Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer and CNBC

[XTE]

Posted by Matthew 18:14:

"So now everyone jumps on Cramer because he recommends stocks that have lost money."

No, everyone is "jumping" on Cramer because he dared to criticize Obama. The fact that he was wrong concerning some stock choices is being used as an excuse.

RIGHT THERE IN THE VIDEO YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED and not argued by Cramer in any way is the real deal:

Stewart jumped on CNBC for failing to provide America with answers and representing stock and shareholders over the public. Cramer, TWICE, says he takes it personal. So, Stewart then jumped on Cramer because he took it so personally. It's the beginning of the video, just watch the first 3 minutes .

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Don't get me wrong, I will assign blame when and where it is due. But first I like to determine causes.

A leads to B and person X is responsible for A and therefore to blame for B.

Most right-wing analysis I've seen is A happened therefore X is to blame for B without ever tying A to B. This is how Frank and Dodd got blamed by the right-wing spin machine. They tied those two to Fanny and Freddy without ever linking Fanny and Freddy to the crisis.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html -Barney starts talking at 4:40 in the video.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html -A few quotes from various Congressman and Senators on regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565255349741343.html -More reading if you like.

WSJ has a link to the history of Op-Ed pieces talking about Fannie and Freddie. Interesting to read what people had to say before the whole thing blew up in our collective faces.

So yeah, judging by everything I've read, Barney had nothing to do with the problem at Fannie and Freddie (sarcasm intended).

 

[kermit]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html -Barney starts talking at 4:40 in the video.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html -A few quotes from various Congressman and Senators on regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565255349741343.html -More reading if you like.

WSJ has a link to the history of Op-Ed pieces talking about Fannie and Freddie. Interesting to read what people had to say before the whole thing blew up in our collective faces.

So yeah, judging by everything I've read, Barney had nothing to do with the problem at Fannie and Freddie (sarcasm intended).

You prove my point. You are linking them to the problems at Freddy and Fanny yet are not making any logical connection between the problems at F&F and the recession.

 

[JustOneWay]

Posted by Matthew 18:14:

"So now everyone jumps on Cramer because he recommends stocks that have lost money."

No, everyone is "jumping" on Cramer because he dared to criticize Obama. The fact that he was wrong concerning some stock choices is being used as an excuse.

I dont recall Cramer criticizing Obama. Please post a the criticism.

Stewart stated that he never meant to single out Cramer. Stewart criticized CNBC, and it was Cramer who took offense. Stewart also stated that he criticized CNBC because they were not doing enough to expose what was really happening.

 

[Allahuakbar]

Allahuakbar, fascism is about glorifying the state and the power of the state and hatred of capitalism and the private sector.

Fascism is a combination of Revolutionary Syndicalism, Futurism, and Nationalism. It is a distinct political philosophy that cannot in any way be applied to this situation, and your application only underlies your complete unfamiliarity with the definition. Yes, Fascism was Nationalistic, but that does not mean all Nationalistic movements are Fascist. The current situation is not even Nationalistic, so you are wrong on that front anyway.

You cannot create imaginary definitions. You are using words you do not understand. I do not know how much more clear to make this. If you want to use words, such as Fascism, you really do need to understand what they mean first. In this case you make your argument completely irrelevant because it is clear that it has no basis in reality. You might as well blame the current economic on fluoridation.

Democrats had praise for Fannie and Freddie and they wanted no regulation for it, because after all it was helping give out hand outs.

Anyways I don't really feel like it, which is why I was hesitant to even bring this stuff up because I know its going to turn into the typical debate on fascism

You cannot debate Fascism until you actually have a functional definition. Also your ranting lacks substantive factual support.

I prove that fascism is the same as socialism and the leftists just end up never responding back, but again if it kills this thread go on, say fascism is far right pure capitalism.

I can honestly say that your complete conception of the political spectrum is inherently flawed. First your insinuation that anything far Right must be capitalistic is incorrect. I have taught political theory at the Freshman level and you really need to invest some basic study in these subjects before jumping onto a fact-less rant of their application. The political spectrum, as I used in class, is hardly a line at all, but rather an oval horseshoe.

 

[Allahuakbar]

I dont recall Cramer criticizing Obama. Please post a the criticism.

Stewart stated that he never meant to single out Cramer. Stewart criticized MSNBC, and it was Cramer who took offense. Stewart also stated that he criticized MSNBC because they were not doing enough to expose what was really happening.

This is a classic example of what happens when you listen to what other people, in this case Bill O'Reilly, says about a subject rather than observing the subject itself.

 

[JustOneWay]

This is a classic example of what happens when you listen to what other people, in this case Bill O'Reilly, says about a subject rather than observing the subject itself.

Agreed. I have watched every comment Stewart made, and it had nothing to do with Obama. Cramer may be an intelligent individual, however Stewart successfully made his point and exposed Cramer as less than honest. Taken down by a comedian!

Stewart's only agenda was to show that CNBC was not living up to it's potential to help people by exposing corruption.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Fascism is a combination of Revolutionary Syndicalism, Futurism, and Nationalism. It is a distinct political philosophy that cannot in any way be applied to this situation, and your application only underlies your complete unfamiliarity with the definition. Yes, Fascism was Nationalistic, but that does not mean all Nationalistic movements are Fascist. The current situation is not even Nationalistic, so you are wrong on that front anyway.

You cannot create imaginary definitions. You are using words you do not understand. I do not know how much more clear to make this. If you want to use words, such as Fascism, you really do need to understand what they mean first. In this case you make your argument completely irrelevant because it is clear that it has no basis in reality. You might as well blame the current economic on fluoridation.



You cannot debate Fascism until you actually have a functional definition. Also your ranting lacks substantive factual support.



I can honestly say that your complete conception of the political spectrum is inherently flawed. First your insinuation that anything far Right must be capitalistic is incorrect. I have taught political theory at the Freshman level and you really need to invest some basic study in these subjects before jumping onto a fact-less rant of their application. The political spectrum, as I used in class, is hardly a line at all, but rather an oval horseshoe.

The Far Right has to be capitalistic and anyone who says otherwise is just wow. The left right scale is based on the amount of economic freedom therefore the far right will be capitalist.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by JustOneWay:

“I don’t recall Cramer criticizing Obama. Please post a the criticism.”

This isn’t the only thread where this topic has been discussed. Some are unaware of that.

From USNews.com:

Obama Takes Heat Over Tanking Markets

Jim Cramer, at the beginning of CNBC's Mad Money, reported that President Obama "actually said it was a good time to buy stocks," and added, "Given that it was Obama who knocked the whole darn thing down, he might have some inside information that he's done enough damage for now. ... Obama is clearly not a day-trader-- although he could make a killing on the short side with his radical agenda." Former Democratic Rep. Harold Ford, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Cramer, said, "I happen to agree with Cramer's points, his larger thrust, the point he is trying to make to this Administration." Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and, according to The Politico, a potential GOP Senate candidate in Connecticut, opened his show last night complaining about the Administration's talk "about taxing the rich, raising taxes on private investment funds and raising taxes on offshore corporate revenues. That is more war against investors and businesses in the worst bear market recession in memory. It's an extraordinary stupid performance, to be honest with you."

End Quote. Link:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090304.htm


What follows is a series of videos where Cramers comments can be heard. I have no idea why the system is posting each of them twice. The first is Cramer commenting on this issue on The Today Show, during which he stated “this is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president”. This comment can be heard a bit over three minutes in. The second is from his own show on March 2nd. The third is from last November, where he compares Obama to Lenin. The final one is from Walstreet Confidential, where Cramer calls Obama's stimulus plan "a joke", and a "total fraud."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6DT9feskNM


On his show on March 2nd, Cramer said this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhEtBri2FA4


On another occasion Cramer compared Obama to Lenin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUuOOnsGu6Y


He also called Obama's stimulus a "joke".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6w_7HGyT0


Posted by Allahuakbar:


"This is a classic example of what happens when you listen to what other people, in this case Bill O'Reilly, says about a subject rather than observing the subject itself."


I suppose none of these comments were ever made and none of these videos actually exist. Stewart may have been skillful in his interview of Cramer, but the fact that he did not mention Cramer's criticism of Obama does not alone disprove a hidden agenda.

 

[Gawron]

In addition, hopefully XTE can and will be allowed to answer for himself.

 

[JustOneWay]

This isn’t the only thread where this topic has been discussed. Some are unaware of that.


I suppose none of these comments were ever made and none of these videos actually exist. Stewart may have been skillful in his interview of Cramer, but the fact that he did not mention Cramer's criticism of Obama does not alone disprove a hidden agenda.

None of this proves there is a hidden agenda (your position)



gotta love the conspiracies....

 

[kermit]

The Far Right has to be capitalistic and anyone who says otherwise is just wow. The left right scale is based on the amount of economic freedom therefore the far right will be capitalist.

That is not true.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by JustOneWay:

"None of this proves there is a hidden agenda (your position)"

Nor did I make this claim. But it does prove that Cramer criticized Obama, which is what you questioned.

 

[XTE]

In addition, hopefully XTE can and will be allowed to answer for himself.

I will gladly answer this tripe:

First, let's do a little exercise. I want you to DISPROVE unicorns. You don't have to tell me how you did it, I just want you to sit there and actively try to disprove unicorns. Can you think of some arguments?

Now, can you?

You don't practice proper logic first and foremost is the point. A court and everyone within save for you would laugh at your notion of "Disproof." It's hilarious. "Ask a murder suspect to disprove he was at the murder scene" would be your argument right? LOL! The proper way to say this is: "Ask a murder suspect to PROVE he was NOT at the murder scene." The implication is: you were somewhere, tell us where that is. You should hear from the suspect, "I was not at the murder scene(a positive claim), and I can PROVE IT!"

So really, learn proper logic.

Secondly, I never stated Cramer didn't rail against the Obama administration. I don't know about it. Stewart Vs. Cramer is the first I've heard about Cramer in a long, long time. It's hitting my ears because I appreciate the Daily Show. I truly appreciate that Stewart called him on the carpet as a liar and a thief. I also like the fact that Cramer said he would change his show around and maybe do some actual journalism on CNBC.

Posting those videos does show that Cramer wasn't a fan of Obama's policy. I don't blame him for that either, he is a liar and a thief as per his own testament in that 30 minute clip of Stewart Vs. Cramer. He is also filthy rich unlike me or you.

So, in summary:

I never said Cramer didn't like Obama's policies. I never said the opposite of that either. I cannot disprove your conspiracy theory either because it makes absolutely ZERO SENSE LOGICALLY. Courts would laugh you out of the room!

Let me add to how silly your conspiracy theory is:

I could think that the Bush Administration had a list of Saudis and down the WTC. If I were like you, I could then turn and tell you to disprove it. If you don't "disprove" it, I can safely assume I am right?

NO, I can't. You make the positive claim that John Stewart started this because Cramer denounced the Obama Administration. You need to show proof of that. I don't remember Stewart even discussing that at all! You just want to believe it's the case.

Not understanding logical reasoning is a pillar of belief. I'm very sorry you subscribe to it.

 

[JustOneWay]

Nor did I make this claim.

What I find interesting is that Cramer has been the air for quite some time and no-one cared or had much of anything to say. Suddenly he criticizes Obama (or as Oprah would say, The One), and all hell breaks loose.

Oh, but it is all just coincidence! Jon Stewart was planning this interview all along.......

...sure.

You have been trying to turn this thread into an Obama issue since your first post in this thread.

 

[Allahuakbar]

This isn’t the only thread where this topic has been discussed. Some are unaware of that....

This is very interesting. Gawron said in post #10...

"What I find interesting is that Cramer has been the air for quite some time and no-one cared or had much of anything to say. Suddenly he criticizes Obama (or as Oprah would say, The One), and all hell breaks loose.
Oh, but it is all just coincidence! Jon Stewart was planning this interview all along..........sure."

Now Gawron has been asked several times since then for the evidence of this correlation. This is what he has presented, after several days (and several posts without evidence). Mr. Cramer is commenting on President Obama. Now this is noticeable for the following reasons.

1. Gawron has posted very little actual analysis. Several quoted articles and Youtube videos later and the only individual commentary is roughly 30 words at the end. There is a tendency to let video and article think for an argument rather than using articles and video to supplement an argument. Randomly posting articles and videos without analysis is empty argumentation. Actual analysis requires breaking down what the articles and videos are saying and applying reasoning to the medium to determine strength, weakness, and validity.

2. The articles and video do not support the claim at all.

"Stewart may have been skillful in his interview of Cramer, but the fact that he did not mention Cramer's criticism of Obama does not alone disprove a hidden agenda."

These 30 (rounded) words are completely unsupported by any of the evidence. Not a single shred of evidence exists in all of the posted material to support Gawron's claim.

None.

Nada.

Zero.

Zip.

Mafish.

So you have to wonder what the point is? Is this an attempt to move the goalpost? Is it an attempt to simply gossip? Is it really a serious attempt at analysis? Is this an attempt to poke fun at Republicans by presenting an untenable arguments based on conspiracy theory?

 

[JustOneWay]

Posted by JustOneWay:

"None of this proves there is a hidden agenda (your position)"

Nor did I make this claim. But it does prove that Cramer criticized Obama, which is what you questioned.

Another example of your hidden agenda conspiracy

No, everyone is "jumping" on Cramer because he dared to criticize Obama. The fact that he was wrong concerning some stock choices is being used as an excuse.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by XTE:

“I will gladly answer this tripe:”

You didn’t answer anything. You completely ignored the question I asked you. The rest of your post is a complete mystery, as I did not make any of the claims against you that you state I did. Example:

“Secondly, I never stated Cramer didn't rail against the Obama administration.”

Show where I stated you said this. In addition, I have advanced no conspiracy theory, this is simply a term you, and others, have inaccurately and without foundation applied in an attempt discredit my opinion.

“I could think that the Bush Administration had a list of Saudis and down the WTC. If I were like you, I could then turn and tell you to disprove it. If you don't "disprove" it, I can safely assume I am right?”

This makes no sense, and again, is a distortion of what I said. In post 43 I stated this:

“No, everyone is "jumping" on Cramer because he dared to criticize Obama. The fact that he was wrong concerning some stock choices is being used as an excuse.”

In post 28 I said this:

“Cramer will lose his show, soon. But not because he made bad predictions on what stocks to buy or sell.”

These are my opinions, based on my observations over considerable time of liberals in action. I do not need to provide a link to my opinion, especially on a website where many come here to voice their opinion. The fact that you disagree with my opinion does not invalidate my opinion. And I don’t care if O’Reilly said the same thing, even if I had seen that show it wouldn’t have mattered.

I suppose you are responding to this:

“but the fact that he did not mention Cramer's criticism of Obama does not alone disprove a hidden agenda.”

But this is a perfectly logical comment. Many have posted here stating that the interview with Cramer was in no manner influenced by Cramer’s criticism of Obama without offering any of the “proof” you demand of me. But logic dictates that if Stewart wanted to avoid the criticism that he was offended by Cramer’s comments against Obama, one sure way to accomplish that would be to simply not mention them. Stewart is an Obama supporter, and I believe one reason he went after Cramer so hard was because of Cramer’s criticism of the president. But no-where on this thread have I stated that I could prove this. Therefore, since I made no claim of proof, your charge that I offered no proof is worthless.

JustOneWay, in post number 50 you said this:

“I dont recall Cramer criticizing Obama. Please post a the criticism.”

And that is what I did. In that post I did not attack you, I did not call you any names, I did not challenge anything you had said, I did not imply that you were lying, or stupid, or advancing conspiracy theories, or post little waving smiley faces, or in fact address you at all beyond posting your request. Nor did I state that the material posted was proof of anything where Stewart was concerned. You asked for the criticism to be posted, and I did that. One would think a simple thank-you would be enough. Instead you said this:

“You have been trying to turn this thread into an Obama issue since your first post in this thread.”

No, I have been consistent is stating that I believe Cramer is being targeted by many because of his criticism of the president. You disagree, fine.

<staff edit>

 

[XTE]

Gawron, you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND proper logic. Don't worry, there are a lot of people just like you.

Luckily we have a court system that understands the process for those people. You need a lawyer willing to tackle your case on this one.

Your response up there, however "logical" it may sound to you, is littered with logical fallacies. You attempt a strawman:

"Many have posted here stating that the interview with Cramer was in no manner influenced by Cramer&#8217;s criticism of Obama without offering any of the &#8220;proof&#8221; you demand of me." We don't say he didn't necessarily, we say there is NO PROOF that this is happening. This is besides the point anyways. You are making the conspiracy theory here, and asking us to disprove a negative claim. It's right there in that quote!!!!

"I have advanced no conspiracy theory, this is simply a term you, and others, have inaccurately and without foundation applied in an attempt discredit my opinion." You are positively FULL OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES and obviously have no clue what they are. You literally, here in this one sentence said you advance no conspiracy theories, but truth be damned, you go and tell us we are all CONSPIRING AGAINST YOU! LOL

"The fact that you disagree with my opinion does not invalidate my opinion." Wut? Of course it doesn't. "Everyone has an opinion!" "Opinions are cheap!" This sentence highlights the need for FACTS of all things. Before you can isolate facts, you need to know what constitutes a fact in the first place. You do not hold this ability. If you really enjoy your opinion that much, then enjoy it! I'm not going to. I'll see it as a collapse in the dialogue needed to bring about fair practice and you're just an obstacle. Also, you claim "not to advance any conspiracy theories" yet you admit here, "these are my opinions, based on my observations over considerable time of liberals in action." THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!!! You should be able to throw up facts! LOL

"No, I have been consistent is stating that I believe Cramer is being targeted by many because of his criticism of the president." YOU SIR, are a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

...and completely marginalized I think....

 

[XTE]

"Gawron's Law: Any criticism of President Barack Obama will almost immediately result in a retaliatory attack against President George Bush."

I rest my case!