Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Jon Stewart v. Jim Cramer last night
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Huh? Don't you think this is rather a leap? Are you feeling okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre The Malmedy massacre refers to a war crime in which about 90 unarmed American prisoners of war were murdered by their German captors. The massacre was committed on December 17, 1944 by Kampfgruppe Peiper (part of the 1st SS Panzer Division), a German combat unit, during the Battle of the Bulge. |
Anonymous
| Is your last name Stewart? You seem to be nicely picking and choosing little phrases and snippets to complain about while ignoring the whole point of the post. So ignoring the fact that you really had nothing to say - yes, when somebody calls you out every day on national TV you kind of have to go on his show and defend yourself. Except that Cramer couldn't do it without jeopardizing his own show. That's called a set up. |
Anonymous
I had similar thoughts. |
Anonymous
Thanks for the history lesson via wikipedia. This reference is to just one of about a million things that O'Reilly has gotten wring at best or just made up at worst. On at least two separate occasions, on his "show" O'Reilly maintained that it was American soldiers who committed this war crime. He said American soldiers committed this massacre. Look it up. |
Anonymous
| Oh, and I should also add that Fox backpedaled after the fact. You can look that up, too. |
Anonymous
PP here. I was only guessing at the point you were trying to make (because it was completely mysterious) and apparently I got it wrong. I still have no clue what you're talking about. Please, I can't hear the discussion going on inside your head. What exactly do you mean? That Bill O'Reilly mischaracterized some massacre I have never heard about (which I'm glad to hear about now because I want to know more) and that Jon Stewart is just like him because of how he treated Jim Cramer? Please clarifly. |
Anonymous
|
On the "set up". Look, if Cramer has to either jeopardize his show or show up on the Daily Show, there's something wrong with the show.
In addition, Cramer set HIMSELF up by taking on John Stewart. Stewart ran a piece showing dubious financial advice provided on CNBC. If he called Cramer out (I don't remember if he did), it was as one of many. Cramer made it mano-a-mano and got lots of publicity..perhaps more than he anticipated. Then, he put the nail in his coffin by lying and saying "I never told people to buy Bear Sterns" when he's on tape saying just that. Stewart's main schtick is taking a statement and contrasting with recording of that person's prior contrasting statement. |
Anonymous
|
I think Stewart was absolutely right, but I was surprised at how feebly Cramer tried to defend himself. He let Stewart cut him off, and he could have heaped more blame on the quant models that told the firms they were OK
I'm glad Cramer didn't try to deny Stewart's point about the role the media played. But I also wonder if the media really has any capacity for investigating these proprietary models that told the firms they were doing OK. Firms sure weren't likely to divulge their capital or leverage (borrowing) ratios to somebody like Cramer or to the rest of the financial press. Yeah, some of it's available from annual statements, but a lot of this derivatives stuff takes place off the books. Credit default swaps, for one, which were what brought AIG down. And nobody, not even the investors or the ratings firms (the recent Moody's quote that it would rate cows if asked), had a clue as to what was in some of these mortgage-backed securities pools. So I guess the media could play a role in exposing the greed, the corporate jets, the really bad investment decisions that were taking place in the past decade. And also in exposing the gross ignorance about what lay behind some of these investments. I'm still thinking this through, so I'd be interested in hearing what others think. I'm not in the press, BTW -- far from it! |
Anonymous
The O'Reilly reference goes back to earlier in the thread that went something like this: "Well, I guess the left has their O'Reilly." "Yeah, except that Jon Stewart doesn't make things up or tell people to shut up" "O'Reilly doesn't make things up, he just puts them out there for you to see and you don't see them--ignorant." "Two words for you: Malmedy Massacre. Yes, I am the one who is ignorant." You know the rest. |
Anonymous
I agree. And it seemed like once Cramer was called out on his contradictions with that video, he really couldn't say much. What could he say? He just threw up his hands like "OK, you got me." I did feel badly for him, but it is kind of nice to see someone doing their homework and calling someone out on the game playing. |
Anonymous
| Cramer couldn't really do a decent job defending himself because he was probably thinking "woah, those old clips are public now? I need to be very careful what I say without a lawyer present!" |
Anonymous
I see now. Thanks for clearing that up! |
Anonymous
| My pleasure, PP. Honestly, that O'Reilly thing mad me so sad and so mad, thinking about how many people watch that show and how he defamed American soldiers like that. I try hard to see all sides and respect our differences--NOT a fan of O'Reilly, but my late grandpa seemed to like him--but this thing that he got so wrong just made me sick. And he just couldn't seem to just admit he had made a mistake and gotten it backwards (it was the SS who murdered unarmed American soldiers, not the other way around). Our WWII vets, all vets, deserve much better than that. Anyway--totally sidetracked from the Cramer thing, but when someone says that O'Reilly tells it like it is, or likens a satirist to him, or some such nonsense, it requires a response. |
Anonymous
|
22:00 here again. Where I was perplexed is that I thought the "Malmedy massacre" thing was an attack on Jon Stewart but I get it now.
Can't say I pay much attention to Bill O'Reilly but from what I know about him it seems odd that he would refuse to admit a mistake like that. That's supposed to be the stereotype about the left -- that we think American soldiers are always the evildoers and never the victims -- (not true of me, btw, and some other leftists I know but certainly true of some). So I can't figure out why O'Reilly would mix up this history like that. At any rate, I will follow up and learn more about this massacre. Thanks. |