56 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Salon - Why is Jim Cramer shouting at me?

...Thus the essence of CNBC circa 2009 is an uneasy mixture of despair and boosterism, made to cohere with the liberal application of pure venom. And the venom is directed at the most convenient target: Barack Obama....

Then Jim Cramer stops by at the end of her show, and turns in one of the more tortured and conflicted television performances I have ever seen. He personifies, in his very body, the war between boosterism and reality that lends CNBC such an air of anxiety. Dripping with contempt for Burnett, he berates her for citing a positive -- and, one should note, true -- statistic about Ford. "I could make you look really horrible on this show," Cramer shouts. And then he admits that he's just as guilty of searching desperately for silver linings. "Every night," he barks, "I try to come out and say something good, but it's difficult. It's difficult, because it spits in the face of people who've lost so much."

Cramer is in pain, and he's taking it out on Burnett. By the end of six of the more excruciating minutes I've witnessed on television, Burnett was scrambling for a graceful way out. "We can let everybody know, that now they know, that we have very real, frank discussions and disagreements in this segment. As people can do." She changes the subject to his nightly show, which on Monday will cover carbon cap-and-trades. "And I believe you're talking energy tonight?" offers Burnett, helpfully. "Some degree," huffs Cramer. He's just openly wrestled with the dilemmas of his job, and come out the loser. Burnett is visibly relieved to sign off for the day.

Some video:

Stewart to CNBC - F*** you

Daily Show - In Cramer We Trust

Salon - Stewart destroys Cramer, again (video halfway down page)

[EmbraceUnity]

hahahahaha

[RighteousReason]

This reads like some kind of socialist propaganda.

Why not engage Cramer's actual point instead of doing nothing but attacking and marginalizing him?

Edited by advancdaltruist, 12 March 2009 - 03:09 AM.

[lunarsolarpower]

When did people start conflating Wall Street with capitalism?

[DJS]

This reads like some kind of socialist propaganda.

Why not engage Cramer's actual point instead of doing nothing but attacking and marginalizing him?

Cramer was making a point?

Honestly, I almost feel sorry for this guy. You really get a sense of despair and desperation emanating from him. After being mocked, if someone pushed back as forcefully as Cramer did it means that the remarks hit close to home.

I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up to the news that Jim Cramer hung himself from the chandelier in his house.

Edited by DJS, 12 March 2009 - 05:15 AM.

[DJS]

Also, I know that this almost reads like political gossip rags, but I think if you look closely you'll notice that there's a lot going on under the surface with these exchanges.

This has been well established for a while now, but JS is a dangerous political player.

And a Comic Shall Lead Them

The Huffington Post
James Moore

"It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously."
- Oscar Wilde

I am inclined to wonder if there is a line somewhere in the Book of Revelation that proclaims "and a comic shall lead them." Jon Stewart has set new standards for both comedy and journalism on television. Oddly, he was originally supposed to just make us laugh on Comedy Central. He's done that, quite proficiently, but Stewart has also figured out that some jokes are sad as well as too important not to tell.

But he's not supposed to be doing the job of reporters.

TV journalists used to almost guarantee successful careers if they could go into a tape file and find a public figure on camera with a quote that contradicted something they had just said into another camera. Tape archives had made it possible for hypocrisy to succeed irony as the fuel of insightful journalism. The most famous of these was probably George H. W. B**h's (not writing that name anymore, ever) order to "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then he raised them because he had no choice and his promise was held up in his face for trying to do what was right for the country while bad for him politically.

The practice of juxtaposing sound bites or quotes all but disappeared in journalism because few reporters had the time or inclination to search for context. They just wanted the here and the now and one side shouting at the other as if life were a cable program. (Yeah, I know, it almost is.) Reporters used to brag when they accomplished such coups as finding the historic contradictory quote, and their colleagues were justifiably jealous.

Jon Stewart has brought back context to journalism by making people in our drive-by culture responsible for their words and even actions. Stewart has helped Jim Cramer of CNBC make that awkward transition from silly and self-involved to just pathetic. Cramer, who famously recommended purchasing Bear-Stearns stock prior to the firm's total collapse, is reading Mein Karl and using the strategy of attacking the messenger when the message is so devastating. On the Today Show, he tried to dismiss Stewart as an "entertainer" who runs a "variety show."

Jon Stewart, of course, is both of those things but he is also a cultural icon. His program is free to deploy approaches that mainstream journalists cannot because he labors in the vineyards of comedy. If a writer for the Wall Street Journal or even the Boston Globe had put together a piece deconstructing the fallibilities of Jim Cramer's advice they would have had great problems with publication. Lawyers would have been engaged and editors would have furrowed their brows and worried about being counter-attacked or whether CNBC's advertisers would have stayed away from the paper. Sadly, no editor or reporter would have even thought up the idea of doing an analysis of Cramer's nonsensical babblings. Stewart has no such constraints. Everything must serve the laugh. Stewart has become a kind of Murrow for the new millennium.

Nonetheless, reporters at the big TV networks and the major publications have no excuse. Minute by minute people like Jim Cramer are feeding crap into our culture and public perceptions and it has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with their egos. How is it that a comedian is the first person to hold accountable these cheerleaders who are promoting a team that has no chance to win and, in some cases, isn't even in the damned game?

Analysts doing the autopsy on newspaper reporting and the corpse of mainstream journalism are constantly lamenting the fact that so many young people and an increasing number of others are getting their news from Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. Where else is there left to look for thoughtful, analytical, and insightful analysis of the issues of our day? The yuks are just a bonus. Cable news shows can proclaim "no bias, no bull" all they want but every story is framed for a purpose, which is drama and conflict. The viewers and the readers aren't there without the dramatic tension. You might as well be watching Law and Order: Special News Unit.

Unfortunately for traditional journalism, the audience increasingly realizes that much of the material presented is manufactured controversy that requires no resolution. Stewart, though, gives us the laconic and wiseass view of the day's news and nothing he says seems contrived. Strangely, his entire broadcast is a contrivance and yet it remains the most enlightening in the spectrum of TV "news." The only thing worrisome about Stewart's ascension in American culture is that his schtick and acerbic wit might be a canary in our red, white, and blue coal mine. We've got a funny guy in charge of how we think.

Can that be good?

[DJS]

I think I heard a shot from the grass knoll.

Jim Cramer Shorting Stocks, Manipulating Markets, Saying The SEC Doesn't Understand

Here are some gems:

-On manipulating the market: "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"

-On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls "fomenting"): "You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."

-On the truth: "What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."

[DJS]

Jim Cramer: Obama is causing the greatest destruction of wealth I have ever seen by a president

[DJS]

And the take home message is?

[DJS]

Couric: What is your favorite movie of all time?

Obama: Oh, I think it would have to be the Godfather.

[Mind]

In Stewarts popular "F*** You CNBC" segment he carefully takes many quotes and clips out of context (except Cramer, who spouts many semi-coherent things every day). He skewers Rick Santelli for opposing the Obama housing bailout (I oppose it too), without letting anyone know that Santelli has opposed nearly every government bailout since the downturn began. Santelli is not some big time trader. He only reports on bonds/commodities from the Chicago Board of Trade. People should know that John Stewart is a very partisan Democrat (a fact he admits). His show is comedy for Democrats with token jokes for everyone else. That's ok, its entertainment, just don't think you are getting anything close to the truth or actual reporting (which unfortunately a whole young generation does).

Nearly every financial reporter and nearly every trader got it wrong in 2008. We wouldn't have had a housing bubble and a recession if everyone saw it coming.

[valkyrie_ice]

In Stewarts popular "F*** You CNBC" segment he carefully takes many quotes and clips out of context (except Cramer, who spouts many semi-coherent things every day). He skewers Rick Santelli for opposing the Obama housing bailout (I oppose it too), without letting anyone know that Santelli has opposed nearly every government bailout since the downturn began. Santelli is not some big time trader. He only reports on bonds/commodities from the Chicago Board of Trade. People should know that John Stewart is a very partisan Democrat (a fact he admits). His show is comedy for Democrats with token jokes for everyone else. That's ok, its entertainment, just don't think you are getting anything close to the truth or actual reporting (which unfortunately a whole young generation does).

Nearly every financial reporter and nearly every trader got it wrong in 2008. We wouldn't have had a housing bubble and a recession if everyone saw it coming.

Umm. Mind...

I think they did.

http://www.salon.com...nomy/index.html

The politics of an economic nightmare
No U.S. leader wants to admit how bad the damage may get from the one-two punch of the credit crunch and housing slump.

By Robert B. Reich



Jan. 23, 2008

A possible economic meltdown is worrisome enough, but a possible meltdown in an election year is downright frightening. For months now, Republicans have been pushing the White House to take some action that looked and sounded big enough to give them some cover if and when things got worse. President Bush has now responded with a stimulus package more than twice as large as the one Bill Clinton briefly entertained at the start of 1993 but couldn't get passed.

Not to be outdone, Democrats want to appear at least as bold, which means they'll suspend pay-go rules and throw fiscal responsibility out the window. In other words, hold your noses, because the "bipartisan" stimulus package that's about to be introduced could be a real stinker, including tax cuts for everyone and everything under the sun -- except, perhaps, for the key group of lower-income Americans. These are the people who don't earn enough to pay much if any income taxes, but who are the most likely to spend whatever extra money they get and therefore are most likely to stimulate the economy. The real behind-the-scenes battle will be over whose constituencies get what tax cuts, and for how long. Don't be surprised if the only thing Congress really stimulates is campaign contributions.

Meanwhile, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Co. have surprised everyone with a rate cut larger and sooner than expected. The three-quarters of a percentage point ("75 basis points" in biz-speak) cut announced Tuesday morning may not sound like much, but it's bigger than any rate cut in decades. The politics here are more subtle because Bernanke and his Federal Reserve governors are supposed to be independent of politics. But as witnessed under the reign of previous chairman Alan "it's prudent to reduce the surplus with a tax cut" Greenspan, Fed chairs can have political agendas. Bernanke has been under a lot of pressure lately to cut rates big-time -- and the pressure has come not only from Washington Republicans but from panicked Wall Street Democrats, including, apparently, my old colleague Robert Rubin, formerly President Clinton's treasury secretary. (By the way, what could Rubin have been thinking when he allowed Citicorp to sell all those fancy securitized debt instruments, while agreeing to buy them back if they couldn't be resold?) Expect lots and lots more Washington activity -- enough seemingly bold strokes to convince voters that our nation's capital is doing whatever is necessary to stop whatever seems to be going wrong with the economy.


The problem is, people have different views about what's going wrong. Wall Street sees it as a credit crisis -- a mess that seems never to reach bottom because nobody on Wall Street has any idea how many bad loans are out there. Therefore, nobody knows how big the losses are likely to be when the bottom is finally reached. And precisely because nobody knows, nobody wants to lend any more money. A rate cut won't change this. It's like offering a 10-pound lobster to someone so constipated he can't take in another mouthful.

Main Street sees it as a housing crisis. Homes are the biggest assets Americans own -- their golden geese for retirement and their piggy banks for home equity loans and refinancing. But home prices have been dropping quickly. It's the first time this has happened in many decades -- beyond the memories of most Americans, which is why they never expected it to happen, why they bought houses so readily when credit was so easily available, and why so many people bought two or more of them, speculating and fixing up and then flipping. But now several million Americans may lose their homes, and tens of millions more have only their credit cards to live on and are reaching the outer limits of what they can spend. As consumer spending shrinks, companies will reduce production and cut payrolls. That has already begun to happen. It's called recession.

How much worse can it get? The housing bubble drove home prices up 20 to 40 percent above historic averages relative to earnings and rents. So now that the bubble is bursting, you can expect prices to drop by roughly the same amount, and new home construction to contract. The latter plunged last month to its lowest point in more than 16 years. A managing partner of a large Wall Street financial house told me a few days ago the scenario could get much worse. He gave a 20 percent chance of a depression.

Even if a stimulus package were precisely targeted to consumers most likely to spend any money they received, the housing slump could overwhelm it. According to a recent estimate by Merrill-Lynch, the slump will hit consumer spending to the tune of $360 billion this year and next. That's more than double the size of the stimulus package President Bush or any leading Democrat is now talking about. And the Merrill-Lynch estimate is conservative.

In reality, the crisis is both a credit crunch and the bursting of the housing bubble. Wall Street is in terrible shape and Main Street is about to be in terrible shape. And there's not a whole lot that can be done about either of these problems -- because they are the results of years of lax credit standards, get-rich-quick schemes, wild speculation on Wall Street and in the housing market, and gross irresponsibility by the Fed, the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency.

As a practical matter, our only real hope for avoiding a deep recession or worse depends on loans and investments from abroad -- some major U.S. financial firms have already gotten key cash infusions from foreign governments buying stakes in them -- combined with export earnings as the dollar continues to weaken. But this is something no politician wants to admit, especially in an election year. So we're going to go through weeks of posturing about stimulus packages of one sort or another, and then see enacted the big fat bonanza of a temporary tax break that will likely have little effect. That, perhaps along with a few more rate cuts by the Fed. The presidential candidates will be asked what should be done about the worsening economy, and they'll give vague answers. None will likely admit the truth: We're going to need the rest of the world to bail us out.

The problem happened because of millions of Americans falling for the GET RICH QUICK schemes of the Real Estate buy and sell fast Gurus, and by Wall Street leveraging those same loans in even more GET RICH QUICK schemes. Everyone was so busy GETTING RICH QUICK, no one ever stopped to look at the fact that they were trading nothing but hot air and promises.

I lost my home to those GET RICH QUICK schemers, as my apartment went through 6 owners in the 7 years I lived there, all of them following the advice of the Real Estate Gurus, taking out huge loans to buy the complex, slapping a new coat of paint on it while pocketing most of the money, then selling off as fast as possible. Every one of them saw fit to raise my rent, while not fixing anything that actually needed fixing, like 30 year old ACs that added 200 to 300 extra dollars a month in electric bills to the Rent. When we first got the apartment it was 500 a month, by the time we lost it, our last owner had raised our rent to 750 a month, all because following Hurricane Charlie, her ability to sell it off quick had suddenly vanished, and she had wasted all the loan money traveling abroad. For where we live, 750 a month should have paid for three times the living space we had, in a brand new apartment, with brand new furnishings. The only reason we hadn't moved yet was trying to find a rental agency that would accept the fact that I had only been in my new job less than a year, and my roomate had suffered a nervous breakdown due to severe Bi-polar disorder, and lost hers. We were 1 month behind on rent and making payments to our land lord, who had even signed a deal with me over it, only to use it to hide the fact that she had started eviction proceedings and didn't want them contested. So because I could only afford to give her 500 that month, she took away everything I owned by having a sheriff show up at my door at 8am and toss us out without warning. If it hadn't been for the complex manager being nice, we wouldn't have saved even our clothes or computers, which is about all we still own.

I understand your stance about not wanting to pay for the investors bad loans. I understand your stance on people who got fooled by the banks into buying larger houses than they could afford. But I also think you should be intelligent enough to realize not EVERYONE who is suffering is doing so because they WERE idiots. Some of us are suffering BECAUSE OF THEM.

Is Obama's policy the best course? Who knows. But at least he seems to be trying to fix things, which NO-ONE could say about Bush. And for people like me, who truly do need help because we were the victims, not the cause, that makes him a hero.

I understand your view Mind, because in 2000, I was just like you. I had a good job. Money in the bank. A 401k. And now, I am homeless, and without the generosity of my employers, I and my roomate would be living on the street. I see the otherside of the coin now, because I have no choice. My certifications are meaningless when there are no jobs to be had, no car to get to them, and no money even to pay for public transportation.

Human rights have meaning. And HOME, FOOD, MEDICINE, AND EDUCATION are four of the most basic that no-one seems to care about.

At least Obama appears to. All I can do is hope it's not an act.


Edit: Try to put quoted articles in quote tags to avoid confusion.

Edited by DJS, 12 March 2009 - 04:16 PM.

[RighteousReason]

This reads like some kind of socialist propaganda.

Why not engage Cramer's actual point instead of doing nothing but attacking and marginalizing him?

Cramer was making a point?

Honestly, I almost feel sorry for this guy. You really get a sense of despair and desperation emanating from him. After being mocked, if someone pushed back as forcefully as Cramer did it means that the remarks hit close to home.

I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up to the news that Jim Cramer hung himself from the chandelier in his house.

Wow, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are piling it all on, huh?

Here is a play-by-play of your response quoted above:

Ignore any and all legitimate points.

Marginalize.

Marginalize.

[RighteousReason]

Couric: What is your favorite movie of all time?

Obama: Oh, I think it would have to be the Godfather.

Oh this is perfectly fitting. Did you see Obama/Biden on the campaign trail? They looked exactly like a couple of gangsters, dressed up super-nice and spouting their highest quality bullshit... and then laughing- right in front of everyone!- laughing in everyone's face, while the cameras are still on them, that there are so many complete fools that rally behind them and buy into their cheap racist pedagoging and vague partisan attacks and bumper sticker messages.

Jim Cramer: Obama is causing the greatest destruction of wealth I have ever seen by a president

I think Jim Cramer nailed it. He's more right than he knows.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 12 March 2009 - 04:46 PM.

[DJS]

In Stewarts popular "F*** You CNBC" segment he carefully takes many quotes and clips out of context (except Cramer, who spouts many semi-coherent things every day). He skewers Rick Santelli for opposing the Obama housing bailout (I oppose it too), without letting anyone know that Santelli has opposed nearly every government bailout since the downturn began. Santelli is not some big time trader. He only reports on bonds/commodities from the Chicago Board of Trade. People should know that John Stewart is a very partisan Democrat (a fact he admits). His show is comedy for Democrats with token jokes for everyone else. That's ok, its entertainment, just don't think you are getting anything close to the truth or actual reporting (which unfortunately a whole young generation does).

I disagree with you to a certain extent. I think that Stewart does play the "partisan game" - it's how he became a major political player. However, as is evident by the targets he picks, I also think he's somewhat outside of the mainstream (to the left) with a lot of issues. So the net effect is that he pulls the political spectrum ever so slightly left with him.

I also disagree with you that he's "just entertainment" and "not close to the truth with his reporting". Most of the time I think he's completely on the money (pardon the pun), but perhaps this is merely indicative of our different political perspectives and the interpretations they produce.

Nearly every financial reporter and nearly every trader got it wrong in 2008. We wouldn't have had a housing bubble and a recession if everyone saw it coming.

That wasn't really Stewart's point. His attack was on the entire enterprise of CNBC and the style of sensationalistic journalism it represents; things like pumping up stocks and playing buddy buddy with the CEOs. It's totally indefensible. So the take home message is this, "Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones." CNBC should continue with its silly little variety shows, but if it persists in bashing adminstration policy then things are going to get real ugly real fast. That's what this is all about. Cramer's only self defense when he goes on the Daily Show tonight is what you've just stated, "I was wrong just like everyone else." This might add a little buoyancy to his public image, but it does nothing to help CNBC's cause.

[RighteousReason]

In Stewarts popular "F*** You CNBC" segment he carefully takes many quotes and clips out of context (except Cramer, who spouts many semi-coherent things every day). He skewers Rick Santelli for opposing the Obama housing bailout (I oppose it too), without letting anyone know that Santelli has opposed nearly every government bailout since the downturn began. Santelli is not some big time trader. He only reports on bonds/commodities from the Chicago Board of Trade. People should know that John Stewart is a very partisan Democrat (a fact he admits). His show is comedy for Democrats with token jokes for everyone else. That's ok, its entertainment, just don't think you are getting anything close to the truth or actual reporting (which unfortunately a whole young generation does).

Nearly every financial reporter and nearly every trader got it wrong in 2008. We wouldn't have had a housing bubble and a recession if everyone saw it coming.

Jon Stewart isn't just a partisan Democrat. He thinks he is a bad ass gangster Godfather himself, charading as a pseudo-objective comedian while everything he presents is carefully shaped with maximum coherence to the farthest left-wing ideology. It it perfectly fitting that his show comes on at the same time as the O'Reilly Factor.

[RighteousReason]

That wasn't really Stewart's point. His attack was on the entire enterprise of CNBC and the style of sensationalistic journalism it represents; things like pumping up stocks and playing buddy buddy with the CEOs. It's totally indefensible. So the take home message is this, "Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones." CNBC should continue with its silly little variety shows, but if it persists in bashing adminstration policy then things are going to get real ugly real fast. That's what this is all about. Cramer's only self defense when he goes on the Daily Show tonight is what you've just stated, "I was wrong just like everyone else." This might add a little buoyancy to his public image, but it does nothing to help CNBC's cause.

What is this, are you trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine? The far left is so terrified of strong contrary opinions they go to any means possible to silence the opposition: attack and marginalize the person, build a conspiracy of all his associations, and BY GOD MAN- Do not EVER engage his actual arguments- we simply cannot compete THERE!!!

Edited by advancdaltruist, 12 March 2009 - 04:55 PM.

[DJS]

Wow, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are piling it all on, huh?

Here is a play-by-play of your response quoted above:

Ignore any and all legitimate points.

Marginalize.

Marginalize.

What are you talking about? What legitimate points? Are you claiming that you made a legitimate point, or that someone else made a legitimate point?

Your type of presence is the reason that forums go to sh**. Low signal to noise ratio.

[RighteousReason]

Wow, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are piling it all on, huh?

Here is a play-by-play of your response quoted above:

Ignore any and all legitimate points.

Marginalize.

Marginalize.

What are you talking about? What legitimate points? Are you claiming that you made a legitimate point, or that someone else made a legitimate point?

Your type of presence is the reason that forums go to sh**. Low signal to noise ratio.

Hello? What is this all about?

Jim Cramer's point that "Obama is causing the greatest destruction of wealth I have ever seen by a president", and that Obama's policies have simply been completely disastrous to our economy are the whole reason you and the entire left wing political spectrum are suddenly filled with hatred of this guy. Otherwise you wouldn't have ever brought him up.

Your type of presence is the reason that forums go to sh**. Low signal to noise ratio.

Attack and marginalize! Don't let anyone get distracted with real debate! Jesus, you have gone off the deep end.

[DJS]

Hello? What is this all about?

Jim Cramer's point that "Obama is causing the greatest destruction of wealth I have ever seen by a president", and that Obama's policies have simply been completely disastrous to our economy are the whole reason you and the entire left wing political spectrum are suddenly filled with hatred of this guy. Otherwise you wouldn't have ever brought him up.

I know that this may not compute for you, but your train of thought is off-topic for this thread. One can discuss the value (or lack thereof) of CNBC, hir opinions on Jon Stewart, or even whether one thinks there are underlying political motivations for these exchanges - but if you want to get involved in a heated ideological debate on economic policy, then you should go start your own thread.

[RighteousReason]

Hello? What is this all about?

Jim Cramer's point that "Obama is causing the greatest destruction of wealth I have ever seen by a president", and that Obama's policies have simply been completely disastrous to our economy are the whole reason you and the entire left wing political spectrum are suddenly filled with hatred of this guy. Otherwise you wouldn't have ever brought him up.

I know that this may not compute for you, but your train of thought is off-topic for this thread. One can discuss the value (or lack thereof) of CNBC, hir opinions on Jon Stewart, or even whether one thinks there are underlying political motivations for these exchanges - but if you want to get involved in a heated ideological debate on economic policy, then you should go start your own thread.

You can go on attacking and marginalizing a guy who has stated opinions you don't like instead of actually engaging his ideas in debate, but if you do I'm going to call you out on it- and me doing so is not off topic.

There are a lot of people who agree with those opinions expressed by Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli that caused you guys to go completely hysterical. To start a thread based on the idea of brushing their opinions aside and simply attacking and marginalizing them in every way you can imagine is not conducive to anything productive at all.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 12 March 2009 - 06:19 PM.

[DJS]

In politics, the truth value of a proposition is often unclear and open to interpretation. What I feel much more confident in is the belief that with politics there will always be political gamesmanship from all parties involved. Being aware of this gamesmanship, and understanding the objectives for engaging in it, is what separates sophisticated political thinkers from crude ideological followers.

[Mind]

Don, I am mostly upset about the Santelli riff (there are plenty of jokes to be made about all political persuasions including libertarians). All of the viewers of that clip think Santelli is an asshole, when in reality he opposed nearly every bailout effort. His compadres on CNBC mocked him as a Ayn Rand apostle for opposing the bailouts, and then Stewart makes it look like he is some billionaire trader asshole supporting bailouts. It is just plain wrong. Either Stewart's piece was hastily put together because Santelli cancelled on short notice, or it was an infantile move to "get even".

As far as incestuous relationships with the people they cover. It goes around all media outlets. The MSM treats Obama with kid gloves in order to get access, just as CNBC cozies up to the biggest CEOs.

Sorry to hear about your situation Valkyrie, but I am unsure how the government bailing out the owners of the apartment complex would help anything. From my limited knowledge, it looks like that would be rewarding bad behavior, and just make the situation worse. If the government is going to spend money and there is nothing to stop them, then at the very least people in your type of situation should be the ones getting some money to buy housing, not the past owners to the apartment complex (or people who bought houses they couldn't afford). They should not be rewarded.

Also we have a fundamental disagreement on human rights. The things you list are all material, thus cost money. Someone has to pay for them. My view of human rights is from a natural perspective. We are all born with the ability to communicate, to freely assemble with whomever we want, to believe in whatever we want (freedom of speech, assembly, religion). These are all free. They don't cost money and it is hard (but not impossible) for one human to manipulate or take these rights away. Some people would call them natural rights, some would call them god-given, whatever. The problem with creating material rights is that they can be changed, manipulated, taken away, used as collateral, what-not. Once you create a "right" that relies on the material input of other people then you become a slave, a dependent. Human history is replete with examples of unscrupulous leaders manipulating dependent populations. I just view material rights based on a government taking from one person and giving to another as very dangerous.

I would much rather see voluntary cooperatives taking care of things like health care, education, housing, and food. And this does seem to be happening. The advent of worldwide communication is allowing more people to help each other out. Putting a government in charge of health (or other material things) is taking power out of the hands of the people and making them dependent on whoever is elected.

[RighteousReason]

As far as incestuous relationships with the people they cover. It goes around all media outlets. The MSM treats Obama with kid gloves in order to get access, just as CNBC cozies up to the biggest CEOs.



Also we have a fundamental disagreement on human rights. The things you list are all material, thus cost money. Someone has to pay for them. My view of human rights is from a natural perspective. We are all born with the ability to communicate, to freely assemble with whomever we want, to believe in whatever we want (freedom of speech, assembly, religion). These are all free. They don't cost money and it is hard (but not impossible) for one human to manipulate or take these rights away. Some people would call them natural rights, some would call them god-given, whatever. The problem with creating material rights is that they can be changed, manipulated, taken away, used as collateral, what-not. Once you create a "right" that relies on the material input of other people then you become a slave, a dependent. Human history is replete with examples of unscrupulous leaders manipulating dependent populations. I just view material rights based on a government taking from one person and giving to another as very dangerous.

I would much rather see voluntary cooperatives taking care of things like health care, education, housing, and food. And this does seem to be happening. The advent of worldwide communication is allowing more people to help each other out. Putting a government in charge of health (or other material things) is taking power out of the hands of the people and making them dependent on whoever is elected.

I completely agree.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 12 March 2009 - 07:59 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Also we have a fundamental disagreement on human rights. The things you list are all material, thus cost money. Someone has to pay for them. My view of human rights is from a natural perspective. We are all born with the ability to communicate, to freely assemble with whomever we want, to believe in whatever we want (freedom of speech, assembly, religion). These are all free. They don't cost money and it is hard (but not impossible) for one human to manipulate or take these rights away. Some people would call them natural rights, some would call them god-given, whatever. The problem with creating material rights is that they can be changed, manipulated, taken away, used as collateral, what-not. Once you create a "right" that relies on the material input of other people then you become a slave, a dependent. Human history is replete with examples of unscrupulous leaders manipulating dependent populations. I just view material rights based on a government taking from one person and giving to another as very dangerous.

I would much rather see voluntary cooperatives taking care of things like health care, education, housing, and food. And this does seem to be happening. The advent of worldwide communication is allowing more people to help each other out. Putting a government in charge of health (or other material things) is taking power out of the hands of the people and making them dependent on whoever is elected.

Yes I would say we have a fundimental difference about rights.

The fundimental contradiction I see in your view is that you SAY you support human rights, so long as you don't have to put your money where your mouth is.

You would say I have a right to life, obviously.

So what is involved in a RIGHT TO LIFE?
I require nourishment to maintain life. Thus the right to food is a subset of my right to live.
I required shelter to maintain health. Thus the right to housing is a subset of my right to live.
I require health care when I am sick. Thus the right to medical attention is a subset of my right to live.
I require education if I am to become a productive member of society and thus reduce the burden I am to it.

So in essence you would defend my right to be alive "to the death", but you would let me starve to death if it involved any monetary aid on your part to insure I had enough food to stay alive. To me, this is sheer hypocracy.

Thus, this says to me that the basic rights "ALL HUMANS" are entitled too amounts to little more than lip service. So long as YOU have all YOU NEED, screw everyone else.

Sorry to put it so harshly Mind, because I know that this is not how you think you are thinking. You are considering yourself a kind and caring individual who supports human rights. And you are.

I simply believe you are being short sighted as to exactly what is involved in those rights. The basic RIGHTS are not solely nonphysical, there are indeed some very physical NEEDS that have to be addressed as part of the overall package. Those needs are food shelter medicine and education, the four MATERIAL NEEDS that must be seen as essential subsets of the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

And society is going to be paying for those needs regardless. Because the homeless are arrested, tossed in jail, and your tax dollars are paying to feed, cloth, house, and medicate them, along with paying all of the related court costs involved.

So which is better? Helping people stay out of jail and turning some of them into productive members of society by insuring that they have the basics to survive? Or forcing them to become criminals and wards of the state, where society is still paying for them, but is preventing them from become useful to society at large?

It doesn't matter if the government or charitable organizations pay for it. It still has to be paid for, because not paying for it is costing society far more, both in human suffering, and in preventable deaths.

Is abuse possible? Of course there is. But the abuse that is going on right now under the current system is out of control, and people in America are starving, dying of exposure, and diseases that could have been treated with minimal health care. They are locked into their current situations because kind upstanding charitable normal people, JUST DON'T THINK. they've got THIER house, and they have THEIR health, and they have THIER food, and THEIR education, and THEY are COMFORTABLE, and god forbid that THEY lose one IOTA of what THEY HAVE to help anyone else. They don't see the suffering, and out of sight, out of mind.

By dismissing it as "I don't want to help the losers, the cheats, and the fools," they can completely ignore the suffering, and not have a single twinge of conscience for discarding the victims right along side the victimizers.

Now, please understand Mind that I hold you in high esteem. You do a fantastic job in trying help advance us towards biological immortality, and are an honest and dedicated person with the highest intentions for the good of mankind. I simply think you have failed to fully think the posistion you defend through to it's logical conclusions. You've allowed a political ideology to blind you to the larger picture that eliminating human suffering is part of our mission as Singularitarians.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 12 March 2009 - 11:33 PM.

[RighteousReason]

"I don't want to help the losers, the cheats, and the fools"

I do not know a single conservative or libertarian that believes this. In fact, statistics show that conservatives donate MORE to charity than liberals. All we are saying is we do not want to be forced or otherwise controlled by the government, or have them make decisions and handle charitable causes using our money, or have it be the role of an all-powerful government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave. I could argue this line of philosophy in many ways and against many opposing points of view for quite some time, but I don't feel like getting more into it right here...

[Zenob]

In Stewarts popular "F*** You CNBC" segment he carefully takes many quotes and clips out of context (except Cramer, who spouts many semi-coherent things every day). He skewers Rick Santelli for opposing the Obama housing bailout (I oppose it too), without letting anyone know that Santelli has opposed nearly every government bailout since the downturn began. Santelli is not some big time trader. He only reports on bonds/commodities from the Chicago Board of Trade. People should know that John Stewart is a very partisan Democrat (a fact he admits). His show is comedy for Democrats with token jokes for everyone else. That's ok, its entertainment, just don't think you are getting anything close to the truth or actual reporting (which unfortunately a whole young generation does).

Nearly every financial reporter and nearly every trader got it wrong in 2008. We wouldn't have had a housing bubble and a recession if everyone saw it coming.

Rubbish.
First, Cramer is a moron. I actually use him as a counter indicator in my trading. Second, if Stewart was taking things out of context, what did he take out of context? Third, Santelli is full of shit. He thinks investment bankers are the "real" americans who are getting hurt and need help but if Obama tries to help out home owners then that's some kind of socialist plot. Fourth, people DID see it coming and they were literally LAUGHED at by morons like Cramer(financials are a STEAL at these prices). Hell, I saw it coming and I'm not exactly a billion dollar hedge fund manager. I still managed to gauge the top and get the hell out of the way before it fell.

Update: Cramer being the less then bright guy that he is decided he would go on the Daily Show and defend his reputation. Stewart got ahold of the video of Cramer talking about all the underhanded shit he used to do as a hedge fund manager. He roasted his ASS.
Daily Show

Edited by Zenob, 13 March 2009 - 04:22 PM.

[DJS]

Update: Cramer being the less then bright guy that he is decided he would go on the Daily Show and defend his reputation. Stewart got ahold of the video of Cramer talking about all the underhanded shit he used to do as a hedge fund manager. He roasted his ASS.
Daily Show

I was so money on that.

I think I heard a shot from the grass knoll.

Jim Cramer Shorting Stocks, Manipulating Markets, Saying The SEC Doesn't Understand

Here are some gems:

-On manipulating the market: "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"

-On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls "fomenting"): "You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."

On the truth: "What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."

Regarding Stewart v Cramer, all I can say is - Oh my gawd. Talk about laying the smack down.

Edited by DJS, 13 March 2009 - 11:03 PM.

[DJS]

Stewart v Cramer was one of the most brutal exchanges I've ever witnessed on television.

[valkyrie_ice]

"I don't want to help the losers, the cheats, and the fools"

I do not know a single conservative or libertarian that believes this. In fact, statistics show that conservatives donate MORE to charity than liberals. All we are saying is we do not want to be forced or otherwise controlled by the government, or have them make decisions and handle charitable causes using our money, or have it be the role of an all-powerful government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave. I could argue this line of philosophy in many ways and against many opposing points of view for quite some time, but I don't feel like getting more into it right here...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

our national contract. No?

WE THE PEOPLE. Not some of the people, or a select few of the people or whatever people feel like it, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. If you are a citizen, yo uare included.

In order to form a more perfect Union. in essence, so we all get along better.

Establish Justice. Which refers back to We the people. so it's Justice for all, not Justice for the rich, justice for the middle class or justice for the poor, but JUSTICE FOR ALL.

Insure Domestic Tranquility, by keeping the peace inside America's borders, preventing small groups from causing havoc, and providing law enforcement.

Provide for the common defense, not invade other countries, maintain a bloated military machine that has outdated weaponry, and use it to bully other countries into doing our bidding. Defend, and defend only.

Promote the general welfare, not the welfare of the rich, or the welfare of the well off, but the welfare of EVERYONE WHO IS A CITIZEN. And as a citizen you are obligated to promote the welfare of ALL, not just yourself.

To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Ourselves, the ENTIRE NATION, EVERY CITIZEN, not just the wealthy or the middle class, or the poor, but EVERYONE.

Do ordain and establish this constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Are you an American citizen? If you are, then it is part of your personal contract as a citizen to promote EVERYONES welfare, not just you own.

And that is straight from the Supreme Law of the Land.

Navigation: Umm, hey val, could you do everyone a favor and... relax a little. Perhaps limit yourself to one rant per day? Also, just FYI, the CAPS are a sort of online forum faux pas, as it seems like YOU'RE SHOUTING AT EVERYONE! Try using italics or bold instead.

Everyone. Let's try to stay on topic please.

Edited by DJS, 13 March 2009 - 11:50 PM.