In Cramer We Trust

Jim Cramer didn’t recommend buying Bear Stearns stock a week before it collapsed — he did it five days earlier.

Cramer is scheduled to be on The Daily Show this Thursday.

And he was recently on Colbert – he appears around the 4:05 mark.

This entry was posted in Interesting, Pop Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to In Cramer We Trust

  1. sister says:

    I’m thinking this nulls Steve’s little debate, seeing as Mr.Stewart offered up visual proof that Cramer actually did make encouraging statements in regards to Bear. You can’t argue with complete sentences affixed to time stamps; as is showing in the video clips most recently posted. I was glad to see that Steve-O was forced to take Philosophy 101 like the rest of us. However, I think Steve might have been better served reading a little bit deeper into what was said. For there to be a genetic fallacy, there has to be a pre-established symbol and a currently held one that differs. I am assuming that he took his background as the previous symbol and whom he is today as the present one. I made no such reference that he was defined by his past, nor that I knew anything about his roots (aka parents, congregation, or political beliefs). I did however pose the question of his anti-semitism simply based upon the written word. Perhaps he should have been more mindful in both his philosophy class and his english one. Maybe then his command of the language would actually allow him to convey what he meant clearly, and without room for misunderstanding.

    In Reference to “CNBC Analysis” – posted March 5

  2. Brent says:

    Sister, I thought you had no more time to deal with him (Stephen)?

  3. Stephen says:

    With rhetoric like that, I vote that Sister be elevated to the roll of Bag Of Nothing Mascot….

  4. sister says:

    I had some time in the bathroom. 🙂

    Hmm…I wouldn’t mind being the Bag of Nothing Mascot; I’d be proud to have that position. There’s nothing wrong showing support to select opinions that I agree with; but I can’t help but notice that perhaps you think my brother’s blog is a rhetoric filled piece of work with liberalistic, left-winged ideas -lol. You seem to disagree with his views yet you still check his blog to offer your two cents on anything that you deem unacceptable. I only say this because most people just leave comments on things they like; if they don’t like it/agree with it they just move on with a shrug of the shoulders.

    P.S. I’ll take the Bag of Nothing Mascot position always in the defense of views I agree with. Other than that my brother’s views are his own. It’s just when I see comments that ooze negativity and discontentment that are over-board and uncalled for that I can’t help but say/think “Hey, chill the heck out man before I make you look like the village idiot.”… because theGeeding is a lot more passive than I am.

  5. theangrypanda says:

    I couldn’t help but notice after reading back and forth through the various comments lately that there is something on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Stephen … you’re a douche and nobody likes you.

    P.S. Pretty much everyone agreed with sisterGeeding anyhow, so what is the point of keeping this up?

    – The End

  6. Micah says:

    hmm, i disagree with theangrypanda. I don’t believe stephen is a douche and i like him. Of course, it is easy to form opinions about people based on dialogue in a blog comment section but i would hesitate to do so because…well that seems like fairly childish thing to do. Believe, me, i’ve been guilty of this before…

    There is a way to be graceful in disagreeing with someone and given the personal attacks in these posts it doesn’t seem to be happening. It started with sister attacking Stephen’s intellectual capacity by indirectly accusing him of being “uninformed” and “biased”. The implication, of course, being that sister is neither of these. It is difficult to have a civil discussion when this is established at the outset. Once this happens, the discussion spirals downward quickly.

    I found myself laughing when stephen was made fun of for misspelling ‘Kool-Aid’. Of couse, the irony here is that sister’s sentence making fun of the misspelling was plagued by an error in subject-verb agreement. Technically, the sentence should have read “The only people I know who misspell Kool-Aid….” instead of “The only people I know who misspells Kool-Aid….”.

    The only people i know who would mess up in the subject verb agreement are probably those who went to public school and were over-exposed to…..

    You can see where i’m going here.

  7. theangrypanda says:

    So you're correcting people on grammar here, and yet you have errors in your own comment? You can see where I'm going here. I know it may seem strange, but as you seem to have accidentally pointed out, not all of us read over things to make sure we didn't type something incorrectly. However, it is nice to know that the grammar-nazi is always here to correct others and save (steve's) the day. Although, I do find it quite sad that the only thing you could possibly find wrong with sisterGeeding's comment was a subject-verb agreement error.

  8. Brent says:

    It seems to me that Micah was pointing out the grammatical errors to highlight the irony of insulting another comment for grammatical/spelling errors. He made no claim to be an expert or above reproach. (Now I, on the other hand, count poor grammar/spelling as one of my pet peeves – even in blog posts. Yes, I know I may be a Grammar-Nazi. 🙂

    I also think that Micah was making a comment, not to argue facts, but attitudes. More specifically, I think he was noting the fallacy of resorting to name-calling and insults when engaging in discussion. I find it sad that someone would post a comment solely for the purpose of calling another person a "douche." My, you are an angry panda.

    Of course, if your comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, then I confess I missed the humor.

    For the record, I also happen to like Stephen even though I disagree with many of his opinions. Does this mean I'm drinking his Kool-Aid? 🙂

  9. Micah says:

    Thanks Brent, you're spot on with what i was trying to communicate in my post.

    I just thought it was kindof funny that sister made fun of Stephen for misspelling something while at the same exact time she made a grammatical mistake of her own. The irony was pretty thick 🙂

    Does this make sense angry panda? I'm finding it difficult to reply directly to your post b/c it appears (based on your response) that you took from it something completely different than i intended.

  10. BostonShalom says:

    I'm not condoning anything Panda says, but I think Micah is off on his irony point. I think Sister's point in regards to grammar/spelling was that it's hard to take someone's argument seriously when that person can not even spell the name of a popular children's drink correctly — not that some spelling or grammatical discredits an argument.

    I'm not saying that I agree with the tone or with what Sister has stated, but I think this particular area was misinterpreted by Micah, but then again, I could be wrong . . . it's just my opinion and interpretation.

    However, as a Jewish man living on the east coast I do think Stephen's comments can certainly be viewed as anti-Semitic. I'm not saying they are, just that they can be viewed that way, and when posting in a public forum one should be aware of what is said as to not offend his or her neighbor. Let me also state that I'm not saying that Stephen himself is anit-Semitic. Perhaps around Stephen's circles, which I assume are in Texas, there's not a lot of Jewish people and influence, so he may not be aware of Jewish sensitivities; much like straight men may not understand how homosexual humor can be offensive to a gay man.

    • Micah says:

      Thanks for your reply BostonShalom. While i don't agree with your assessment i appreciate your tone.

      If you are correct in your opinion of why sister pointed out the mispelling, i'm assuming that you would also be okay with somebody calling in to question the credibillity of sister's argument given the grammatical errors therein. Would you agree?

      Personally, i would not let someone's ability to spell Kool-Aid on a message board forum discredit just about any argument they are trying to make. I don't believe there is any correlation between ability to spell and ability to make this argument. Of course, if their argument was directly related to the spelling of the word Kool-Aid, and they still made the mispelling then i think it might discredit the argument :).

      Imagine if you were participating in a monitored debate and your opponent pronounced a word incorrectly. Wouldn't it be a ridiculous tactic in rebuttal if your response was to say that their argument couldn't be considered b/c they pronounced a particular word incorrectly? I certainly wouldn't want to build an argument on this sort of thing.

  11. BostonShalom says:

    This may be one of those things were we may just have to agree to disagree. Let me first state that I'm not necessarily agreeing with Sister on her views, just that I can see how something said or done can be such a distraction that it's hard to take the person of said action seriously. Of course this will vary from each person, because of each person's own value system or judging criteria.

    Someone may view incorrect spelling as a greater mistake than grammar or sentence structure or even a pronunciation – we saw many people judge the intelligence of the previous president by the way he said nuclear. So in your example of a monitored debate, mispronouncing the word nuclear could cause some in the audience to doubt the intelligence of the person who said the word. Or lets say the fumbling of the oath of office by the president and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Many have a lack of faith in their intelligence because they couldn't even get a simply little oath correct. But in this case, I don't think it's so much spelling Kool-Aid incorrectly, as it is not being to correctly reference a pop-culture icon that children can easily spell. I may have not communicated that last sentence as well as I would have liked since I somewhat contradicted the spelling item but hopefully you understand what I'm aiming at. Besides, subject matter such as these are usually best reserved for back and forth verbal dialog. The written language is too easily misinterpreted.

    I'm not trying to change opinions, just offer other viewpoints. As I said, we may just have to agree to disagree.

    I think if Sister, Stephen, and Panda were able to communicate their points without personal attacks or injecting emotion into the discussion, all of their points would or could have been better received and understood, maybe even accepted.

    Hopefully all three parties will no longer comment on this post or subject as I think it's run its course; and I think all the readers of this usually pleasant and entertaining blog would be happy to just move on. At least that's my request. And I think if all three parties had to do it over again, they would prefer delivering the same intent of their message, but doing it with much more grace and tact.


Comments are closed.