- 2,108
- 84
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2002
Cramer didn't stand a chance.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
man...john stewart ate that dude alive....Originally Posted by NT OG
Cramer is done.
Originally Posted by nine point five
"but he's a [color= rgb(0, 204, 255)]comedian[/color]"
this dude sounds so confident just days before that Stewart has no idea what he's talking about
M!ke
Billian wrote:
It is a sad situation out there, but I think people need to temper whatever they see on TV with some kind of logic/reason. If you invest(ed) based on what some talking head on a news network was telling you to without doing your own homework and lost a lot, then you need to man up for not being a smart investor.
Stewart was pointing out how corrupt financial journalism is. Independent agencies were in bed with wall street. So even if you do your ownhomework, how you can trust the info that is really out there? Rating agencies, research analysts, newspaper columnists etc all have a financial incentive tobasically lie to the public. Insiders within the industry knew what was really going on, but they did nothing to expose the truth and help out the public inthe process. The few that did were labeled crazy and didn't have an audience. People knew about Madoff for years including some of his own investors! Theydid nothing
The following day on March 10, during a Tuesday appearance on the Today show, Cramer said of The Daily Show bit, "The absurdity astounds me. [Jon Stewart] is a comedian, and he's decided to focus on some calls I made during a bull market. The guy is a comedian. "[sup][53][/sup]
On March 12 11:00pm EST Stewart had Cramer on his show. Stewart proceeded to get Cramer to admit that he can do better, and that he can change, and that all money show's are hosted by bald guys, and that he is a big fat doodie head, and that hand size is not correlated to penis size, and that Sydney Crosby is a punk, and that ##!%* taste very very good.
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
Jon Stewart will never come off as a bad guy because he has the 20/20 hindsight vision. He doesn't know any more than any of his guests, but he's the untouchable comedian who can just parade a bunch of pundits on his show and the minions will eat it up and call him a genius. This encounter proves nothing. Cramer is a nobody in the economic climate, and Stewart is just trying to appeal to his own base as the super genius who outs these types. In the end, nobody knew, nobody wins, and nobody cares.
You're missing the point. Stewart has the luxury of a large staff of writers and interns who just compile clips to make fun of people, andhe's the pitch man. He isn't any smarter or more clever than anyone he brings on his show. He was able to back Cramer into a corner, but it's notlike Mr. Stewart knows any better. He has the luxury of hindsight, and it's good for some laughs and awkward moments, but he's not any sort of genius.And if it was about CNBC, why pick on one guy, even if he was the most visible? Dedicate a segment to their fallacy and move on. But Stewart can't do that,he has to please his loyal followers so he berated a guy for a network's shortcomings, and then we all applaud him for being the coolest guy on earth. IfO'Reilly did this, NT would have nothing to say. Nothing.Originally Posted by Vancity74
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
Jon Stewart will never come off as a bad guy because he has the 20/20 hindsight vision. He doesn't know any more than any of his guests, but he's the untouchable comedian who can just parade a bunch of pundits on his show and the minions will eat it up and call him a genius. This encounter proves nothing. Cramer is a nobody in the economic climate, and Stewart is just trying to appeal to his own base as the super genius who outs these types. In the end, nobody knew, nobody wins, and nobody cares.
This has nothing to do with the economy. I'll quote a YouTube comment since it sums everything up: "It wasn't about Cramer people. It was about CNBC in general being a shill for the CEOs and bankers on Wall street."
Have you been watching or are you just speaking? It was about CNBC but Cramer took offense because of the segment about his fallacyOriginally Posted by dmbrhs
And if it was about CNBC, why pick on one guy, even if he was the most visible? Dedicate a segment to their fallacy and move on. But Stewart can't do that, he has to please his loyal followers so he berated a guy for a network's shortcomings, and then we all applaud him for being the coolest guy on earth. If O'Reilly did this, NT would have nothing to say. Nothing.
The truth is: Cramer is such an extremely small component of this entire economic debacle that this entire back and forth during this week has felt forced and unnecessary.
However, this was a really compelling interview to watch. I think Jon brought the pain a bit too harsh at times, but he really had Cramer against the ropes the entire time. It is a sad situation out there, but I think people need to temper whatever they see on TV with some kind of logic/reason. If you invest(ed) based on what some talking head on a news network was telling you to without doing your own homework and lost a lot, then you need to man up for not being a smart investor.
I don't agree with the first part of your statement, but I completely agree with the last part. In regards to the first half, I see Crameras a spokesperson or a messanger for these various companies that were giving out false statements and market news. If you can't get to the companies, youhave to go to the person that is reporting the news about them, which would be him.
And if it was about CNBC, why pick on one guy, even if he was the most visible? Dedicate a segment to their fallacy and move on. But Stewart can't do that, he has to please his loyal followers so he berated a guy for a network's shortcomings, and then we all applaud him for being the coolest guy on earth. If O'Reilly did this, NT would have nothing to say. Nothing.
Why pick one guy.............well you said it yourself, cause he's the most visible and he's the face of the problem for the situation at hand. Also,O'Reilly tends to twist alot of his guests talking points around completely and yell/shout over them leaving the guest no time to really respond.
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
You're missing the point. Stewart has the luxury of a large staff of writers and interns who just compile clips to make fun of people, and he's the pitch man. He isn't any smarter or more clever than anyone he brings on his show. He was able to back Cramer into a corner, but it's not like Mr. Stewart knows any better. He has the luxury of hindsight, and it's good for some laughs and awkward moments, but he's not any sort of genius. And if it was about CNBC, why pick on one guy, even if he was the most visible? Dedicate a segment to their fallacy and move on. But Stewart can't do that, he has to please his loyal followers so he berated a guy for a network's shortcomings, and then we all applaud him for being the coolest guy on earth. If O'Reilly did this, NT would have nothing to say. Nothing.Originally Posted by Vancity74
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
Jon Stewart will never come off as a bad guy because he has the 20/20 hindsight vision. He doesn't know any more than any of his guests, but he's the untouchable comedian who can just parade a bunch of pundits on his show and the minions will eat it up and call him a genius. This encounter proves nothing. Cramer is a nobody in the economic climate, and Stewart is just trying to appeal to his own base as the super genius who outs these types. In the end, nobody knew, nobody wins, and nobody cares.
This has nothing to do with the economy. I'll quote a YouTube comment since it sums everything up: "It wasn't about Cramer people. It was about CNBC in general being a shill for the CEOs and bankers on Wall street."