Why do you continue to argue when it's abundantly clear to everyone that you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about?

excuse me for believing and probably misinterpreting jon stewart
i never claimed to know about the markets
why do you bring this up when i already admitted that?
f off

Someone want to tell me what Stewart meant when he said "you're in bed with 'em"?
That CNBC caused the bubble to grow?

if he was legit and all this information is public, wouldn't he have known bear stearns was leveraged 30 to 1 and a terrible investment? but he said buy 5 days prior to the tank? I believe in the interview he admitted he had friends at Bear Stearns... Is that not a conflict of interest? Was he not passing misinformation in an attempt to prop up the business with investors' money?

Stewart seems to think CNBC is not to be trusted, that's the line of thinking the statement you quoted was following.

by the way I was trying to think of outside the box things Cramer could've been doing, maybe some of them were a little ridiculous, whatever

I think I would need to see the entire clip. He DID say "I", but I think he was using the royal "I". He started to explain himself before Stewart cut him off.

He was laughing about it, blatantly encouraging and teaching others to do it because, as he explained, they hadn't caught on yet.

Simple question: Do you even know what those clips were FROM or why Cramer was in them?

No, I'm guessing you're going to tell me they were made to show what goes on.

That's just not what it sounded like to me. If someone makes a book about bomb-making, but labels it how bombs are made and how to defuse them, it could still be used for harm, no?

Can we drop the arrogance?

"Royal I" LMAO please watch the footage

Can one of the geniuses fill me in? As I've made it abundantly clear I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about 4321