Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

More Proof of Morons at CNBC

Recs

12

April 28, 2009 – Comments (10)

Skeptical Investors Don't Quite Trust Obama- CNBC

Wall Street remains essentially where it was when President Obama entered office: chronically unsure about the nation's investing climate.

This has to be the most ridiculous headline I've seen lately, worse than the swine flu-based market predictions, worse than the hand-wringing about housing numbers a few days ago.

Memo to the morons at CNBC who put this up: short-term market movements are noise. They mean nothing. And even if they had some meaning, you certainly could not ascribe any relationship to Obama for what's happened to indexes of stock prices.

Sj - no real fan of Obama

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 28, 2009 at 4:47 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Can we go short CNBC? Can we 3X short Cramer?

Report this comment
#2) On April 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM, swank9 (< 20) wrote:

the chicks on CNBC are hot though.  i'd like to 3x long a few of them personally...

Report this comment
#3) On April 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, TMFBent (99.82) wrote:

I'd report that last remark if I hadn't snotted my keyboard into uselessness after I read it...

Report this comment
#4) On April 28, 2009 at 7:26 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Although I agree that CNBC is lousy, I am a big fan of Larry Kudlow and Rick Santelli.

 

Report this comment
#5) On April 28, 2009 at 7:29 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

How come it's almost impossible to get Fox Business Channel from a cable company--as an alternative to CNBC?  Fox has commentators such as Liz Claman (formerly of CNBC), who is very intelligent (and in response to swank9's comment--also beautiful).  I think that CNBC would be forced to be more objective if they had competition.

Report this comment
#6) On April 29, 2009 at 5:12 AM, saunafool (98.63) wrote:

I think that CNBC would be forced to be more objective if they had competition.

I don't think that having another network cheerleading Wall Street is going to make anyone more "objective."

Report this comment
#7) On April 29, 2009 at 5:30 AM, minimidgy (97.87) wrote:

What's the problem with the story? Just because it isn't pro-Obama?

Report this comment
#8) On April 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM, TMFBent (99.82) wrote:

The problem is that it's absolute nonsense. That was very clearly explained in the original post.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with moronic attempts to assign cause and effect to randomness.

If you think this is a pro-Obama blog, you haven't done your homework.

Sj

Report this comment
#9) On April 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM, tomd728 (24.09) wrote:

CNBC indeed, does become a tough, watch but like the crooked card game "It's the only one in town." I have this misplaced notion that I might miss something relevent but alas all I see is too many "guests" who are merely hacks spinning away.Obama ? That matter is merely a mention by the gent who started this que.....and a good post it is.There is not enough room or time or interest for this writer to opine on that continuing drama.Hey.....that's it !!! "The Obama Drama".I like it men.

PS: The 3x Bull Comment on some hosts is a very funny post.LOL in fact. Rock on brother.

  

 

 

Report this comment
#10) On April 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, minimidgy (97.87) wrote:

I apologize, I didn't mean to jump, I've just been sick of people worshipping Obama. From the looks of it, you are not one of those people :-)

I just wonder that if the stock market was considerably higher, would the media go crazy and say it's all because of Obama?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement