Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.
I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?
How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation. (Only Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually doing the manipulation, and was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing is illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks.
Further, what Jon Stewart was castigating Cramer (and the rest of CNBC) for was their not reporting on the stock manipulation.
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
I assume as a conservative, you are very wealthy, so get cable and watch the fucking show, he has been bashing dems and repubs about 50/50 for the last 5 years or so (that is how long I have watched anyhow.)
entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral....
They certainly aren't. I haven't seen a hard-hitting interview like that in a while. Jon Stewart demonstrated he's more of a journalist than most other "reporters" out there. Honestly, only he and the staff of 60 Minutes really ask any serious questions anymore. One would hope that what happened last night would be a wake-up call to the other networks, especially considering what kind of ratings it probably got. Good journalism attracts eyeballs.
But I bet nobody in charge of the other "news" shows will pay attention....
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
Your anti-Obama / anti-liberal diatribe aside, I'll reiterate what Stewart himself said at the very beginning of the interview: his fury was not directly aimed at Cramer (who BTW is a Democrat and voted for Obama), but at CNBC for their shoddy reporting in general. Cramer was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
I give Cramer credit, though, for having the cajones to come on TDS and take the tongue-lashing that he did. Santelli was not so brave.
Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward (sic) just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc.
As one who does watch the show every night, I'm calling you out on your lies. On Wednesday night, Stewart castigated Obama at length. He certainly has on other nights as well. If you watched the show as you claim, you'd know that. Or perhaps you did know and simply chose to bald-face lie in your post.
I think part of the issue is that Santelli can't survive an attack like this, where Cramer could. I also find it difficult to give Cramer much accolades when he's the one who admitted to making 30% for 9 years in a row, which is what caused issues like we are currently in. I'd take 12 minutes of getting yelled at if I made that much cash.
Actually, Jim Cramer is the one who broke this news, not Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart just replayed a video that has been on youtube for 4 months, made by theStreet.com and clearly intended for public consumption, to describe to anyone who cared to listen how hedge funds operate. Before jumping to conclusions, watch the video for yourself, without Stewart's filter:
I don't know who's right or wrong here... I like both guys (Stewart and Cramer), but I think it's important that people at least research the facts themselves before anyone gets crucified. (Oops, too late.) It sure seems to me that Cramer is trying to inform people as to what is going on, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy, which is how some people seem to be taking it.
Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.
I found the video hilarious and sad at the same time. Stewart has the gift of comedian's insight and can approach a topic from unusual angles that will throw a guest off their stump speech.
Listening to the various techniques Cramer used (or might have used) as a hedge fund manager just illustrates how powerful greed is as a motivator. He certainly failed at defending Wall Street's destructive greed.
We'll see even more destructive behavior as taxes increase on these same people who have the means to lessen the hit by staying one step ahead of the IRS with financial chicanery. More unintended consequences on our fragile economy as people server their self interests.
It's good that this is out there so people can absorb the lesson. Cramer's made some unbelievably bad calls recently and yet his show goes on. And his following will probably increase. It appears that although we may absorb the lessons, our reptilian brains often override that knowledge and we repeat past mistakes.
I don't mind AI covering other side stories such as this. Sometimes fluff provides powerful insights.
How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation (Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually *doing* the manipulation, AND was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing *is* illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks. What part of that is unclear to you?
What's unclear is how such a scheme could possible work with two big, glaring, painfully obvious flaws:
A) He didn't have a hedge fund at the time, or any other trading account on which he could have profited from the trade. He was out of the trading business for something like 4 or 5 years when that clip was filmed. Since he is a TV commentator, he isn't allowed any trading accounts except a charitable trust, in which he is not allowed to day-trade, so this scheme couldn't work there. So, unless you are alleging that he has some secret account somewhere, I am "unclear" how he could have profited from this scheme.
He very clearly, plainly describes it as a MANIPULATION (your word)- how can you profit from any rumor or manipulation when you clearly identify it as such? Would you (or anyone you know) buy or sell a stock based on news that was clearly identified as being false and intended to manipulate the stock?
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger. It's just silly to think that a stock manipulator would operating by posting videos on the web that are publicly available to everyone, including the SEC, in which he plainly states that he is spreading a phony rumor. How could you profit from that? Presumably that's the point, isn't it? To make money without getting arrested?
Again, I'd like to see actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am certainly open to that possibility. But so far all I am seeing are torches and pitchforks.
You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.
I don't need to do what? FWIW, I happen to be someone - probably a rare person these days - who votes for whom I think is the best candidate, not because they have a big D or R stamped on them (2 sides of the same coin for the most part). I used to watch Stewart almost "Daily" until his political bias distracted too much from his humor. With so much low-hanging comedy fruit to harvest from both the left and the right, it annoyed me that Stewart seldom touched on scandals or incompetence coming from the Dem side of the aisle, and when it came to his nightly guests, he always seemed to be fawning over liberal guests and sticking it to conservative guests. Just pull up YouTube videos when he interviewed Obama vs. McCain, for example.
That's the way I see it, anyway. As to my political bias, I don't care if gays marry or not (it doesn't threaten my marriage), I'm pretty much pro-choice, I'm not religious, I believe in a strong military, and I believe in a government where most of the power resides at the city / county / state level, not the federal level, among other things. Maybe not your cup of tea across the board, but them's the breaks :-)
Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral...
All I see on the news channels is pathetic drivel, never really investigating, just reading press releases, almost as if they are puppets, and that is in the 5 minutes an hour about real news, the rest od the time is all about crap news like a freak with 16 kids, Jaylo, or whatever Hollywood wants to sell that minute.
As a fan of Stewart, I must sau that this fewd was fed by CNBC, first, Santelly wosses out, then obviously, he is gonna get whacked by Stewart for bailing out, but if Craimer woulda left it alone and not written that bitchy little column on Mainstreet.com, it woulda died there, but he wrote it, and it went on.
Nail on the head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees!
John Leibowitz is not news.
That's all you got?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNipponese
By the way, AppleInsider, you're next on the Jon Stewart 'entertainment being presented as actual news' hit list.
I e-mailed a question to Cramer's show a while back about a stock. I thought it was a good question since someone from the show called me back and wanted me to ask it on the air. BUT, I was told to revise my question a bit and after a little coaching by the show rep I realized the question I had originally thought of had absolutely nothing to do with what they wanted me to ask. Pretty much the company name was the only thing in common.
I never really though much of his show to begin with, but that experience really made it clear that it is first and foremost just a TV Show.
I saw this exact interview a long time ago and it made me furious. I sent a link to my spouse, cause we argued about Apple stock swinging all over the place.
Maybe finally somebody will sue the idiot CNBC station. If I had a nickel for every family argument those creeps caused with their manipulation I'd be rich.
I was stuck at home sick for a while, and after watching all of PBS's shows I started watching CNBC for a while. They would pre-announce a certain price for Apple stock and what a good trading opportunity it would be. Sure enough, within 15 minutes the stock would fall to that price and then rebound within a day or so back to the prior price. I saw this often enough to really be furious with them.
Class action suit anybody? This would be so easy a story to tell, plenty of video on my DVR.
Looking forward to at least fewer arguments at home about apple stock.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
That worked out well for the folks at Crossfire. Jon Stewart can make his point anywhere because unlike most of the talking heads on TV he knows his stuff and is passionate about it.
(In case you missed it ... and it was off the air by the end of the year after being on CNN for 23 Years.
Comments
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.
I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?
How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation. (Only Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually doing the manipulation, and was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing is illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks.
Further, what Jon Stewart was castigating Cramer (and the rest of CNBC) for was their not reporting on the stock manipulation.
What part of that is unclear to you?
There is a nice little cell next to Madoff's for Cramer?
For what, exactly?
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
I assume as a conservative, you are very wealthy, so get cable and watch the fucking show, he has been bashing dems and repubs about 50/50 for the last 5 years or so (that is how long I have watched anyhow.)
entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral....
They certainly aren't. I haven't seen a hard-hitting interview like that in a while. Jon Stewart demonstrated he's more of a journalist than most other "reporters" out there. Honestly, only he and the staff of 60 Minutes really ask any serious questions anymore. One would hope that what happened last night would be a wake-up call to the other networks, especially considering what kind of ratings it probably got. Good journalism attracts eyeballs.
But I bet nobody in charge of the other "news" shows will pay attention....
For what, exactly?
For stock manipulation. Are you unable to comprehend the article or are you unwilling?
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
Your anti-Obama / anti-liberal diatribe aside, I'll reiterate what Stewart himself said at the very beginning of the interview: his fury was not directly aimed at Cramer (who BTW is a Democrat and voted for Obama), but at CNBC for their shoddy reporting in general. Cramer was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
I give Cramer credit, though, for having the cajones to come on TDS and take the tongue-lashing that he did. Santelli was not so brave.
Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward (sic) just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc.
As one who does watch the show every night, I'm calling you out on your lies. On Wednesday night, Stewart castigated Obama at length. He certainly has on other nights as well. If you watched the show as you claim, you'd know that. Or perhaps you did know and simply chose to bald-face lie in your post.
Actually, Jim Cramer is the one who broke this news, not Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart just replayed a video that has been on youtube for 4 months, made by theStreet.com and clearly intended for public consumption, to describe to anyone who cared to listen how hedge funds operate. Before jumping to conclusions, watch the video for yourself, without Stewart's filter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfWSRuNm6do
I don't know who's right or wrong here... I like both guys (Stewart and Cramer), but I think it's important that people at least research the facts themselves before anyone gets crucified. (Oops, too late.) It sure seems to me that Cramer is trying to inform people as to what is going on, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy, which is how some people seem to be taking it.
Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.
Listening to the various techniques Cramer used (or might have used) as a hedge fund manager just illustrates how powerful greed is as a motivator. He certainly failed at defending Wall Street's destructive greed.
We'll see even more destructive behavior as taxes increase on these same people who have the means to lessen the hit by staying one step ahead of the IRS with financial chicanery. More unintended consequences on our fragile economy as people server their self interests.
It's good that this is out there so people can absorb the lesson. Cramer's made some unbelievably bad calls recently and yet his show goes on. And his following will probably increase. It appears that although we may absorb the lessons, our reptilian brains often override that knowledge and we repeat past mistakes.
I don't mind AI covering other side stories such as this. Sometimes fluff provides powerful insights.
How about you go back and read the article again--it very clearly explains what's illegal. Cramer is not reporting on the stock manipulation (Jon Stewart is.) Cramer is actually *doing* the manipulation, AND was nearly bragging about it. At the very least he was explaining how to do it, in rather eye-opening detail, considering that what he was describing *is* illegal. He colluded (exactly as Jon Stewart said) in pump-n-dump and/or deflate-n-short manipulation on AAPL and other stocks. What part of that is unclear to you?
What's unclear is how such a scheme could possible work with two big, glaring, painfully obvious flaws:
A) He didn't have a hedge fund at the time, or any other trading account on which he could have profited from the trade. He was out of the trading business for something like 4 or 5 years when that clip was filmed. Since he is a TV commentator, he isn't allowed any trading accounts except a charitable trust, in which he is not allowed to day-trade, so this scheme couldn't work there. So, unless you are alleging that he has some secret account somewhere, I am "unclear" how he could have profited from this scheme.
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger. It's just silly to think that a stock manipulator would operating by posting videos on the web that are publicly available to everyone, including the SEC, in which he plainly states that he is spreading a phony rumor. How could you profit from that? Presumably that's the point, isn't it? To make money without getting arrested?
Again, I'd like to see actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am certainly open to that possibility. But so far all I am seeing are torches and pitchforks.
You don't need to do that - you got Rush Limbaugh.
I don't need to do what? FWIW, I happen to be someone - probably a rare person these days - who votes for whom I think is the best candidate, not because they have a big D or R stamped on them (2 sides of the same coin for the most part). I used to watch Stewart almost "Daily" until his political bias distracted too much from his humor. With so much low-hanging comedy fruit to harvest from both the left and the right, it annoyed me that Stewart seldom touched on scandals or incompetence coming from the Dem side of the aisle, and when it came to his nightly guests, he always seemed to be fawning over liberal guests and sticking it to conservative guests. Just pull up YouTube videos when he interviewed Obama vs. McCain, for example.
That's the way I see it, anyway. As to my political bias, I don't care if gays marry or not (it doesn't threaten my marriage), I'm pretty much pro-choice, I'm not religious, I believe in a strong military, and I believe in a government where most of the power resides at the city / county / state level, not the federal level, among other things. Maybe not your cup of tea across the board, but them's the breaks :-)
Cramer also did nothing to deny that he engaged in the same activity when Stewart asked. Cramer is just about claiming the status of a thief who now gives away the tricks thieves use to "get by with it" so that makes him one of the good guys. I don't buy it.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
entertainment as news? sorry man, CNN/FOXNEWS/MSNBC are not comedy centeral...
All I see on the news channels is pathetic drivel, never really investigating, just reading press releases, almost as if they are puppets, and that is in the 5 minutes an hour about real news, the rest od the time is all about crap news like a freak with 16 kids, Jaylo, or whatever Hollywood wants to sell that minute.
As a fan of Stewart, I must sau that this fewd was fed by CNBC, first, Santelly wosses out, then obviously, he is gonna get whacked by Stewart for bailing out, but if Craimer woulda left it alone and not written that bitchy little column on Mainstreet.com, it woulda died there, but he wrote it, and it went on.
Nail on the head.
John Leibowitz is not news.
That's all you got?
By the way, AppleInsider, you're next on the Jon Stewart 'entertainment being presented as actual news' hit list.
Why are you here then?
For stock manipulation. Are you unable to comprehend the article or are you unwilling?
That first one, I guess. See my previous post.
I never really though much of his show to begin with, but that experience really made it clear that it is first and foremost just a TV Show.
Maybe finally somebody will sue the idiot CNBC station. If I had a nickel for every family argument those creeps caused with their manipulation I'd be rich.
I was stuck at home sick for a while, and after watching all of PBS's shows I started watching CNBC for a while. They would pre-announce a certain price for Apple stock and what a good trading opportunity it would be. Sure enough, within 15 minutes the stock would fall to that price and then rebound within a day or so back to the prior price. I saw this often enough to really be furious with them.
Class action suit anybody? This would be so easy a story to tell, plenty of video on my DVR.
Looking forward to at least fewer arguments at home about apple stock.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
That worked out well for the folks at Crossfire. Jon Stewart can make his point anywhere because unlike most of the talking heads on TV he knows his stuff and is passionate about it.
(In case you missed it ... and it was off the air by the end of the year after being on CNN for 23 Years.