Balta1701 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 How did the NY Times expose Bush's illegal wiretapping without subpoena power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 1) Cramer clearly knew about stock manipulation and short-selling. 2) Stewart's point was that they went for gimmicky cheer-leading bulls*** instead of even trying to find out if something was up. They lapped up whatever they were fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) 1) Cramer clearly knew about stock manipulation and short-selling. 2) Stewart's point was that they went for gimmicky cheer-leading bulls*** instead of even trying to find out if something was up. They lapped up whatever they were fed. 2) sounds great in theory. But in the real world, if the people in charge aren't telling you anything, and there is no trail of insider trades that point to them dumping the company stock, in fact the opposite, where they are adding on their positions, where praytell are you going to find out anything else? Cramer did go out of his way to get CEOs and the like on to put them on the record talking about thier companies. If he is getting lied to, and there is no other information to contradict what he is saying, there really isn't much that can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) Cramer did go out of his way to get CEOs and the like on to put them on the record talking about thier companies. If he is getting lied to, and there is no other information to contradict what he is saying, there really isn't much that can be done. Except...they could actually try doing some reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:19 PM) Except...they could actually try doing some reporting. Like I said, what is there to report on? What big detail was out there that someone got, that no one else did? Who six months ago did the big expose on AIG or Bear Stearns, or any of them? Its easy for two bit hacks to come along after that fact and try to use it to score cheap political points, but the fact is there was no information out there that would have indicated anything else. I doubt very seriously that you in your respective field are going back and checking every single piece of work that you use as an aid to determine new data, unless there is a reason to. When it comes to rocks, are you telling me that you just discard all of the history of the study of geology and re-research it all yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Some goof on CNBC cricized Obama and all the Obama worshippers are freaking out. If Cramer talks about how Obama is God, Cramer is a great journalist and does a perfect job in their minds. It has nothign to do with reporting. There are plenty of experts in finance working for media organizations other than Jim Cramer that should have been reporting on a potential collapse, but Cramer was mean to Obama on tv. Thats the difference. BTW I think Jim Cramer is a douche and despise him and everyone like him. Edited March 18, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) Some goof on CNBC cricized Obama and all the Obama worshippers are freaking out. If Cramer talks about how Obama is God, Cramer is a great journalist and does a perfect job in their minds. Thank you... See, everyone wants to talk about Cramer and what he knew or knows... NO ONE questioned him (well, say it this way, screamed OUTRAGE!!!!!!) until he DARED question the Messiah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) Thank you... See, everyone wants to talk about Cramer and what he knew or knows... NO ONE questioned him (well, say it this way, screamed OUTRAGE!!!!!!) until he DARED question the Messiah... No one? I'm pretty sure that I, among others, noted what a hack Cramer is, in this forum, well before this s*** hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) No one? I'm pretty sure that I, among others, noted what a hack Cramer is, in this forum, well before this s*** hit the fan. Exactly. Cramer just brought himself into the spotlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) No one? I'm pretty sure that I, among others, noted what a hack Cramer is, in this forum, well before this s*** hit the fan. from what i can tell no one here respected the guy before, but they also didn't obsess with him B.O.C (before obama criticism) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) from what i can tell no one here respected the guy before, but they also didn't obsess with him B.O.C (before obama criticism) Plenty of people here have been critical of the media for not seeing/ ignoring all of this until it hit them in the head well before this whole Cramer-Stewart episode. This issue became a national discussion, so is it any surprise that it was talked about more here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) from what i can tell no one here respected the guy before, but they also didn't obsess with him B.O.C (before obama criticism) This doesn't make any sense to me. People didn't like him before, but he wasn't in the press much or anything, so what was to discuss? He comes up in the news, we discuss him. That isn't obsessing, its reality, and most of our discussions here are prompted by something or someone being launched into the headlines for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) Plenty of people here have been critical of the media for not seeing/ ignoring all of this until it hit them in the head well before this whole Cramer-Stewart episode. This issue became a national discussion, so is it any surprise that it was talked about more here? It's not surprising. The point is that people are obsessing over one guy because he cricized a president they really like. All the media that missed/ignored this potential disaster should be on the hook. If the media can get a 'free-bee' if they have terrible reporting but never criticize Obama, things aren't going to improve. Edited March 18, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) This doesn't make any sense to me. People didn't like him before, but he wasn't in the press much or anything, so what was to discuss? He comes up in the news, we discuss him. That isn't obsessing, its reality, and most of our discussions here are prompted by something or someone being launched into the headlines for some reason. Kinda like the banking crisis? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) This doesn't make any sense to me. People didn't like him before, but he wasn't in the press much or anything, so what was to discuss? He comes up in the news, we discuss him. That isn't obsessing, its reality, and most of our discussions here are prompted by something or someone being launched into the headlines for some reason. The only reason it's a story is he said something unfavorable about Obama. You are proving our point. No one cared about the lousy reporting before. The suggestion that the outrage is over bad reporting is very suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) Kinda like the banking crisis? No? Sure, or any other "crisis" that comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) This doesn't make any sense to me. People didn't like him before, but he wasn't in the press much or anything, so what was to discuss? He comes up in the news, we discuss him. That isn't obsessing, its reality, and most of our discussions here are prompted by something or someone being launched into the headlines for some reason. Sure, but people are critical of Obama every day. But now, he gets ran over by the bus BY THE WHITE HOUSE? Please. It's Bush League... except Bush didn't even back up the bus like this. With the Bush's, at least you knew what you were getting before it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Sure, but people are critical of Obama every day. But now, he gets ran over by the bus BY THE WHITE HOUSE? Please. It's Bush League... except Bush didn't even back up the bus like this. With the Bush's, at least you knew what you were getting before it happened. Run over? Backed up? The White House made nothing more than an offhand remark from the press secretary, as far as I can recall. I call Kaperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) Sure, or any other "crisis" that comes up. Which makes the contention that this one person should have know the crisis was coming all of the more laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Run over? Backed up? The White House made nothing more than an offhand remark from the press secretary, as far as I can recall. I call Kaperbole. People don't say anything offhanded at that level... And the press went for it hook line and sinker... just like they always do... including the cult hero Mr. Johnny boy Stewart. (hee hee...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Which makes the contention that this one person should have know the crisis was coming all of the more laughable. You lost me there. I was referring to people here, and their reactions, not whether or not Jim Cramer should have known Bear was failing. I could care less about him and his annoying antics that he likes to call advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 OH NOES! We better get that health care fast-tracked before that popularity goes away. Jimmy Carter, table of (now) two, your table is right this way. However, Rasmussen polls have a lot to be desired... I'll point that out right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) OH NOES! We better get that health care fast-tracked before that popularity goes away. Jimmy Carter, table of (now) two, your table is right this way. However, Rasmussen polls have a lot to be desired... I'll point that out right away. Carter? One thing I think is interesting about Obama so far, that stands out as very different from not only Bush, but also Carter... is that he is doing a LOT of things. Now, I don't like all those things, but, no one can rightly say the guy is just lounging around, or not getting much done. That is sort of the opposite of Carter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I thought Rasmussen was pretty good the last few election cycles? Kap, you're going off the deep end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts