Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

CNBC’s Santelli stiffs The Daily Show’s Stewart, yielding comedic uptick

By LoRayne Apo-Joynt | 03.05.09 | 8:44 am

Rick Santelli, Jon StewartIn yet another keen display of market prowess, CNBC’S Rick Santelli “bailed out” of an appearance on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with host Jon Stewart. In the aftermath of the ensuing backlash, one might wonder whether Santelli left derivatives trading because he liked himself too much. Video follows:

Props to the editorial staff at The Daily Show; they gleaned through nearly two years of CNBC content to pull together some golden nuggets which at times are as sad as they are funny. In a matter of eight minutes, CNBC’s financial and business reporting is exposed as credulous. What might have happened to the economy if The Daily Show had interviewed business and banking CEOs every day over the last handful of years?

Comments

  • dwightwannabe

    Next up on The Daily Show: A montage of two years' worth of incorrect win/loss predictions from Fox Sunday NFL commentators to illustrate why nobody should listen to Bill O'Reilly.

    C'mon. Is this really the best you can do? Is this REALLY your best snarky shot?

    Are liberals really just INCAPABLE of debating the message? Is smear and poo-flinging all you've got?

    If you are wrong ever, then you therefore must be wrong always? Is that the game? 'Cause my viewership of the show is spotty at best, but I guarantee I can give John Stewart the “John Stewart Treatment” using a dozen examples of rectally derived drivel he's spewed over the last two years.

    Please.

    • Rayne1

      Comedy Central. Get it? Stewart's a comedian. You can call it poo-flinging, but you're railing against a guy whose job is to make fun of people.

      But he does make a pretty good point that one of the most popular financial news networks consistently lobs softball questions instead of doing their job as the Fourth Estate. It's a pity when they are capable of better given smart guys on their team like David Faber. Ask any of the rich conservatives you know how their net worth looks now in comparison to 2007; did they listen to the folks at CNBC, by any chance?

  • barnbarn

    Hey dwightwannabe – So you can do what Stewart does? Really? Then f*cking do it!! You've got iMovie on your computer don't you? (No, I bet your a PC, right?) Whatever. Figure it out Einstein. Put together a montage as devistating as this one. Prove your point instead of just calling brilliant satire “poo-flinging”, which it's not. People like Santelli and Crammer are complete hypocritical charlatans. And since the “mainstream” media, (I'm sure you think it's too left and I think it's too right, but that's another argument), since they WON'T point out the complete and total BS of these losers, thank God we've got someone like John Stewart who will.

    Put your money where your mouth is. Let's see your “John Stewart Treatment”. I'm sure it'll be entertaining. (Eyeroll!)

  • Swami_Binkinanda

    Real life isn't Dwightball. This is the greatest attack on the business class REpublican conservatives because it demonstrates factually what a bunch of flakes, liars, scammers and scumbags your right wing media weenies are. Cramer? Flake. Santelli? Lying scumbag. Bartiromo? Corruption with tits.
    IF you can't stand up to the facts, you shouldn't be in the pundipstick business.

  • dwightwannabe

    Hahahahaha! Hoisted by your own petard, poo-flingers.

    Jim Cramer is a liberal Democrat who championed the potential of the Obama administration, publicly admitted that he voted for Obama, and railed against the Bush administration at every opportunity.

    So now he's a retard, huh? Was he a retard because he was wrong THEN, or because he's wrong NOW? Was he a retard because he was wrong about his support of Obama in the first place? Or because he rethought his position?

    Here. Here's a tissue. You just hit yourself in the face with your own poo.

    Priceless!

    • Rayne1

      Boy howdy, could we try the same kind of framing on conservatives? Let's swap out the names and see if it works:

      “Michael Steele is a conservative Republican who championed the potential of the Bush administration, publicly admitted that he voted for Bush, and railed against the Obama administration at every opportunity.

      So now he's a retard, huh? Was he a retard because he was wrong THEN, or because he's wrong NOW? Was he a retard because he was wrong about his support of Bush in the first place? Or because he rethought his position?

      Here. Here's a tissue. You just hit yourself in the face with your own poo.

      Priceless!”

      Oh, almost worked. The rethinking part is a challenge for most conservatives. What a pity.

  • dwightwannabe

    Only in Michigan would you be brilliant enough not to realize that you eat the scraps that fall from the table of the giant. When you kill the giant, that doesn't make you more equal. It makes you starve.

    How's that giant-killing working out for you, Detroit? How's life with the giant you hate so much breathing his last breaths?

    “Damn rich people! Damn rich people. Jesus how I hate the effing rich people! ”

    Oooookay, Copernicus. You're doin' a great job getting rid of all those rich people you hate so much.

    Mmmmm. How's that workin' out for you? How are your home values doin' up there in Mittensville? Hope all those empty houses are bought by the Chinese. Wouldn't want any damn rich people to buy them up.

    (Laughing so hard I'm crying. Rave on, Princess. You get everything you deserve.)

    • Rayne1

      You finally made a point, albeit bass-ackwards: this state lost sight of the fact it could NOT survive on the scraps of the giant's table.

      It was supposed survive by serving the needs of the average American, just as it did in its previous boom cycles, when we made the cars they wanted, when we gave them the lumber they wanted, without a care for what the ultra-rich thought of us, through our sweat. Our bad for not realizing this sooner, that we shouldn't listen to Wall Street but to the public. We're punishing ourselves thoroughly. But we've been through bust-and-boom cycles before and have been dealing with this gritty challenge for years now since a certain so-called conservative decided our state should eat its seed corn, savaging a surplus and leaving a legacy of deficit behind in his wake. We're growing a nice callous and many new skills.

      But you, on the other hand, cannot see the truth for your ill-informed braying schadenfreude. Conservatism has proven itself to be nothing more than a hollow and often criminal argument to support a small percentage of very wealthy people at the expense of the rest of the country, and it's failed miserably with its let-them-eat-cake attitude. How's that 401K and the rest of your investment portfolio looking these days? Do you really thing Santelli or the rest of his market manipulating peeps could give a rat's whisker about the fact you have to work far longer to make up those losses?

      By the way, I'm the one laughing, because you really have not the slightest clue about whom you are trash-talking.

  • picklepulse

    so is john stewart going to lampoon the projections the wh has made on growth when they fail to materialize?

    they have based the nation's economic fortunes on the belief that the country will grow in the following years.

    the whitehouse says we will shrink by 1.2% this year, the CBO says 2.2%.

    2010? wh +3.2%. CBO 1.5%.
    2011? +4.0% the CBO doesn't go this far…
    2012?+4.6%.

    Obama is planning his spending based on the belief that the nation will grow 11% over the next four years.

    We will be lucky to get back to 2007 gdp in five years.

    the thing about the people on cnbc is that they have a disclaimer before their shows.

    when is the wh or the press going to start providing the disclaimers?

    • Rayne1

      Oh, you can bet that there will be plenty of lampooning of this administration in the years ahead. Goodness knows there's already been a mess of it across other outlets besides The Daily Show.

      But your bashing of the Obama administration's projections is pretty weak; just where do you think the data has come from on which those projections are based? Who and what do you think has impacted and will continue to impact those numbers?

      The thing about the people on CNBC is that they are capable of serving their corporate masters and their criminal friends while hiding behind their tepid and ineffectual disclaimers that do not protect them from their own fate.

      At least the people in the administration have the fortitude to run for or accept office to serve the public; the folks on CNBC don't serve anyone ultimately but themselves.

      And you seem to have forgotten that CNBC is the press — a collection of very challenged members of the press who managed to get it all wrong for years. Maybe the fact that viewers can so easily forget CNBC's role as the media is part of the underlying problem.

  • Rayne1

    You finally made a point, albeit bass-ackwards: this state lost sight of the fact it could NOT survive on the scraps of the giant's table.

    It was supposed survive by serving the needs of the average American, just as it did in its previous boom cycles, when we made the cars they wanted, when we gave them the lumber they wanted, without a care for what the ultra-rich thought of us, through our sweat. Our bad for not realizing this sooner, that we shouldn't listen to Wall Street but to the public. We're punishing ourselves thoroughly. But we've been through bust-and-boom cycles before and have been dealing with this gritty challenge for years now since a certain so-called conservative decided our state should eat its seed corn, savaging a surplus and leaving a legacy of deficit behind in his wake. We're growing a nice callous and many new skills.

    But you, on the other hand, cannot see the truth for your ill-informed braying schadenfreude. Conservatism has proven itself to be nothing more than a hollow and often criminal argument to support a small percentage of very wealthy people at the expense of the rest of the country, and it's failed miserably with its let-them-eat-cake attitude. How's that 401K and the rest of your investment portfolio looking these days? Do you really think Santelli or the rest of his market manipulating peeps could give a rat's whisker about the fact you have to work far longer to make up those losses?

    By the way, I'm the one laughing, because you really have not the slightest clue about whom you are trash-talking.

  • Rayne1

    Boy howdy, could we try the same kind of framing on conservatives? Let's swap out the names and see if it works:

    “Michael Steele is a conservative Republican who championed the potential of the Bush administration, publicly admitted that he voted for Bush, and railed against the Obama administration at every opportunity.

    So now he's a retard, huh? Was he a retard because he was wrong THEN, or because he's wrong NOW? Was he a retard because he was wrong about his support of Bush in the first place? Or because he rethought his position?

    Here. Here's a tissue. You just hit yourself in the face with your own poo.

    Priceless!”

    Oh, almost worked. The rethinking part is a challenge for most conservatives. What a pity.

  • Rayne1

    Oh, you can bet that there will be plenty of lampooning of this administration in the years ahead. Goodness knows there's already been a mess of it across other outlets besides The Daily Show.

    But your bashing of the Obama administration's projections is pretty weak; just where do you think the data has come from on which those projections are based? Who and what do you think has impacted and will continue to impact those numbers?

    The thing about the people on CNBC is that they are capable of serving their corporate masters and their criminal friends while hiding behind their tepid and ineffectual disclaimers that do not protect them from their own fate.

    At least the people in the administration have the fortitude to run for or accept office to serve the public; the folks on CNBC don't serve anyone ultimately but themselves.

    And you seem to have forgotten that CNBC is the press — a collection of very challenged members of the press who managed to get it all wrong for years. Maybe the fact that viewers can so easily forget CNBC's role as the media is part of the underlying problem.

  • picklepulse

    so is john stewart going to lampoon the projections the wh has made on growth when they fail to materialize?

    they have based the nation's economic fortunes on the belief that the country will grow in the following years.

    the whitehouse says we will shrink by 1.2% this year, the CBO says 2.2%.

    2010? wh +3.2%. CBO 1.5%.
    2011? +4.0% the CBO doesn't go this far…
    2012?+4.6%.

    Obama is planning his spending based on the belief that the nation will grow 11% over the next four years.

    We will be lucky to get back to 2007 gdp in five years.

    the thing about the people on cnbc is that they have a disclaimer before their shows.

    when is the wh or the press going to start providing the disclaimers?

  • Rayne1

    You finally made a point, albeit bass-ackwards: this state lost sight of the fact it could NOT survive on the scraps of the giant's table.

    It was supposed survive by serving the needs of the average American, just as it did in its previous boom cycles, when we made the cars they wanted, when we gave them the lumber they wanted, without a care for what the ultra-rich thought of us, through our sweat. Our bad for not realizing this sooner, that we shouldn't listen to Wall Street but to the public. We're punishing ourselves thoroughly. But we've been through bust-and-boom cycles before and have been dealing with this gritty challenge for years now since a certain so-called conservative decided our state should eat its seed corn, savaging a surplus and leaving a legacy of deficit behind in his wake. We're growing a nice callous and many new skills.

    But you, on the other hand, cannot see the truth for your ill-informed braying schadenfreude. Conservatism has proven itself to be nothing more than a hollow and often criminal argument to support a small percentage of very wealthy people at the expense of the rest of the country, and it's failed miserably with its let-them-eat-cake attitude. How's that 401K and the rest of your investment portfolio looking these days? Do you really think Santelli or the rest of his market manipulating peeps could give a rat's whisker about the fact you have to work far longer to make up those losses?

    By the way, I'm the one laughing, because you really have not the slightest clue about whom you are trash-talking.

  • Rayne1

    Boy howdy, could we try the same kind of framing on conservatives? Let's swap out the names and see if it works:

    “Michael Steele is a conservative Republican who championed the potential of the Bush administration, publicly admitted that he voted for Bush, and railed against the Obama administration at every opportunity.

    So now he's a retard, huh? Was he a retard because he was wrong THEN, or because he's wrong NOW? Was he a retard because he was wrong about his support of Bush in the first place? Or because he rethought his position?

    Here. Here's a tissue. You just hit yourself in the face with your own poo.

    Priceless!”

    Oh, almost worked. The rethinking part is a challenge for most conservatives. What a pity.

  • Rayne1

    Oh, you can bet that there will be plenty of lampooning of this administration in the years ahead. Goodness knows there's already been a mess of it across other outlets besides The Daily Show.

    But your bashing of the Obama administration's projections is pretty weak; just where do you think the data has come from on which those projections are based? Who and what do you think has impacted and will continue to impact those numbers?

    The thing about the people on CNBC is that they are capable of serving their corporate masters and their criminal friends while hiding behind their tepid and ineffectual disclaimers that do not protect them from their own fate.

    At least the people in the administration have the fortitude to run for or accept office to serve the public; the folks on CNBC don't serve anyone ultimately but themselves.

    And you seem to have forgotten that CNBC is the press — a collection of very challenged members of the press who managed to get it all wrong for years. Maybe the fact that viewers can so easily forget CNBC's role as the media is part of the underlying problem.

Categories & Tags: Commentary| Economy| Media Monitor| | | | |