It's interesting and refreshing to see someone say "I don't know" - which, to me, is intellectual honesty. On CNBC, everyone has an opinion - even when they're full of sh*t. You can see the same thing in the Krugman/O'Reilly
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/08/krugman_vs_oreilly_full_transcript.php
http://www.videosift.com/video/Clip-of-Tim-Russert-Paul-Krugman-vs-Oreilly

pong

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
ping

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jim cramer, mad money, interest rates' to 'jim cramer, mad money, interest rates, cnbc, loses, it, meltdown' - edited by Zonbie

My guess is that McCain is trying to woo disgruntled Hillary Democrats. You're from Alaska? Cool.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655? Looks official to me.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'peak, oil, Buffet' to 'peak, oil, Buffet, CNBC, Warren Buffet' - edited by Fedquip

I'm glad that you liked it

In reply to this comment by MINK:
thanks for that analysis.

In reply to this comment by flavioribeiro:
I wonder how much Bernanke can actually do. The only instrument the Fed has to immediately act on the stock market is the interest rate. But back in December, Bernanke and everyone else knew that cutting interest rates would promote inflation and another credit bubble. So he decided against it, just like the European Central Bank decided this week.
[...]

Listen, I vote on quality too, not because I feel pity for anyone. I'm simply saying that I think many newbies are overlooked because they're not a known quantity yet. I know this because recently I resubmitted several videos that I tried to do when I was new here but died in queue, but this time they made it out of queue in less than 36 hours. Why? They're the EXACT same videos, after all. I think it's because I've been around here for a while and people know my body of work by now so they're willing to view other videos of mine, whereas newbies easily get passed over. All of this is basically what smibbo said, but I think it's worth repeating.

And MINK: I think one of the many definitions of "hater" would be someone who uses the word "retarded" to describe just about anything they don't like or disagree with. Like this. And like this. And like this. And like this. And like this. My, you're just so fucking eloquent! Maybe you can grace us with writing "retarded" in French too! Sorry choggie, but your friend MINK's a hater, plain and simple. I know it, smibbo knows it, raven knows it, virtually everyone here knows it. I think most of us put it up with it because we'd rather see MINK being an asshole here than drowning kittens. Maybe that's why you thought quantummushroom got railroaded, i.e., because he's a kindred spirit, MINK. Shitstains like you are a dime a dozen at Break.com, which is probably why you're here instead: So you can be the biggest shitstain in our little video pond.

So to reiterate my previous point but with more MINKish panache: Fuck you, retarded hater.

When CNBC attempted political assassination of Kucinch by bringing up the UFO thing at the debates (ignoring him for about 20 minutes prior to that), he replied seeing a UFO and nothing else. The fact that other misinterpret this as "aliens" is their mistake. Kucinich made it clear it just an "unidentified flying object", nothing else.

So people who see UFOs are crazy? I think more people have seen UFos than have seen God. Yet, it ok to see God. Let the Marine take his clipboard and investigate that.

Thanks for your insight.

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
lucky760 wrote:

I guess it's just that I am a little unsure of what exactly he is saying because he's asked about striking at specific targets within any country and says he won't without a declaration of war. To me that translates as his saying he would not attack anyone anywhere in a country with which we aren't currently at war. Isn't that what he's saying?

It's easy to confuse the issue because that's exactly what the other candidates are trying to do. They are talking about attacking "strategic targets in Iran...nuclear facilities" and Paul correctly identifies that scenario as an attack on a country and not some "terrorists training camps" and says he would not act without Congresses approval in that scenerio. But the other candidates are throwing around "imminent attack" as their justification to side-step the Constitution in this situation.

It happens quickly but if you watch again you will see that he agrees that the President should act without the approval of Congress in a situation of "imminent attack" or "fleeting enemys". But Rudy, Mitt, and the gang want the President to be able to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran because if they don't in 5-10 years they might have the capability to make nuclear weapons. That does not require the snap judgment of the President under the guise of "eminent attack".

We did not declare war on Afghanistan when went after the terrorists there. So no he does not think we have to declare war on a country when protecting ourselves from terrorist groups independent of the country hiding in that country.

^ ^ ^Yes, it's on the top 15 already.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-CNBC-Debate-Highlights10-09-07

dag wrote:

Sorry to interrupt this fascinating flame-fest- but check out the results of the post debate MSNBC Poll. Ron Paul waaaay in the lead in all categories - at least at this hour

Yes and as usual MSNBC pulled the poll when the results were different then what they expected them to be. Like all the other news channels that have done the same thing they blame the Ron Paul supporters for voting on the poll in full force or possibly "hacking" the results somehow.

Isn't it odd that they make it VERY clear that an on-line poll is NOT scientific and then turn around and point at the "unscientific results" as the excuse for pulling the poll off line?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

It must be awful to have a mindset where nothing is interesting unless it's worth billions of dollars.

Oh yeah, it must be just awful to have a capitalist mindset when you work for CNBC. It ain't G4TV, dude - it's a business channel, specifically one for investors who are quite interested in how such a thing might affect their investments. Damn those people for trying to make a living.

Nothing like shoving it to apple.

WTF are you talking about - that kid just vastly increased their potential user base. AT&T on the other hand got pwned, and they are probably livid about it.

Kudos to him for being so relaxed. I can't think of any 17 y.o. boys who would be that cool sitting next to Erin Burnett, much less on national television.

I am glad that they chose Roger Ailes for the honor. Of course, he proceeded to use his speaker's box to compare Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden, but that is what demagogues like our version of Father Coughlin do.

Ailes is a great businessperson, though, and probably a genius when it comes to the visual presentation of fake news. The FOX News style has largely infected CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and even the Beeb in such a way that I can no longer tell which one I am watching if the volume is down.

We pretend that there is a church of journalism, pure and apart from the people. But news media has always been driven by market forces and Ailes is particularly astute at throwing red meat to his target audience. He is very good at what he does and he has changed the political landscape in America.

Why is it that Charlie Rose can spend 1 hour and explain a topic usually in a highly informative way, with decent questions and the right guests then leaving you with more information than 24 hours worth of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. How is it acceptable that the remainder just pump out pablum with a mix of pedestrian insight that could be gained by asking "what if" to a 5 year old.

? Thought USA today (no conservative paper, that one) reported Bush's approval rating just recently 'up' to 44%. How do you 'nosedive' from mid-30s (summer) to 44?

If FOX is 'nosediving' in the same way (can I get an AMEN), then things must be looking pretty good for them.

In terms of market share, viewership and the like, it's true that Fox is going down. But numbers for everyone else (CNN, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, et. al) are going down proportionally across the board. That has nothing to do with politics - it has to do with the fragmentation of media in general. There are dozens of channels competing for market share.

One of the things that the 'major' networks gripe about all the time is this fragmentation of the media. You hear them constantly pine for the 'good old days' when there were only 3 channels you could get your news from, and they could tell you what to think about anything with no opposing viewpoint. Now they have to (gasp) actually try to persuade people - and if Letterman is a prime example as an entertainer, they've proved already that they can't do it.