’)Where “the little guy” is a multimillionaire with a TV show. In that world, Sam Walton was just a simple shopkeeper.
Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries
Cramer is a total corporate tool!
Here’s the thing: If you have to yell to make your point, you have no point.
The weakness of an argument is in direct proportion to the arguer’s decibel level.
See O’Reilly, Bill
I hope Stewart keeps it going as a running gag. Cramer would certainly continue to provide material.
Alas, Stewart is competent at his job and knows when to stop and move on.
Yeah, compared to Warren Buffett, a multi-billionaire, the Oracle of Omaha, Cramer is a little guy.
Warren Buffet has come out two days in a row and attacked this administration’s policies. Obama said he was someone he would look to for economic advice. Why isn’t he getting the Jim Cramer treatment from the White House?
Or from Jon Stewart?
Or from the nutroots?
John Stewart vs Jim Cramer = Mickey Mouse vs Mickey Mantle.
No stock market update today Dennis?
Perhaps because Mr. Buffet supports the President’s overall economic goals and disagrees with some elements, without calling him a Marxist (like Cramer) or calling for Revolution (like Santelli).
If we’re the “nutroots” and we kicked your asses, what does that make you?
You and Joker have detention today at school, Denny? Odd that you both show up at the same time.
Perhaps because Mr. Buffet supports the President’s overall economic goals and disagrees with some elements, without calling him a Marxist (like Cramer) or calling for Revolution (like Santelli). Oliver Willis
Perhaps, but it’s not a laudable argument. Cramer supported Obama’s econmic policies and attacked him for basically the same thing, trying to do way too much way too soon and pushing through contentious programs. So Buffett stopped short of calling him a Marxist and that gives him the silver glove treatment? Not likely, but if that’s what going around the lefty circuit today, so be it.
And Buffett criticized more than just Obama’s economic goals.
Not the first time, but you’re not being at all consistent.
And Buffett criticized more than just Obama’s economic goals.
Dennis, you wanna post some Buffet’s actual quotes?
I’m not trying to be rude, fafaroo, but I was replying to Oliver; he knows this.
Uh, yeah, Dennis. I was just wondering if you had anything to back up this statement:
Oliver pretty much sums up the response but I’ll just note that you linked to a transcript that includes zero attacks on Obama’s actual policies.
John Stewart vs Jim Cramer = Mickey Mouse vs Mickey Mantle.
Oh good one! Such wit! I hope John [sic] Stewart reads this blog, ’cause he just got ser-ved, beee-otches! You be the man, Joaquin!
Joaquin, you must love being punked! Jeez, the pain must be awfull.
Dennis: Warren Buffet has come out two days in a row and attacked this administration’s policies. Obama said he was someone he would look to for economic advice. Why isn’t he getting the Jim Cramer treatment from the White House?
Cramer was ridiculed last night largely for the lying (he DID tell people to buy Bear Stears shortly before it went under) and for giving really, really bad advice (people should buy Bear Stearns, it’s a solid company).
Buffet hadn’t done that.
Jim Cramer calls himself a financial expert, and yet he’s been wrong about everything financial(kind of like Bill Kristol and Iraq). His excuse? “It’s a bear market!” Well, any asshole can make money in a bull market. Why would anyone listen to this jagoff, ever?
And fwiw, Stewart invited Santelli on his show to present his side of things, and he was too chicken to actually show.
Honestly, Republicans need to stop acting like complete pussies.
And if we’re going to do everything Warren Buffett says, we should start raising income taxes.
joaquin says: “John Stewart vs Jim Cramer = Mickey Mouse vs Mickey Mantle.”
Except in this case John Stewart’s advice would be better than Jim Cramer’s.
Remember, Jim Cramer’s track record is worse than random chance.
He is not an expert. Just a loud mouth on TV.
Dennis the Bigot: “Why isn’t he getting the Jim Cramer treatment from the White House?”
Because he’s an expert and his word means something. Experts can disagree at times, and I believe most back Obama, or in fact think Obama is not doing enough.
You see, we actually look at the credibility of the person speaking, not latch onto whoever supports our pre-approved conclusion.
I know that’s hard for you to understand, but try.
John Stewart vs Jim Cramer = Mickey Mouse vs Mickey Mantle.
Mickey Mantle’s been dead for over a decade, so it looks like Stewart wins this round.
“Jim Cramer’s track record is worse than random chance”
This is literally true. You’d be better off picking stocks with a dart-board.
Jim Cramer should retire in shame, but I have a feeling that he won’t.
Jon Stewart, however, is a comedian who is funny. At least he’s good at his job.
“Jim Cramer should retire in shame, but I have a feeling that he won’t.”
The people who are most confident in their predictions are the ones you should trust the least. They are also the kind of people the average TV viewer trusts the most, because they are confident.
Strong but wrong… where have we seen that before.
You see, we actually look at the credibility of the person speaking, not latch onto whoever supports our pre-approved conclusion. –Southern Strategy Strowbridge
Ha. You don’t look at the credibility at all. You look at a video clip on a comedy show. Warren Buffett lost $23 billion for Berkshire Hathaway in 2008.
They both made bad calls, they both supported Obama in the campaign, and the both criticized what he is trying to do right now. The only difference, per Oliver, is that Buffett didn’t call Obama a Marxist. And per Southern Strategy, Buffett has credibility and Cramer doesn’t. Both laughable.
The difference is Buffett is much too important to the White House to give him the Cramer treatment. Just more of the same amateur hour tactics this president’s advisors use to demonize dissent.
Neither Jon Stewart, nor the nutroots, nor the White House degraded Warren Buffett for massive losses his company realized in this crisis, nor the purchases he made as the market was crumbling. Because they all most certainly do latch onto whoever supports their pre-approved conclusions.
Buffett has been right a lot more than Cramer ever has been.
Buffett has been right a lot more than Cramer ever has been. Jaims
How do you know? Buffett was $50 billion wrong. WIth a B, Jaims. You’re criteria is not degree of being wrong, but the total number of times wrong, neither of which you have even the first clue about. They were both very wrong about the crisis. Cramer did tell people to get out several thousand points ago. Bufffett was agressively buying. I don’t fault either one, but it’s evident that the White House, Stewart and the Lefty blog echo chamber are being wholly inconsistent in the criteria they use to judge dissenters to Obama’s stimulus measures.
Me: “You see, we actually look at the credibility of the person speaking, not latch onto whoever supports our pre-approved conclusion.”
Dennis the Bigot: “Ha. You don’t look at the credibility at all. You look at a video clip on a comedy show. Warren Buffett lost $23 billion for Berkshire Hathaway in 2008.”
As much as I trust a prejudiced asshole like yourself, I’m going to have to trust my judgment on how I form my opinions more that yours.
Jaim: “Buffett has been right a lot more than Cramer ever has been. Jaims’
Dennis the Bigot: “How do you know?”
Because Buffett made himself the world’s richest man through his understanding of how the stock market works.
Jim Cramer, on the other hand, has a success rate that is worse than random chance.
Got that? WEAKER THAN RANDOM CHANCE!
Jim Cramer is the opposite of an expert. Doing the opposite of what he tells you to do will make you more money.
We’ve explained this a number of times to the point that you are either functionally retarded, or intentionally trying not to understand.
I truly don’t know which it is. Given what you’ve said in the past, it could be either. You could really be this stupid, or you could just be burying your head in the sand.
Southern Strategy-
My argument never was who is richer, or who historically has made the more accurate calls. It’s that they both made very bad calls last year, and only one of them is being singled out for a silly cat-fight by the White House, Stewart and the left-wing echo chamber for bad market calls.
Berkshire Hathaway is down 60% in the last year while the DOW is off 42%. Cramer told people to get out last fall. Cramer never should’ve told people to hold on to Bear Stearns, but he’s not an insider and he had no clue that what the insiders were telling people was bullshit. It still has no bearing on the opinion he has Obama’s actions now and why he’s hurting the stock market. It’s an ad hominem attack on him to discredit him, pure and simple. And bad market calls have nothing to do with how each of them is analyzing Obama’s effect on the current stock market and the economy and the destruction of wealth that is occurring.
Dennis the Bigot: “My argument never was who is richer, or who historically has made the more accurate calls. It’s that they both made very bad calls last year, and only one of them is being singled out for a silly cat-fight by the White House, Stewart and the left-wing echo chamber for bad market calls.”
…
That’s because one has a history of making really bad calls.
Got it?
Or are you really that fucking stupid?
Dennis: My argument never was who is richer, or who historically has made the more accurate calls. It’s that they both made very bad calls last year
Yes, but Buffet made made better calls than Cramer last week. I mean, why allow as broad a timespan as a whole year? Think how much more you could support you narrow view if we just look at who did better this morning!
Cramer never should’ve told people to hold on to Bear Stearns, but he’s not an insider and he had no clue that what the insiders were telling people was bullshit.
And nobody should expect self-declared “expert” Cramer to do anything other than just listen to what insiders were telling him. Reviewing financial statements, doing his own analysis, checking to see if the insiders claims hold up under examination. Who in their right mind would expect that? Ken Lay said everything was fine at Enron. What else could you possible need to know?
The only difference, per Oliver, is that Buffett didn’t call Obama a Marxist.
It’s an ad hominem attack on him to discredit him, pure and simple.
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
The only difference, per Oliver, is that Buffett didn’t call Obama a Marxist.
It’s an ad hominem attack on him to discredit him, pure and simple.
Wait, did Cramer call Obama a Marxist? And that’s not an ad hominem attack?
I know Glen Beck has, but he’s fucking crazy anyway, so who cares.
Wait, did Cramer call Obama a Marxist? And that’s not an ad hominem attack?
In CNBC host Cramer’s “U.S.S.A.”: “Comrade[]” Obama is a “Bolshevik” who is “taking cues from Lenin”
The difference is Buffett is much too important to the White House to give him the Cramer treatment.
No, Denny, I think the big difference is buffet is right more times than Cramer. And more ethical. See here.
Yes, Buffet tanked $5B, and he’s still the richest guy on the continent. Cramer? Not so much.
Duros- Still doesn’t explain why the attacks on Cramer are so great and Buffett gets the kid gloves treatment. If it was as Oliver says, because he called him a Marxist, like you said, so did Beck. And so have a lot of people. If Obama and Gibbs and Stewart and the lefty blogs on their 8:45 am call-in every day wanted to make an issue out of the likening of Obama to socialism, one would think his hyperbole frequent antics alone would be enough. I mean, he calls himself a Mad Man. But no, they attack him on a call about Bear Stearns. A call no one save for an insider would’ve ever had the prescience to predict. Analysts and stock-pickers and brokers make those kinds of calls every day.
But still, no mention of Buffett’s 60% decline year-over-year after he criticized the Obama Administration. The guy Obama chose as one of his top guys to get economic advice from has seen his company’s value decline by a full 18% worse than the DOW average. That’s why they can’t attack him.
Marx had nothing to do with it. Neither did how much money one guy had versus the other. And certainly not because of some bad calls.
because he called him a Marxist, like you said, so did Beck. And so have a lot of people.
And they’re all wrong.
I love how you characterize criticism of a loudmouth on TV as “attacks.”
But still, no mention of Buffett’s 60% decline year-over-year after he criticized the Obama Administration. The guy Obama chose as one of his top guys to get economic advice from has seen his company’s value decline by a full 18% worse than the DOW average. That’s why they can’t attack him.
I’d still listen to Buffet over Cramer any day of the week, and so would you.
Marx had nothing to do with it. Neither did how much money one guy had versus the other. And certainly not because of some bad calls.
So enlighten me, Karnac.
Seriously, sometimes I think you just come here to say “Nu-uh!” to everything anyone says.
Duros- Still doesn’t explain why the attacks on Cramer are so great and Buffett gets the kid gloves treatment.
I not positive, but I’m pretty sure it might have something to do with Teh Funny.
So Dennis’s point is that it’s OK for Cramer to make ad hominem attacks, but it’s not OK for Obama’s supporters to do the same.
So yeah…
In his own words,
Dennis, we are all now more stupider because of your bat-shit-insane comments in this thread.
Congratulations!
Everyone invested in stocks lost their shirt due to the Bush Recession. The question is, who would you rather have investing your money now, Dartboard Cramer or Warren Buffett?
(I don’t need to answer that for you, do I?)
Dennis the Bigot: “Still doesn’t explain why the attacks on Cramer are so great and Buffett gets the kid gloves treatment.”
Yes it does, you moron. The situation is different, therefore the reaction will be different.
Jim Cramer has a history of bad calls, Buffett does not.
Jim Cramer called Obama a communist taking order from Lenin, Buffett did not.
Jim Cramer is a ranting moron who uses sound effect to sell his stock picks, Buffett does not.
What more do you need to see before you accept there are differences between the two men that explain their different reactions to what they said?