramer" and not only is that exactly was a hormonal teenager says, but it obviously shows that she watched none of it though rendered an opinion on it which is also exactly what teenagers do. I didn't think that this would have to be explained but you've proven time and time again that you're a complete nutjob so I guess I understand


So you're quoting her testifying that she watched it to the point where she decided that it was two sychophants touching peters in a homo-political-bias and declaring from that statement that she didn't watch it...

BRILLIANT! Oh you're all over IT!

Her comment was fair; it was accurate and it was perfectly understandable... YOu sought to discredit the position inherent in the comment by projecting that the position was immature, thus not worthy of consideration.

Your position is an obfuscation from the point... thus it's fallacious; specifically, you hoped to appeal to what you perceived as a popularly held opinion...

Now you've been called on it; and you argument has been conclusively established as addle-minded drivel of the fallacious variety. Move on Big Daddy... this dog is dead and she ain't comin' back.


You desperately need to see a shrink

ROFLMNAO...

Do I? So I need to see a shrink because you can't advance a lucid, well reasoned, intellectually sound argument?

Now, just for fun... how's that work exactly?

Don't feel bad sis... you're doin' the very best you can God bless ya.
 
did anyone watch the daily show? cramer got killed



I read this whole thread, and am I surprised that everyone missed the real point!

Yes, he ripped Kramer, wow!

Yes, Kramer deserved every bit of it.

But the reason! The reason he did it to Kramer?

Did you see this politico column? The new left-wing conspiracy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Put two and two together.

The left got Kramer because he turned on Obama!!!!
He ripped the Obama Economic Plan.

Read the tea leaves: its the left-wing conspiracy!
What you and the Politico column are describing could be called Kafkaesque....Eh?
 
did anyone watch the daily show? cramer got killed



I read this whole thread, and am I surprised that everyone missed the real point!

Yes, he ripped Kramer, wow!

Yes, Kramer deserved every bit of it.

But the reason! The reason he did it to Kramer?

Did you see this politico column? The new left-wing conspiracy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Put two and two together.

The left got Kramer because he turned on Obama!!!!
He ripped the Obama Economic Plan.

Read the tea leaves: its the left-wing conspiracy!

Oh please. IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY THE COMMIE LEFT WINGS ARE OUT TO GET US.

What proof is there of this great conspiracy, oh yes there's a group dedicated to mud-slinging political opponents (in this case right wingers), wow I've never seen that happen before in the history of politics. Clearly this means that Stewart is participating in this effort to sling mud at Obama's opponents and thus that is the only reason he attacked Cramer.

Here's a little hint most conspiracies are completely full of crap.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people missed the point of Jon Stewart's anger. CNBC is billed as a financial news channel. The personalities who have shows on such a channel should at least make some pretense at being journalists. Stewart's problem, was that- in his opinion- the "journalists" on CNBC like Kramer, were more interested in being friendly with CEO's and big players on Wall Street, rather than doing good, critical, and investigative journalism that may have been able to expose some of the faults and dubious activities that helped create the current crisis. Why is that not a valid criticism? As much as regulators should be ashamed at missing these risky investments and fraud like Madoff, journalists- especially financial journalists- should be ashamed at their lack of diligence. A free press is vital to fighting excess and corruption, but they seemed to be too comfortable in corporate shoes today and so do no serious journalism.
 
So you're quoting her testifying that she watched it to the point where she decided that it was two sychophants touching peters in a homo-political-bias and declaring from that statement that she didn't watch it...

BRILLIANT! Oh you're all over IT!

Her comment was fair; it was accurate and it was perfectly understandable... YOu sought to discredit the position inherent in the comment by projecting that the position was immature, thus not worthy of consideration.

Your position is an obfuscation from the point... thus it's fallacious; specifically, you hoped to appeal to what you perceived as a popularly held opinion...

Now you've been called on it; and you argument has been conclusively established as addle-minded drivel of the fallacious variety. Move on Big Daddy... this dog is dead and she ain't comin' back.


You desperately need to see a shrink

ROFLMNAO...

Do I? So I need to see a shrink because you can't advance a lucid, well reasoned, intellectually sound argument?

Now, just for fun... how's that work exactly?

Don't feel bad sis... you're doin' the very best you can God bless ya.

It should go over your head that the only good reporter out there is a fucking comedian from comedy central.

Why dind't CNN, Fox, MSNBC have this hard hitting interview with kramer?

Because they are the corporate media.

So now you know why you have been brainwashed and now you know the only liberal media out there is on comedy central.

The rest is corporate owned/controlled.

I dare Rached Maddow to speak out against the oil companies on MSNBC. Won't happen.

I dare her to speak out against corporations going overseas. You won't hear it.

Because "the man" tells her what she can and can not talk about.
 
I think a lot of people missed the point of Jon Stewart's anger. CNBC is billed as a financial news channel. The personalities who have shows on such a channel should at least make some pretense at being journalists. Stewart's problem, was that- in his opinion- the "journalists" on CNBC like Kramer, were more interested in being friendly with CEO's and big players on Wall Street, rather than doing good, critical, and investigative journalism that may have been able to expose some of the faults and dubious activities that helped create the current crisis. Why is that not a valid criticism? As much as regulators should be ashamed at missing these risky investments and fraud like Madoff, journalists- especially financial journalists- should be ashamed at their lack of diligence. A free press is vital to fighting excess and corruption, but they seemed to be too comfortable in corporate shoes today and so do no serious journalism.

Bravo!


That was EXACTLY Stewarts point.

It was exactly his point when he dismantled the clueless buffoons in Cross fire (or hard ball or whateve the hell it was) too.

The state of the American press is now as a vassel to the lords of the manor.

They're talk talk talk about the huge battle between Rs and Ds, and the people who do not pay attention will believe them.

And that's what our media is mostly, now.

Nothing but a loud, racous distraction meant to take our minds off the REAL issues that effect us.

And judging from the near completely lack of understanding of how our world works based on what I read here, the plan is working beautifully.
 
did anyone watch the daily show? cramer got killed



I read this whole thread, and am I surprised that everyone missed the real point!

Yes, he ripped Kramer, wow!

Yes, Kramer deserved every bit of it.

But the reason! The reason he did it to Kramer?

Did you see this politico column? The new left-wing conspiracy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Put two and two together.

The left got Kramer because he turned on Obama!!!!
He ripped the Obama Economic Plan.

Read the tea leaves: its the left-wing conspiracy!

:cuckoo:
 
It should not be ignored that this VERY THREAD demonstrates that the ideological left gets their news from:
"THE COMEDY CHANNEL!"

Pubeless Infantilium,

Please bear with me whilst I take a moment to school you.

It's called

COMEDY CENTRAL

Carry on.

I stand corrected...

It should not be ignored that this VERY THREAD demonstrates that the ideological left, the addle-minded advocates FOR A STRONG CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT get their news (Read: Marching Orders) from:
"COMEDY CENTRAL!"

And that they can't resist demonstrating how PROUD THEY ARE, that they defacto collective intellectual resource is a FARCE!

MAN, if that's not SWEET IRONY, then SEET IRONY DOESN'T EXIST!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top