Jon Stewart rips into Cramer...

roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif
does he ever loss
 
Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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."
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.
Sorry, but you're missing the point. Jon Stewart is on Comedy Central.

He is a comedian. He has the luxury of hindsight because looking back at mistakes is FUNNY.

People applaud him ultimately for his comedy and critics hate ultimately because of his ultra-liberal stance.

The difference between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly is that Stewart is self-aware of his position as a comedian. He knows that he is not a seriousjournalist.

O'Reilly on the other hand is 100% absolutely serious. THAT is funny....
 
Amen Bastitch.

Cramer is just one of the face's of the whole problem with these large networks, unfortunately no matter what happens they will never change their ways,but awareness by the public is a step in the right direction.

It's ridiculous how irresponsible these networks can be.
 
Stewart's a douche. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are now taking news from a COMEDIAN. What difference is this from the soup or chelsea lately?Looks more political to me than policing. Stewart and his writers do tend to lean to the right. I just don't find John Stewart funny. But then again, hecould be having the bet week ever.
 



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.


As if Cramer really let's people just call in and knows about that particular stock they are curious about? He has no writers, callscreener's, people to organize informaton and idea men?
grin.gif
Not sayinghe isn't a smart guy, but he is just as much a pitch man on his show as Stewart is on his.

Cramer atleast could have sat up and spoken with some confidence. He took it and muttered back whenever he had a chance to really speak.
 
Originally Posted by Heart and Hustle

Stewart's a douche. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are now taking news from a COMEDIAN. What difference is this from the soup or chelsea lately? Looks more political to me than policing. Stewart and his writers do tend to lean to the right. I just don't find John Stewart funny. But then again, he could be having the bet week ever.
Open your eyes and look at the big picture. It's bigger than right or left. It has nothing to do with Stewart. It has to do with the mediaintentionally swaying the markets and *%%@@$+ with people's money. How do you not see that?

Comedian or no comedian truth is truth.



Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
seemed more like a bully attempt than anything else. and his fans ate it up. Cramer barely got to say much.. Its almost on an oreilly "talking louder thanyou will shut you up" type interviews..
 
Originally Posted by WallyHopp

seemed more like a bully attempt than anything else. and his fans ate it up. Cramer barely got to say much.. Its almost on an oreilly "talking louder than you will shut you up" type interviews..

What could he say?
There was video proof of him contradicting himself.

Did you watch it?
 
Originally Posted by Heart and Hustle

Stewart's a douche. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are now taking news from a COMEDIAN. What difference is this from the soup or chelsea lately? Looks more political to me than policing. Stewart and his writers do tend to lean to the right. I just don't find John Stewart funny. But then again, he could be having the bet week ever.
I must be taking something from this video that your guys are missing or vice versa. Granted Jon Stewartpointed out some bad calls Cramer made in the video, but I think the main point here was the collusion going on between the network and wall street. Jon callshim out on this, and Cramer tries to lie about it until Stewart provides numerous video clips proving otherwise. It's not about bad calls or bad timing,it's about him trying to decieve people all the while having the responsibility to bring unbiased news to the table that people rely on. On one hand heknows whats going on and he plays accordingly in his private investments, then he turns around and plays this character on his TV show who is completelyoblivious to the mahem going on behind the scenes. THAT's what it's about and he deserved to get chewed a new +**$+%@ for it

PS "marath0n, you hit it SQUARE on the head. you said exactly what I was going to but couldn't put into wordslol



M!ke
 
Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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."
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.
Yes, people love Stewart and give him too much credit, but you're missing the point if you think he (or Cramer) is the focal point of thisinteraction.
"It wasn't about Cramer people. It was about CNBC in general being a shill for the CEOs and bankers on Wall street."
I mean, do y'all really understand the gravity of this situation? Pardon me if I'm late, because I haven't been keeping up with thiswhole back-and-forth between Comedy Central and CNBC, but that short 8 minute clip basically implements Cramer/CNBC for some VERY shady dealings. Cramer admits to trying to manipulate the general public with false info for his and his cronies own personalgain because the SEC won't catch onto it, and you're worried about people praising Stewart too much?
 
Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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."
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.
What's funny about your comments is that Cramer, when not backed by writers and is put on the spot on Stewart's show, his response isessentially apologetic and one of admittance or claiming ignorance. He now has the luxury of hindsight to attack Stewart when not faced with him and when hecan use others to fight back.

Do Stewart's faults somehow absolve Cramer of his own?
 
Originally Posted by ddot7

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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."
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.
What's funny about your comments is that Cramer, when not backed by writers and is put on the spot on Stewart's show, his response is essentially apologetic and one of admittance or claiming ignorance. He now has the luxury of hindsight to attack Stewart when not faced with him and when he can use others to fight back.

Do Stewart's faults somehow absolve Cramer of his own?
 
Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

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."
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.
Sorry, but you're missing the point. Jon Stewart is on Comedy Central.

He is a comedian. He has the luxury of hindsight because looking back at mistakes is FUNNY.

People applaud him ultimately for his comedy and critics hate ultimately because of his ultra-liberal stance.

The difference between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly is that Stewart is self-aware of his position as a comedian. He knows that he is not a serious journalist.

O'Reilly on the other hand is 100% absolutely serious. THAT is funny....
PREACH!
 
Apparently some didn't get the whole point of calling cramer and cnbc out.... If anyone seen the clip of cramer speaking about malipunating the marketsthat should be enough to smack his kufi.... Cramer is not all bad but he ain't mr goodie tooshoe , if u don't think he wouldn't line his pockets onthe side by giving out misinformation hen your lost in the sauce....
 
cramer lost his credibility a long time ago

his stock picks were going down DURING a bull market

and this recession only made it worst. I mean who recommends bear stearns to the public right before the melt down......
 
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.
Truth.

I remember when Mark Fisher called out Cramer at work. Everyone was like
eek.gif
because he's made to appear as a genius and no one would think that someone would call him out. He said that those who rely on Cramer for info deserveeverything that comes to them.
roll.gif
I'm still laughing at the bet Cramerlost with one of the guys I worked with.
 
Back
Top Bottom