[SanDiegoDave]

Waiting until next year is a good idea. Be sure to track every comparable townhouse condo sale in the area: all the stuff over in Renaissance & University Town Square, and the Barcelona’s as well. Go to the open houses, etc. This should allow you to really narrow down what, and is not, a fair deal when it comes time to buy. After closely tracking that long you’ll be able to spot a good deal as soon as it lists (or when a seller finally drops the price enough).

The best thing about any of those condos is that they’ll always cash flow if you ever need to rent it out.

I love the UTC area as well. But I wish there were more single family homes. The only two developments are Valencia (across from Barcelona) and Vista (next to Renaissance). In both cases the prices of the homes come at a heavy premium when comparing to the rest of University City.

[SanDiegoDave]

Waiting until next year is a good idea. Be sure to track every comparable townhouse condo sale in the area: all the stuff over in Renaissance & University Town Square, and the Barcelona’s as well. Go to the open houses, etc. This should allow you to really narrow down what, and is not, a fair deal when it comes time to buy. After closely tracking that long you’ll be able to spot a good deal as soon as it lists (or when a seller finally drops the price enough).

The best thing about any of those condos is that they’ll always cash flow if you ever need to rent it out.

I love the UTC area as well. But I wish there were more single family homes. The only two developments are Valencia (across from Barcelona) and Vista (next to Renaissance). In both cases the prices of the homes come at a heavy premium when comparing to the rest of University City.

[SanDiegoDave]

Waiting until next year is a good idea. Be sure to track every comparable townhouse condo sale in the area: all the stuff over in Renaissance & University Town Square, and the Barcelona’s as well. Go to the open houses, etc. This should allow you to really narrow down what, and is not, a fair deal when it comes time to buy. After closely tracking that long you’ll be able to spot a good deal as soon as it lists (or when a seller finally drops the price enough).

The best thing about any of those condos is that they’ll always cash flow if you ever need to rent it out.

I love the UTC area as well. But I wish there were more single family homes. The only two developments are Valencia (across from Barcelona) and Vista (next to Renaissance). In both cases the prices of the homes come at a heavy premium when comparing to the rest of University City.

[SanDiegoDave]

Waiting until next year is a good idea. Be sure to track every comparable townhouse condo sale in the area: all the stuff over in Renaissance & University Town Square, and the Barcelona’s as well. Go to the open houses, etc. This should allow you to really narrow down what, and is not, a fair deal when it comes time to buy. After closely tracking that long you’ll be able to spot a good deal as soon as it lists (or when a seller finally drops the price enough).

The best thing about any of those condos is that they’ll always cash flow if you ever need to rent it out.

I love the UTC area as well. But I wish there were more single family homes. The only two developments are Valencia (across from Barcelona) and Vista (next to Renaissance). In both cases the prices of the homes come at a heavy premium when comparing to the rest of University City.

[SanDiegoDave]

Waiting until next year is a good idea. Be sure to track every comparable townhouse condo sale in the area: all the stuff over in Renaissance & University Town Square, and the Barcelona’s as well. Go to the open houses, etc. This should allow you to really narrow down what, and is not, a fair deal when it comes time to buy. After closely tracking that long you’ll be able to spot a good deal as soon as it lists (or when a seller finally drops the price enough).

The best thing about any of those condos is that they’ll always cash flow if you ever need to rent it out.

I love the UTC area as well. But I wish there were more single family homes. The only two developments are Valencia (across from Barcelona) and Vista (next to Renaissance). In both cases the prices of the homes come at a heavy premium when comparing to the rest of University City.

[SanDiegoDave]

afx114… your timeline is off.

From Robert Bianco via USA Today:

“…the feud began when Stewart’s Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli’s rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC’s own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him.”
(emphasis mine)

That line, about Cramer complaining that his comments were taken out of context, was in an article Cramer wrote that was dealing with the larger issue of Obama and the budget & stimulus (and all the grief Cramer was getting for his criticism of it). All of this happened before the Martha Stewart and Morning Joe appearances.

My opinion is that Stewart opted escalate the issue with Cramer due to Cramer’s critical analysis of Obama – not because he genuinely wanted to get into the nuances of financial journalism.

That is how Stewart operates. He rarely ever debates people on the merits of anything. He instead goes after them ad hominem – finding any instance of contradiction they have ever had or a personal mistake they made in their life, and then magnifies it in Daily Show style.

I’m not defending Jim Cramer here. He’s a big boy and will sleep in the bed he made. I’m just pointing out that in all the reporting and blog posting that has been going on, what’s being left out are what I consider to be Stewart’s true motivations. Some may disagree with me on it. But after observing the guy and The Daily Show for many years, it was obvious to me what really irked him about Cramer.

[SanDiegoDave]

afx114… your timeline is off.

From Robert Bianco via USA Today:

“…the feud began when Stewart’s Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli’s rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC’s own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him.”
(emphasis mine)

That line, about Cramer complaining that his comments were taken out of context, was in an article Cramer wrote that was dealing with the larger issue of Obama and the budget & stimulus (and all the grief Cramer was getting for his criticism of it). All of this happened before the Martha Stewart and Morning Joe appearances.

My opinion is that Stewart opted escalate the issue with Cramer due to Cramer’s critical analysis of Obama – not because he genuinely wanted to get into the nuances of financial journalism.

That is how Stewart operates. He rarely ever debates people on the merits of anything. He instead goes after them ad hominem – finding any instance of contradiction they have ever had or a personal mistake they made in their life, and then magnifies it in Daily Show style.

I’m not defending Jim Cramer here. He’s a big boy and will sleep in the bed he made. I’m just pointing out that in all the reporting and blog posting that has been going on, what’s being left out are what I consider to be Stewart’s true motivations. Some may disagree with me on it. But after observing the guy and The Daily Show for many years, it was obvious to me what really irked him about Cramer.

[SanDiegoDave]

afx114… your timeline is off.

From Robert Bianco via USA Today:

“…the feud began when Stewart’s Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli’s rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC’s own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him.”
(emphasis mine)

That line, about Cramer complaining that his comments were taken out of context, was in an article Cramer wrote that was dealing with the larger issue of Obama and the budget & stimulus (and all the grief Cramer was getting for his criticism of it). All of this happened before the Martha Stewart and Morning Joe appearances.

My opinion is that Stewart opted escalate the issue with Cramer due to Cramer’s critical analysis of Obama – not because he genuinely wanted to get into the nuances of financial journalism.

That is how Stewart operates. He rarely ever debates people on the merits of anything. He instead goes after them ad hominem – finding any instance of contradiction they have ever had or a personal mistake they made in their life, and then magnifies it in Daily Show style.

I’m not defending Jim Cramer here. He’s a big boy and will sleep in the bed he made. I’m just pointing out that in all the reporting and blog posting that has been going on, what’s being left out are what I consider to be Stewart’s true motivations. Some may disagree with me on it. But after observing the guy and The Daily Show for many years, it was obvious to me what really irked him about Cramer.

[SanDiegoDave]

afx114… your timeline is off.

From Robert Bianco via USA Today:

“…the feud began when Stewart’s Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli’s rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC’s own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him.”
(emphasis mine)

That line, about Cramer complaining that his comments were taken out of context, was in an article Cramer wrote that was dealing with the larger issue of Obama and the budget & stimulus (and all the grief Cramer was getting for his criticism of it). All of this happened before the Martha Stewart and Morning Joe appearances.

My opinion is that Stewart opted escalate the issue with Cramer due to Cramer’s critical analysis of Obama – not because he genuinely wanted to get into the nuances of financial journalism.

That is how Stewart operates. He rarely ever debates people on the merits of anything. He instead goes after them ad hominem – finding any instance of contradiction they have ever had or a personal mistake they made in their life, and then magnifies it in Daily Show style.

I’m not defending Jim Cramer here. He’s a big boy and will sleep in the bed he made. I’m just pointing out that in all the reporting and blog posting that has been going on, what’s being left out are what I consider to be Stewart’s true motivations. Some may disagree with me on it. But after observing the guy and The Daily Show for many years, it was obvious to me what really irked him about Cramer.

[SanDiegoDave]

afx114… your timeline is off.

From Robert Bianco via USA Today:

“…the feud began when Stewart’s Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli’s rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC’s own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him.”
(emphasis mine)

That line, about Cramer complaining that his comments were taken out of context, was in an article Cramer wrote that was dealing with the larger issue of Obama and the budget & stimulus (and all the grief Cramer was getting for his criticism of it). All of this happened before the Martha Stewart and Morning Joe appearances.

My opinion is that Stewart opted escalate the issue with Cramer due to Cramer’s critical analysis of Obama – not because he genuinely wanted to get into the nuances of financial journalism.

That is how Stewart operates. He rarely ever debates people on the merits of anything. He instead goes after them ad hominem – finding any instance of contradiction they have ever had or a personal mistake they made in their life, and then magnifies it in Daily Show style.

I’m not defending Jim Cramer here. He’s a big boy and will sleep in the bed he made. I’m just pointing out that in all the reporting and blog posting that has been going on, what’s being left out are what I consider to be Stewart’s true motivations. Some may disagree with me on it. But after observing the guy and The Daily Show for many years, it was obvious to me what really irked him about Cramer.

[SanDiegoDave]

gandalf:

The title of the thread is: “Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show”

I did not “thread-jack” anything. My analysis of the Daily Show segment is that Stewart went after Cramer solely because Cramer was critical of Obama’s stimulus package and budget bill. My belief is that if Cramer had never criticized Obama, the entire Daily Show incident would never have happened. Where Obama is concerned, Stewart is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing CNBC of: being a cheerleader and refusing to take an objective stance borne from critical thinking.

I actually think Stewart is correct about CNBC! But he’s also a stark raving hypocrite, and that needed to be pointed out in the context of what happened on the show.

You disagree? Fine. Then tell me why I’m wrong. But my opinion and post are germane to this thread.

[SanDiegoDave]

gandalf:

The title of the thread is: “Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show”

I did not “thread-jack” anything. My analysis of the Daily Show segment is that Stewart went after Cramer solely because Cramer was critical of Obama’s stimulus package and budget bill. My belief is that if Cramer had never criticized Obama, the entire Daily Show incident would never have happened. Where Obama is concerned, Stewart is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing CNBC of: being a cheerleader and refusing to take an objective stance borne from critical thinking.

I actually think Stewart is correct about CNBC! But he’s also a stark raving hypocrite, and that needed to be pointed out in the context of what happened on the show.

You disagree? Fine. Then tell me why I’m wrong. But my opinion and post are germane to this thread.

[SanDiegoDave]

gandalf:

The title of the thread is: “Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show”

I did not “thread-jack” anything. My analysis of the Daily Show segment is that Stewart went after Cramer solely because Cramer was critical of Obama’s stimulus package and budget bill. My belief is that if Cramer had never criticized Obama, the entire Daily Show incident would never have happened. Where Obama is concerned, Stewart is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing CNBC of: being a cheerleader and refusing to take an objective stance borne from critical thinking.

I actually think Stewart is correct about CNBC! But he’s also a stark raving hypocrite, and that needed to be pointed out in the context of what happened on the show.

You disagree? Fine. Then tell me why I’m wrong. But my opinion and post are germane to this thread.

[SanDiegoDave]

gandalf:

The title of the thread is: “Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show”

I did not “thread-jack” anything. My analysis of the Daily Show segment is that Stewart went after Cramer solely because Cramer was critical of Obama’s stimulus package and budget bill. My belief is that if Cramer had never criticized Obama, the entire Daily Show incident would never have happened. Where Obama is concerned, Stewart is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing CNBC of: being a cheerleader and refusing to take an objective stance borne from critical thinking.

I actually think Stewart is correct about CNBC! But he’s also a stark raving hypocrite, and that needed to be pointed out in the context of what happened on the show.

You disagree? Fine. Then tell me why I’m wrong. But my opinion and post are germane to this thread.

[SanDiegoDave]

gandalf:

The title of the thread is: “Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show”

I did not “thread-jack” anything. My analysis of the Daily Show segment is that Stewart went after Cramer solely because Cramer was critical of Obama’s stimulus package and budget bill. My belief is that if Cramer had never criticized Obama, the entire Daily Show incident would never have happened. Where Obama is concerned, Stewart is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing CNBC of: being a cheerleader and refusing to take an objective stance borne from critical thinking.

I actually think Stewart is correct about CNBC! But he’s also a stark raving hypocrite, and that needed to be pointed out in the context of what happened on the show.

You disagree? Fine. Then tell me why I’m wrong. But my opinion and post are germane to this thread.

[Author]

Posts