Originally Posted by RedDread (Post 5593695)

Do any of you know the original quote from Rick Santelli that Jon Stewart played that set all this off?

<on the floor of Wall St.> "How many of you want to pay your neighbor's mortgage?" (Scattered Boos)

The amount of hypocrisy it takes to make a statement like that after the government took taxpayer money to bail many of these folks out. Had they not stepped in, many people on that floor would have been ruined. Save me and it's alright, eff everyone else.


Jim Cramer would have gotten off with just the clip on Monday's show being played but he had to cry and whine all over NBC's family of networks about it. NBC played it up for all it was worth and they ended up throwing Cramer to the wolves in the end.

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 5593820)

I'm pretty sure Rick Santelli didn't get bailed out, nor did many of the traders on the Chicago floor.

Also, Cramer took a lot of flack over the Bear Stearns thing, yet gets no credit for saving people tons of money by telling them to get out of the market when it was at 12,000 and about to tank.

Originally Posted by J Diddy (Post 5593879)

FWIW, Cramer took this like a man. After the fueled coverage all over the networks to go on Stewarts show and hone up to this shows what kind of a man he really is. IMO, that took brass balls.

Originally Posted by KCTitus (Post 5598448)

Jon Stewart...a comedian, only when he's about to get his a$$ handed to him in a real discussion, and a faux pundit on his show. He's a legend in his own mind.

Since most of the brain dead is believing his BS, he's funny at the moment. Cramer's right, however, any sane person who has any kind of actual savings and isnt living off the government understands that. Unfortunatley for Cramer and the rest of us who actually pull our weight, we're in the minority.

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 5605888)

If Cramer's strategies didn't work for the common investor, why would he still be on the air after all these years?

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic (Post 5591436)

Stewart has been ripping on Cramer way before Cramer started criticizing Obama. Here you go Boris the parrot.

From the March 17, 2008, edition of Comedy Centrals The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 5605888)

If Cramer's strategies didn't work for the common investor, why would he still be on the air after all these years?

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 5580330)

There are a few things he does. When he recommends a "Buy" on a stock, he waits a week before he actually buys it (and yes, he does buy it for better or worse at the end of that week). Same thing with a "Sell." He waits.

I think he's pretty transparent about what he recommends, and he isn't doing it for his own portfolio. It's for his charitable trust.

I really don't see how Cramer is any different than the guys on "Fast Money" or "Options Action." They all get stuff wrong. At least Cramer owns up to it when he does.

Originally Posted by Boris The Great (Post 5583187)

Its wasnt exactly honest because Stewart only attacked this issue after guys from CNBC dared to speak out against Obama financial policies. All of his criticisms of the network are valid, to be sure, but all of them could have been made months and even years before now. It wasnt until Santelli and Cramer dared criticize Obama that this was raised. That isnt honest criticism, thats reactionary gotcha-ism to change the subject.

And it wasnt exactly fair because if this was pointed out to Stewart, that he was essentially playing an attack dog for the administration while criticizing the ethics of others, he would play his game about being a comedy show and not being part of media or journalism. The clown outfit tends to come off and on whenever it suits him.

I like Stewart for the most part, but this is one of his more blatant examples of wanting to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Third Eye (Post 5580283)

No, I don't think we should do away with all shows of that nature by any means and I'm not sure how you could have inferred that. BUT, as was so eloquently pointed out by Stewart, it's not a ****ing game. We don't need the bells and whistles and pretty shiny objects that amuse the masses.

Do I think Cramer knowingly gave false information or lied about his opinions? That is kind of a tough one to call. Do I think a hedge fund manager knew EXACTLY how entangled the situation had become due to practices like credit default swapping? Hell yes. Do I think that anyone with that much firsthand knowledge of finance and economics should have seen the conflict of interest created by allowing banks to immediately turn over their mortgages to holding companies to securitize, effectively washing their hands of default risk? Hell yes. So did he purposely lie about his picks? Maybe not. Should he have known that the bottom was going to drop out and big time? Absolutely.

Cramer himself admitted their demographic, or at least their goal demographic, was those that were new to financial markets. Thus my reference to the margin.