Jon Stewart doesn't use facts and logic. He just surrounds himself with sycophantic fans who swoon at his every utterance. He never had a problem with Cramer before, especially when Cramer was pro-Obama, but the week after he dared to criticize the messiah Obama he suddenly ambushes him? The real reason Stewart ambushed Cramer was because he dared to criticize the Messiah, plain and simple. Dare to bash our glorious leader, you pay the price. Message received.
"It was a deposition; he wants to be a prosecutor."
You mean, he was acting like a JOURNALIST? How sad that non-comedic media professionals can't even do this -- the only place you can find it nowadays is on blogs and Comedy Central.
One of the most useful quotes from the Daily Show came when Jon Stewart was talking about Republicans complaining that the coverage of the Iraq War was too negative, and that the media never focused on the positive things happening over there. "Yeah, you never hear about the cars that don't blow up!" he said.
So let me agree with Jim Cramer. You never hear about the times when he isn't being fatuous and manipulative! Bias! Slander!
Yes the only positive things happening in Iraq after the end to saddam's rule was the cars that weren't being blown up by insurgents.
The only positive things happening in new york are the jews who aren't jewing you blind, the blacks who aren't mugging and murdering people, and the gays who don't have aids yet.
@zefal: We all know how you were demonstrating the outrageous extensions the original comment went to, that if taken to the opposite extreme would be just as outrageous.
You don't want to be fucking with my children because your liberalism refuses to accept your own faults my friends.
With that feel free to anger my children. I have weed to free, and Tom Cruise to bend to my will. Thank you very much.
@Worst Spelling Ever: @stevenstevo: Seriously, how was the original comment extreme? My post was not about the Iraq War. It was about Jim Cramer. Way to miss the point.
By the way, Jon Stewart was not saying in HIS original comment that nothing positive came out of the Iraq War. He was making fun of the idea, in the midst of a very difficult and death-ridden part of the war, that journalists should cover things like people not dying instead of, oh, PEOPLE DYING.
Anyway, I'm wasting my breath here, since no one is reading this anymore and you two clearly have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
I watched the entire interview on Comedy Central. While it wouldn't entirely vindicate Cramer, there was important information that was edited out. I've also seen the entire clip from TheStreet.com. It also looks really bad when taken out of context.
Aside from what Cramer said, it was pretty clear that Stewart was out for blood. How often does he say things like, "It's not a fucking game" to guests on his own show?
I think Stewart is hysterical, but I definitely don't want to see him go the route of comics that take themselves too seriously like Bill Maher. Although, Maher has never been that funny.
@Lucille van Pelt: The people that jump in and out of the market lose their money when a big fund pushes the stock down to buy it cheaper. If that is the objective then that same big fund will then push it up. If you hold the stock for the duration of that ride, you lose nothing and maybe even gain. It's still wrong that the market is manipulated like that, but that single action shouldn't destroy someone's retirement. Additionally, if you are properly diversified, even the temporary damage should be minimal.
@stevenstevo: You're a soothsayer. Where have you been?
@ChillbearLatrigue: You know, my grandparents never fucked around too much with the stock market, but they've lost over a million dollars in the past year. True story.
Actually funds will "push the stock down" because they are short in the stock. Not trying to be oppositional here, but I think it is a point worth making since we're on the topic. Anyways, so traders actually want the stock to go down as much as possible. Hedge funds have long been accused of creating rumor that, while typically legal (and which Cramer discusses openly in his biography), are often seen as immoral. However unethical and commonplace such schemes may be, this is not what caused the financial crisis. In fact, it is not even one of the main factors. Such ploys usually only affect one stock (out of thousands), and plus stocks almost always rebound and revert back to their intrinsic value.
The sad reality of it is that getting all riled up and pissed off at George W. (four nights a week for eight years) has turned him delusional. Or maybe sanctimonious is a better description--perhaps his Peabody awards have gone to his head. Whatever it is, he now has this retarded self-righteous belief that he has been appointed to be the voice of little people (many of whom complain incessantly of their tax dollars going to waste despite not paying any income taxes). In reality, he tricked Cramer into coming on his show--a rather pathetic move IMO--and he took out his frustrations for the global recession on someone who had no idea this was coming.
@stevenstevo: In reality, he tricked Cramer into coming on his show--a rather pathetic move IMO--and he took out his frustrations for the global recession on someone who had no idea this was coming.
I think you might be confused about which "Cramer" is implicated here. The actual Jim Cramer, being a media professional and smart guy, was in no position to be "tricked" or to have "no idea this was coming" with respect to The Daily Show, of all things.
Now, the notion that individuals are being targeted by people's nonspecific frustrations with macroeconomic conditions -- there, I think we're all in agreement. And Stewart is probably as guilty of that as anyone. But implying that Jon Stewart is some Machiavellian string-puller trapping poor innocents like Jim Cramer in a web of deceit that's beyond their capacity to imagine -- no, I'm sorry, that's just too fantastic, like believing that putting on your superhero underwear actually makes you a superhero.
@skahammer: First of all, Jon Stewart is certainly a smart man. His vocation as a comedian does not make him any less ambitious or egotistical. In fact, it is because he hosts a comedy show that makes it possible to lay a trap for an unsuspecting person. You wouldn't believe the O'Reilly people if you were a newly controversial figure and they promised you that they would play nice on the show. I can give you another recent example of Stewart snaring the unsuspecting. Scott McClellan clearly thought that he was going to have a day in Fun City when he went on to promote his Bush expose. It ended up being his toughest interview of the week.
While I agree Cramer is not exactly a media rookie (he has been on CNBC for six or seven years), his industry has not really been under attack until recently. I think the game changed in that time. A year ago, if he had gone on the Daily Show, he would have been ridiculed solely of for his antics. Now he gets to be the face of an industry that caused people to lose their jobs and homes. In this case, Stewart was correct in that he did have the wrong guy.
@stevenstevo: You're right about the shorts. I was trying to keep it simple, but I have heard of a tactic where hedge funds will take two stocks in the same industry. One weak and one strong. They will go long a stock like Apple and then short a stock like Gateway. That type of situation is gives them the incentive to start trying to drive down Gateway and pump up Apple. The Overstock CEO blamed this for their demise. Usually, if the underlying company is strong, the earnings reports will eventually turn the shorts into fools.
04/14/09
04/13/09
04/14/09
04/13/09
You mean, he was acting like a JOURNALIST? How sad that non-comedic media professionals can't even do this -- the only place you can find it nowadays is on blogs and Comedy Central.
04/14/09
04/13/09
So let me agree with Jim Cramer. You never hear about the times when he isn't being fatuous and manipulative! Bias! Slander!
04/13/09
Yes the only positive things happening in Iraq after the end to saddam's rule was the cars that weren't being blown up by insurgents.
The only positive things happening in new york are the jews who aren't jewing you blind, the blacks who aren't mugging and murdering people, and the gays who don't have aids yet.
I can play that game too.
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/14/09
You don't want to be fucking with my children because your liberalism refuses to accept your own faults my friends.
With that feel free to anger my children. I have weed to free, and Tom Cruise to bend to my will. Thank you very much.
04/14/09
By the way, Jon Stewart was not saying in HIS original comment that nothing positive came out of the Iraq War. He was making fun of the idea, in the midst of a very difficult and death-ridden part of the war, that journalists should cover things like people not dying instead of, oh, PEOPLE DYING.
Anyway, I'm wasting my breath here, since no one is reading this anymore and you two clearly have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
04/13/09
Aside from what Cramer said, it was pretty clear that Stewart was out for blood. How often does he say things like, "It's not a fucking game" to guests on his own show?
I think Stewart is hysterical, but I definitely don't want to see him go the route of comics that take themselves too seriously like Bill Maher. Although, Maher has never been that funny.
04/13/09
04/13/09
@Lucille van Pelt: The people that jump in and out of the market lose their money when a big fund pushes the stock down to buy it cheaper. If that is the objective then that same big fund will then push it up. If you hold the stock for the duration of that ride, you lose nothing and maybe even gain. It's still wrong that the market is manipulated like that, but that single action shouldn't destroy someone's retirement. Additionally, if you are properly diversified, even the temporary damage should be minimal.
@stevenstevo: You're a soothsayer. Where have you been?
04/13/09
04/14/09
Actually funds will "push the stock down" because they are short in the stock. Not trying to be oppositional here, but I think it is a point worth making since we're on the topic. Anyways, so traders actually want the stock to go down as much as possible. Hedge funds have long been accused of creating rumor that, while typically legal (and which Cramer discusses openly in his biography), are often seen as immoral. However unethical and commonplace such schemes may be, this is not what caused the financial crisis. In fact, it is not even one of the main factors. Such ploys usually only affect one stock (out of thousands), and plus stocks almost always rebound and revert back to their intrinsic value.
The sad reality of it is that getting all riled up and pissed off at George W. (four nights a week for eight years) has turned him delusional. Or maybe sanctimonious is a better description--perhaps his Peabody awards have gone to his head. Whatever it is, he now has this retarded self-righteous belief that he has been appointed to be the voice of little people (many of whom complain incessantly of their tax dollars going to waste despite not paying any income taxes). In reality, he tricked Cramer into coming on his show--a rather pathetic move IMO--and he took out his frustrations for the global recession on someone who had no idea this was coming.
04/14/09
I think you might be confused about which "Cramer" is implicated here. The actual Jim Cramer, being a media professional and smart guy, was in no position to be "tricked" or to have "no idea this was coming" with respect to The Daily Show, of all things.
Now, the notion that individuals are being targeted by people's nonspecific frustrations with macroeconomic conditions -- there, I think we're all in agreement. And Stewart is probably as guilty of that as anyone. But implying that Jon Stewart is some Machiavellian string-puller trapping poor innocents like Jim Cramer in a web of deceit that's beyond their capacity to imagine -- no, I'm sorry, that's just too fantastic, like believing that putting on your superhero underwear actually makes you a superhero.
04/14/09
While I agree Cramer is not exactly a media rookie (he has been on CNBC for six or seven years), his industry has not really been under attack until recently. I think the game changed in that time. A year ago, if he had gone on the Daily Show, he would have been ridiculed solely of for his antics. Now he gets to be the face of an industry that caused people to lose their jobs and homes. In this case, Stewart was correct in that he did have the wrong guy.
@stevenstevo: You're right about the shorts. I was trying to keep it simple, but I have heard of a tactic where hedge funds will take two stocks in the same industry. One weak and one strong. They will go long a stock like Apple and then short a stock like Gateway. That type of situation is gives them the incentive to start trying to drive down Gateway and pump up Apple. The Overstock CEO blamed this for their demise. Usually, if the underlying company is strong, the earnings reports will eventually turn the shorts into fools.
04/14/09
I do note, however, that the gap separating Scott McClellan from Jim Cramer is probably enormous.
04/13/09
Stop digging your own grave. It's deep enough.
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/13/09
04/13/09
@Lucille van Pelt: Looks like someone hates truth and justice!