Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer and CNBC

[Gawron]

Why do you keep avoiding my question to you? All I see here is a smokescreen.

 

[Allahuakbar]

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.

Here is what you said...

"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."

Conspiracy theory - A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

So you think that Mr. Stewart attacked Mr. Cramer after Mr. Cramer criticized the President. You think Mr. Stewart secretly plotted to attack Mr. Cramer specifically because of Mr. Cramer's comments about the President. This is textbook definition.

http://www.answers.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

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.

Well there are several problems here. For one, your opinions often have a disturbing, almost word for word, similarity with the opinions others offer, which is odd.

Two, opinions are, in a perfect and rational world, based on actual facts and rationale. Expecting an individual to produce this if asked is hardly unreasonable. Inability to do so is likely indicative of a lack of actual facts and rationale.

Three, there is a world of difference between the informed considered opinion and political theater being masked as opinion. It is hardly unreasonable to look for information to determine which is being offered in a specific case.

And I don’t care if O’Reilly said the same thing, even if I had seen that show it wouldn’t have mattered.

Actually it does. Especially if your opinion is a direct word for word match for someone else's opinion.

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.

And here is what you could have avoided had you watched the interview. I cannot stress this enough.

If you want to be involved in this discussion, you need to actually have watched the interview. Mr. Stewart actually mentioned what offended him. He was direct about it. You have COMPLETELY ignored this and focused on a complete fabrication.

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.

And you have consistently proven incapable of providing the most minute amount of reasoning or rationale for your conclusion. Nothing. You have an opinion that is not supported by anything.

Allahuakbar, you seem to be under the grand delusion that I answer to you. I do not.

No, you should answer to a moral and ethical standard that you impose on yourself to express opinions that are sound and based in fact. You should attempt to make yourself as informed as you can on subjects. You should start with others opinions and examine and dissect them, using the process to develop your own thoughts, instead of finding something you like and copying it word for word.

That is what I do at least.

Your agenda has been clear for quite some time, and you were recently banned from another website for attempts to advance that agenda.

That is not true at all. You seem to want your argumentative flaws to be my fault. I do not make you resort to poor argumentation.

Also you know I was banned for providing the same excoriating analysis I do here, and the "g" dropping Republicans were at a loss. If anyone wants the real story they can PM me and I can explain what odd coincidences I found in some posts that caused so many problems.

You make grand claims to the contrary but the truth is simple. You do not look for debate, you look for submission.

Have you provided a sound argument? You seem to think I need to accept your poor arguments as something that needs response to. Pointing out that your arguments are fallacious at best seems the least I could do.

 

[XTE]

Why do you keep avoiding my question to you? All I see here is a smokescreen.

What is the question? I implied those things from the videos you posted. You literally asked me to respond "personally" to a question I did not see. Post here in response to this post and I'll gladly answer it!

I literally have no clue now what the question could be...

 

[XTE]

Have you provided a sound argument? You seem to think I need to accept your poor arguments as something that needs response to. Pointing out that your arguments are fallacious at best seems the least I could do.

Let's let this one pout a bit. It's the first step in the healing process....

Later comes submitting through humility! MESSAGE!

 

[XTE]

Why do you keep avoiding my question to you?

Also, you avoided my whole post!

Gawron, you seem to think I should submit to you instead of actually having a debate! LOL

 

[Allahuakbar]

Also, you avoided my whole post!

Gawron, you seem to think I should submit to you instead of actually having a debate! LOL

How can you have a debate when one person will not even watch the interview?

 

[XTE]

How can you have a debate when one person will not even watch the interview?

I know, I know....

 

[Allahuakbar]

I'd delete the last 80% of the above post. Don't give him fodder to claim you are attacking him personally.

 

[trunks2k]

Gawron - this is what happened.

- Santelli, a reporter for CNBC, was supposed to appear on the Daily Show.
- On one of his shows Santelli attacks the Obama plan as well as people who can't pay their loans and calls them losers, and gets a bunch of traders behind him to give him a rallying cry.
- Santelli cancels his appearance on the Daily Show.
- Stewart takes a bit offense to this (as he often makes a couple small jabs at people who cancel on his show), and is very offended at calling people who can't pay their mortgage "losers", because in his eyes channels like CNBC are a big part of the problem because they're just acting as mouthpieces for lying businesses. He wasn't offended at Santelli criticizing Obama, but Santalli calling people "losers".
- Stewart runs a series a clips of various CNBC reporters making horrendously bad predictions and/or just acting as a mouthpiece for lying corporations. One of those clips includes Cramer yelling about how Behr Sterns is fine and not to take your money out just days before the company collapsed (something Stewart made fun of Cramer for last year).
- Cramer responds that he was taken out of context.
- Stewart responds back with a correction, indeed they did take him out of context, and apologize for it. They then play a different clip from a few days earlier than the first one shown in which he is in context and plainly saying that Behr Sterns is at a good price and will be stable from now on.
- Cramer then goes on a quick junket around the NBC family taking shots at Stewart.
- Stewart makes some shots back and Cramer is invited on as a guest.

The whole thing didn't originate from Cramer criticizing Obama (I wasn't even aware that he had). It originated from Santelli saying that people who can't afford their mortgages are losers when the channel he works for knowingly plays along with corporations that are lying to them and ultimately messing with people's lives.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

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.

Holy smokes. Let's see, Fannie Mae was buying bad debt from lenders and at the same time telling everyone that everything was going to be alright. Mr. Frank was telling everyone that everything was going to be alright up until July of 2008 (3 months later the market goes boom). So the housing market collapses. Now either Frank was being lied to by the leaders of Fannie and Freddie, or he is lying to us. Either way he has not owned up to either. Instead he has blamed the Bush administration. So now that we know Barney is an accomplice in this matter, let's take a look at the recession.

Housing market goes bust because Fannie and Freddie are over leveraged. Almost every investment bank in America has purchased some of this bad debt that Fannie and Freddie (two government run institutions) had turned into investment vehicles. Therefore when the bad debt finally starts to be seen as bad debt the whole kit and kaboodle goes up in smoke.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/news/economy/how_bad/index.htm -From January 2008. Seems like Barney should have been asking some real hard questions about Fannie and Freddie's position. Especially when he is denying that problems exist in July of 2008.

http://www.ohioscpa.com/Content/42553.aspx -An economist discussing what he thinks caused the recession.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/wiki/Mortgage_Crisis.asp

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2008/09/barney_frank_di.html -What Barney Frank had to say about regulating GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises). This was also covered in another link that I had in a previous post.

Barney didn't want to put more regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and the housing bubble burst is what led to the recession. Although Barney isn't the only reason this happened, he certainly didn't help and his pointing the finger at everyone else shows that he can't own up to anything.

Hope this helps you understand why Barney was a major contributor to this debacle.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

No, your pathetic fabrication from Rush and O'Reilly isn't true either. 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 and this false regurgitation you practice will be laid to rest!

I'm not regurgitating anything. I don't listen to Rush or watch any of the shows that you think I watch. All I'm saying is that people who invested what they couldn't lose, shouldn't be blaming someone else. If you need to make sure you have your money tomorrow, then don't put it in the stock market. That is why the government sells bonds and also why you can get a savings account at any bank. Stewart being upset because Cramer said to invest in companies that went under is just a bunch of you know what. Cramer admitted he was wrong. If the stock market was an easy game then we would all be sitting on easy street with with millions of dollars.

Again, nobody wants to blame themself when something happens. It is always someone elses fault. I watched the video and that is exactly what Stewart is doing. He is blaming Cramer for people investing in and losing money on companies. First of all people shouldn't have been investing anything that they couldn't afford to lose. Yes, he also mentions that CNBC should be doing more, but Cramer can't speak for all of CNBC, he can only speak for himself. So then Stewart goes on a rant about how Cramer is making a game out of it. Read his investment books and other investment books, and then invest your money. Don't watch a television show and then complain when you lose money.

 

[kermit]

Housing market goes bust because Fannie and Freddie are over leveraged. Almost every investment bank in America has purchased some of this bad debt that Fannie and Freddie (two government run institutions) had turned into investment vehicles. Therefore when the bad debt finally starts to be seen as bad debt the whole kit and kaboodle goes up in smoke.

Barney didn't want to put more regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and the housing bubble burst is what led to the recession. Although Barney isn't the only reason this happened, he certainly didn't help and his pointing the finger at everyone else shows that he can't own up to anything.

4 things.

1. Freddy and Fanny are not in the mortgage selling business. If you have a Fanny Mae loan it will stay a Fanny Mae loan until you do something to change that like refinance.
2. Freddy and Fanny loans had a much lower rate of foreclosure than other institutions. Even if F&F had sold loans they would be far less likely to become bad debt
3. The vast, vast majority of bad debt came from private institutions with no explicit nor implied guarantee on loans.
4. The bill that you were talking about did in fact pass the house and was supported by Frank until Reps threw all kinds of garbage into it. It did not pass in the Senate. Trying to attribute so much influence onto one Congressman who was part of the minority part is completely ludicrous.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

4 things.

1. Freddy and Fanny are not in the mortgage selling business. If you have a Fanny Mae loan it will stay a Fanny Mae loan until you do something to change that like refinance.
2. Freddy and Fanny loans had a much lower rate of foreclosure than other institutions. Even if F&F had sold loans they would be far less likely to become bad debt
3. The vast, vast majority of bad debt came from private institutions with no explicit nor implied guarantee on loans.
4. The bill that you were talking about did in fact pass the house and was supported by Frank until Reps threw all kinds of garbage into it. It did not pass in the Senate. Trying to attribute so much influence onto one Congressman who was part of the minority part is completely ludicrous.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 -The then President of Fannie Mae saying that to many peoples credit is just a notch below what they should be to get a loan with better terms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111_pf.html -A quote from this article. "Chartered by the government to keep mortgage money flowing, Fannie Mae buys loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans. It also packages loans into securities for sale to other investors, guaranteeing it will make the payments if borrowers default. Its mortgage-related investments and guarantees total $3 trillion." Sounds to me like they sell these loans as securities. Part of the reason it couldn't all be easily sorted out. The loans were tied up in investment securities that were all over the place. Nobody knew where the bad loans were so you couldn't highlight the bad debt. Instead the bad debt had been tied in with good debt to hide the fact that they were bad.

Yes the loans came from private institutions and Fannie bought them. Mmmmm... me like bad debt. Make more bad loans so me can buy them too (said just like Cookie Monster).

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html -Congress was warned repeatedly about instituting more regulations for the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie). Frank in 2003 is heard saying that nothing is wrong. Hmmm.... Why is it he doesn't want to take any blame. All I see is a man who blames everyone but himself.

 

[Allahuakbar]

Gawron - this is what happened.

- Santelli, a reporter for CNBC, was supposed to appear on the Daily Show.
- On one of his shows Santelli attacks the Obama plan as well as people who can't pay their loans and calls them losers, and gets a bunch of traders behind him to give him a rallying cry.
- Santelli cancels his appearance on the Daily Show.
- Stewart takes a bit offense to this (as he often makes a couple small jabs at people who cancel on his show), and is very offended at calling people who can't pay their mortgage "losers", because in his eyes channels like CNBC are a big part of the problem because they're just acting as mouthpieces for lying businesses. He wasn't offended at Santelli criticizing Obama, but Santalli calling people "losers".
- Stewart runs a series a clips of various CNBC reporters making horrendously bad predictions and/or just acting as a mouthpiece for lying corporations. One of those clips includes Cramer yelling about how Behr Sterns is fine and not to take your money out just days before the company collapsed (something Stewart made fun of Cramer for last year).
- Cramer responds that he was taken out of context.
- Stewart responds back with a correction, indeed they did take him out of context, and apologize for it. They then play a different clip from a few days earlier than the first one shown in which he is in context and plainly saying that Behr Sterns is at a good price and will be stable from now on.
- Cramer then goes on a quick junket around the NBC family taking shots at Stewart.
- Stewart makes some shots back and Cramer is invited on as a guest.

The whole thing didn't originate from Cramer criticizing Obama (I wasn't even aware that he had). It originated from Santelli saying that people who can't afford their mortgages are losers when the channel he works for knowingly plays along with corporations that are lying to them and ultimately messing with people's lives.

This is an excellent explanation. Unfortunately you have committed the cardinal sin, or possibly original sin, of liberalism. You have given Gawron a fish. In not letting him find this out for himself, he will not learn to fish, and will intellectually starve in the future.

Rugged Republicanism demands that any poster learn to fish so they can feed themselves in the future.