It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jon Stewart Took Down CNBC and Jim Cramer - Hard Hitting - Awesome - Best

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by jon123

jon....speaking of red herrings!

Man, you certainly reached long and hard for this!

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by mental modulator

I see your overall point.. But banks have been giving loans to people without that money actually being in its possession for decades. That's how it works is it not? This is why many people are now against the idea of the Federal Reserve and the Central Banking system. And it is also why we have such a consumer credit crisis in this country. This is talked about in detail here:

For the full movie you can click here:

Everyone was under the assumption that everything was fine because the banks said they were covered and eligible for mortgages. The whole system is based around giving people loans even when those people probably shouldn't have gotten those loans to begin with (You already touched on this). The banks can justify such risk by hiking interest rates (more debt for the individual). But my point is that this entire idea of the American dream is a fallacy because "The American Dream" is actually this sick, overall idea of justifiable, ever-mounting debt that has taken hold of our hopes and dreams and plunged it into the abyss. Now we're in this situation we're in now.

Some people were warning about this for years.. And noone was listened to. There was no pre-emptive ever action taken by any politicians to stabilize what many already knew was this inevitable economic downturn we are now living. Just like the continued devaluation of the dollar and marginally legal federal reserve system have always been the rule and not the exception. yet people are so fearful of change for the betterment of our country and our children that noone will do anything to propose a new form of economic structure in the U.S.. So now, at least due in part by negligence and ignorance of politicians and policymakers, my kids will inherit this mess because noone was willing to step forward and do anything about it before it turned into a cornacopea of cluster****.


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:07 AM
they raised the standard of living to the point of absurdity and enforced it with laws, so that most people had to live on credit just to keep from having their children taken away due to lack of standard of living norms, or what little they did have, removed from them via fines, tickets and judgments. so really, no matter how you cut it, this was engineered. whether a single person or group or supernatural force(s) was ultimately behind it, is the big unknown.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by BlasteR

I'm aware of the scam, I have had the pleasure of watching Zeitgeist and the Addendum,

but under this guise, the regulation in place to prevent Banks from creating all sorts
of felonious financial instruments was systematically eradicated.

Anyhow my intent was to offer swatman a more thorough evaluation of the crisis.

Not just Barney Franks made banks give people homes...

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:49 AM
If it hasn't been posted as an embedded link, (I checked a few pages) here is the FULL segment of Stewart vs Cramer.

Google Video Link

Here is the segment that started it all.
Jon Stewart Eviscerates CNBC and Rick Santelli

Google Video Link

John Stewart responds to Cramers...response, and reminds Cramer of the lousy advice he claimed he never gave.

"Buy Bear"? Ouch:

...and finally Cramers bizarre reaction to John Stewarts verbal spanking delivered to his bare bottom.

Apparently Stewarts exposure of all the contradictions, lies, thievery, and misdirection don't matter, because Stewart is, after all, "just a comedian".

God bless him.

- Lee

Edit: fixed links

[edit on 14-3-2009 by lee anoma]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:06 AM

Originally posted by sos37
That's where the disconnect is. I'm not talking about this one interview in particular and you are. I'm talking about Jon Stewart's show and the fact that it's on Comedy Central and the fact that Jon Stewart's show historically is nothing but making fun of news events serves to cast doubt when he actually has something to say.

I would not sum satire up as 'making fun of news events' but i can see how the whole notion of satire could be lost on you....

The point is - people will talk about the interview and the conversation may go something like this:

Person A: "Did you see that interview on Jon Stewart last night?"

Person B: "No."

Person A: "Man he did great. He really exposed Jim Cramer!"

Person B: "Isn't that a Comedy show on Comedy Central?"

Person A: "Yeah. But last night was different."

Well unless you have actually watched the TDS this might be a standard response just like someone who never read a book might think that the sun orbits around the Earth. Well done on exposing your basic ignorance of what happens on the daily show!

Doesn't matter what Person A says from that point on - if Person B isn't too familiar with Jon Stewart then credibility has already been lost because it's been established that it was from a comedy show on comedy central.

So basically if person B is ignorant you wont be able to tell him something interesting he would be able to understand? Did you have a point that wasn't so obvious?

Person B does the whole stereotype thing and decides it's probably not worth the time to watch unless he has a vested interest in seeing Jim Cramer go down.

Person B probably can't be trusted to have a opinion as anyone who is familiar with network political discourse in the US at least knows about the daily show and whether they 'trust' it to tell them something has far more to do with their bias than with what TDS presents.

In late 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania ran a study of American television viewers and found that fans of The Daily Show had a more accurate idea of the facts behind the 2004 presidential election than most others, including those who primarily got their news through the national network evening newscasts and through reading newspapers.[73] However, in a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed.[74]

A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.[75] The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.[76]

A 2006 study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of The Daily Show against prime time network news broadcasts, and concluded that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between The Daily Show and other news outlets. The study contended that, since both programs are more focused on the nature of "infotainment" and ratings than on the dissemination of information, both are broadly equal in terms of the amount of substantial news coverage they offer.[77]

The daily show format is based around the assumption that you already have a good idea of what's happening on CNN/CNBC ( add dozen more) 'news' network and frankly not much on TDS would be funny, interesting or even understandble if you were the uninformed person B.


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Pehrj
No, the problem is Stewart using that excuse when people critique him. quote.

In his case it's a legitimate excuse and also the truth. He does not pretend to give you unbiased information or 'news' as such and in fact his format presumes that you already know what his talking about.

He tries to get away with acting like a real news show and holding the elite's feet to the fire when comes to conservatives or anyone else he and his writers don't like.

Actually i don't think anyone can confuse TDS with a news show unless the real news shows are in fact trying to be comedians or provide entertainment. As the quote in my above post shows a university of Indiana study shows that these 'shows' give about the same amount of 'news' whatever their claims to the contrary. As for 'attacks' on conservatives he basically takes on the liars&criminals whether they be self styled liberals ( but doing reactionary things) or conservatives who are in favor of globalization and 'free trade'. The problem isn't that he has a bias over who he takes on but that you actually believe that there is a liberal media or liberal politicians of note.

But it when comes to criticizing his own party and such, he hides under the sheet of "we're not serious" and gets away with it.

How is he getting away with it when a self styled geniuses such as yourself are exposing him all over while the corporately owned ( but somehow liberal ,hehe ) media lambastes the supposed liberal control of the US media. If only someone can point me to a liberal owner of a major media company!

It's basic hypocrisy. His show is nothing more than liberal propaganda 90% of the time.

If by liberal propaganda you mean reality then yes, the TDS does more to expose the objective truth than any of the other major media broadcasters does on any given day. Is it not very sad that exposing the truth makes a liberal hack in the American political lexicon?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:21 AM

Originally posted by wonderworld
I'm curious, as to your percption of Fox Business News? Are they any different? I dont think so.

And could they be when all business shows are reporting on the same illogical and fundamentally unsound global economic model? Sure it can be said that some of these shows gives better advice as to which part of the western pyramid scheme you should invest in for faster profits but that's the extent of their usefullness.

None of the experts know what advice to give except buy government debt or gold, at this point.

Which just means that they are only 'experts' as long as the illusion of a sound financial , bull market, system can be maintained . It's the same with fraudsters ( Bernie comes to mind) who gain the trust of otherwise highly intelligent rich folk based sole on the fact that he managed to make them money without ever disclosing how. The moment the fraud is exposed and the trust lost there isn't a safe place for money because there isn't any part of a pack of hyena's you can trust.

This temporary bear market rally will fade fast, especially in April.

That's what they kept saying and i can't believe there are still some people who believe that this thing is 'over'. I would quote Churchill's words after the battle of Britain but since this disaster might kill more people than that one did it might not be saying much.


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by lee anoma

THANK YOU!! for those vids!! and embedding them here!!

I had not seen the Today show vid, I had heard about it.

Wow, his demeanor was much different and much more combative on the Today show, then when he was on The Daily Show.

Star for YOU!!

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:18 AM
Stewart needs to go after Pelosi and Barney Frank with the same gusto.
Their crap is just as stinky as Cramers. But I wonder if Stewart would do
that to his fellow big democrats? I would hope so.

Let's all EMAIL in to him and suggest it.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by questioningall hero, you. Get 'em and don't let up. There's no one else out there speaking the truth.

I've said it before and I'll say it husband, Springer, started predicting the collapse of the false economy based on over-leveraging, an inflated real estate market, and the shady derivative side of things in 2001. I, not being too knowledgable in economics, trusted him and began managing my 401k by watching indicators based off his warnings. Approximately 12 months ago I set with almost all of my 401k in fixed. In 2008, when people who had bought the lie "you just put your money in and leave it alone" suffered up to 50% loss in their 401k, I ended the year with a -0.3% loss in its value. And the only reason I suffered any loss, is I started buying back in at a controlled rate based on overall market value. I continue to buy back in with restraint, and set ready to reinvest when the bottom becomes apparent.

These clowns who are being paid to give investment advice cannot possibly, without either boldly lying through their teeth or admitting their utter incompetence in the matter, say they didn't know this was going to happen. Not unless Springer is just clairvoyant and all the sound reasoning he gave to support his prediction was just a huge coincidence of "guessing" right.

CNBC's ad revenue comes from the same companies they are analyzing...conflict of interest and collusion. It's about that simple.

[edit on 3-14-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
I'd like to follow up with something just to give an indicator of how deep this rabbit hole goes on trying to prohibit all us working stiffs from actually realizing profits on our retirement funds.

In 2006/2007 I determined the market was peaking and started pulling profit and then eventually principal investment from funds gradually (based on overall fund value) into my fixed income fund. Now, to be clear, I can't "day trade" on my 401k. All I can do is either buy or sell based on CLOSE of a day. So latter part of 2006 is when I started pulling...some times every day. I get a letter from the HR administrator in our company. The letter states that the company managing our 401k (I won't name any companies right now) has noticed a significant amount of trades on my 401k and that if they continued they might have to block my ability to make transactions. They went on to say "we do not recommend managing your 401k account based on predictions of market performance"...and I'm not crapping you on that.

I wrote a lengthy letter to the Executive Vice President of Human Resources and explained to him that in reviewing the corporate benefits manual I saw no where that I was limited in the number of transactions I could make in a year, but instead had found the paragraph where it stated "you can move your money between funds whenever you want" and that I would continue to manage my 401k as I saw fit. I provided them the growth numbers in my 401k (you have to understand that I did not get to start investing for my retirement until 2000 - I was 36 years old at that point. Up until then I had been too busy raising two kids with no support. So I take my 401k very seriously.) I then pointed out that my "management technique" seemed to be working very well for me, and I didn't feel I needed to start taking their advice at this point. Basically, it was a STFU letter.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:58 AM
Cramer and Ben Stein should be homeless. Also, why doesn't Cramer just buy short sleeved shirts.

I would like to see Cramer completely flop sweat some of his shirts, Like the character "Norm" used to on Cheers.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:13 AM
Remember when Jon Stewart used to be funny? Me neither.

Anyone who questions Mr. Obama is a target. Other President had Military Special Forces to go after enemies. Obama has the media.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by AllexxisF1

There are pratically no true journalists left in american mass media. If you want journalism in America look at the likes of Jeff Rense and Alex Jones. What you have on the TV all the time is spin and publicity, depending on the piece. Nothing more. All manipulation.

totally agree when will they be looked at.(all who made a profit an lets have it back) oh + jail time assets siezed except living wage from 95 to 2009 they are grifters /thieves and pray on people because they get tips. just like knowing outcome of race when horse drugged...

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Swatman
i didnt say it was ok, but barney frank is the root of that problem by telling banks they had to lend money to poor people that could not afford housing.

They could afford housing and it isn't their fault that the banks lent them money that they didn't have or couldn't get IF something in the economy changed. Why are rich always blaming the poor who made them rich by their labor or whom they just robbed?

it is not a RIGHT that people should own housing, it is a privelage, just like electricity.

I don't think it should be that, most of the poor work 8-12 hours just like the rest of us, way but that's beside the point as clearly some forms of work are not being rewarded in the capitalist economy. Should we not rather discuss why the rich have the privilege of being 'bailed out' when they fail to steal enough from the poor and then start stealing from each other? How is it a rigth that millionares should have their incomes gaurenteed not matter how badly they 'invest' ( read gamble) with it?

Originally posted by Swatman
i watch the show on a daily basis and his endless bashing of conservatives just shows how partisan he really is.

You say conservatives and i say thieves and liars. Why should Jon be held responsible if it turns out that the majority of the liars&thieves are 'conservatives' ( 90% of American politicians are conservative reactionaries by European standards) in your mind? Don't you think that says more about the 'conservatives' than it does about Stewart?

he throws in a couple of pelosi jokes to keep the conservative viewership happy.

Because as we all know he doesn't really mean it when he spends half his time bashing the 'liberals'; that's just a clever cover the rest of liberals will see trough to while enjoying all the conservative bashing. Isn't it strange how some people can only see conspiracies along partisan lines? Sad stuff.

if you deny that you should get some glasses.

And if they are as rose coloured as yours there wont be much of a point.

it was horrible to watch this interview because he attacks cramer almost as if it is cramers fault that the dow went dowwn 4000.

It isn't cramers fault ( small fry) but frankly i don't have too much more sympathy for the Nazi than i do for their cheerleaders. If Cramer wishes to associate himself with the largely criminal enterpise that is global stock markets that's his business and by his own admission he knows that it is and was a big sham.

who the hell listens to cramer about making money? that is just stupid.

Who the hell watches CNBC and things " these guys are all unqualified liars who are trying to get me to put my money in companies that they know will fail shortly"? Why can you be both so paranoid and so partisan?

stewart should be interviewing barney frank and chriss dodd on why people no longer have homes, not cramer.

I thought the poor people did it to themselves, i mean they can't even hold on their homes but they orchestrated the world financial crisis ? wow! Did you change your mind or are you making this up as you go?


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:36 AM
I cannot express how exhilarating it is to see conservative trolls derailing this thread with utter nonsense.

Oh no! the "liberal media" strikes again defending Obama, even though FOX spent eight years refusing to cover any mistake Bush made and justified many unconstitutional activities. But yeah, that was different....apparently.

The failed laissez-faire approach lead to the Great Depression and this economic crisis, this pathetic oligarch cabal accumulates the profit while we suffer the loss. Cramer confessed he voted for Obama, so how is Stewart attacking conservatives

Btw, ownership is not a privilege - it's a right we are all entitled too. Not a select few.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:39 AM
This is just kind of ridiculous. First off, it's the stock market, if anyone knew what was going to happen they would be rich and not working at CNBC.

Second, for all the good stocks that Cramer has recommended over the years, that have gone up considering that the entire market has been hit, stewart brings up one that went horribly wrong. Not to mention, pretty much any stock on the market has taken a serious beating in the last year. Look at Warren Buffet who is down about 50% as we speak.

Stewart is just crying a liberal river as CNBC and nasty capitalism has been getting considerably higher ratings as Stewart's sinks. Listening to a guy say the word "Bush" 20 times a night, 5 nights a week, 52 weeks a year has its downside.

Not to mention Cramer and CNBC have been getting some serious flack for tearing apart Obarry's incredible spending spree which will leave us wallowing in 25% inflation over the next 2-10 years.

The truth hurts

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by intelinside451

Stewart is just crying a liberal river as CNBC and nasty capitalism has been getting considerably higher ratings as Stewart's sinks. Listening to a guy say the word "Bush" 20 times a night, 5 nights a week, 52 weeks a year has its downside.

Not to mention Cramer and CNBC have been getting some serious flack for tearing apart Obarry's incredible spending spree which will leave us wallowing in 25% inflation over the next 2-10 years.

The truth hurts

Did you post on the wrong thread or something? This thread is about Stewart's confrontation with Kramer. No where in that discussion did they mention liberal, conservative, Bush or Obama. The entire discussion was about the parties involved in allowing the inevitable crash while misleading the populace on where their investments should be.

You want to try talking to that?

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Swatman
who the hell listens to cramer about making money?

For me, it's not about people listening to Cramer or trusting him to tell them how to make money. Frankly, if people listen to someone on TV (or anyone) and fully trust them, they need to learn a lesson.

For me, it's about Cramer sinking $5-10 million into a stock to manipulate the market and make people think it's a good buy, and then waiting till it goes up more and then selling his. It's illegal and he admitted to it on tape.

If you still want to defend him, that's fine, but be aware that he is using his show to purposely lie and cheat people. Defend that if you want to.

Those who are trying to turn this into a political thing are entirely missing the point.

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in