This is funny

[whork]

Other than Obama's economic team (many of whom bailed to go back to their college enclaves)....nobody.

Oh, unemployment was also supposed to be around 5.5% by now.

How is the information manipulated, when the numbers are RIGHT ON THE SCREEN FOR EVERYONE TO SEE?

Was unemployment at 8.6% last November? Yes!

Did that chart on Fox News state such? YES!!

You are a funny one Mcway.

FOX's poll numbers already embarressed you and still you defend them. Is this some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome thing?

And you hate Obama but listen to his economic team. Makes sense

[whork]

What LYING? The numbers are there for anyone with a decent set of peepers to see.

OH NO!! The graph is off. AAAAAAHHHH!!!! (as if no one can see the "8.6%" number on the screen   )

You and Whork appear to be the unstable ones, obsessing over a news network and yelping about graphs, even though the data is spelled out in the plainest of terms.

But, of course, to you and Necrosis, the graph is WAAAAAY more important than the actual numbers shown (clearly displaying Obama's miserable failings on the economy).

Apparently FOX news info even when "plain" to see can cause mistakes.

The info had Romney winning as well.

I remember one true supporter who kept believing to the end.

Maybe you know him he posts on this board defending people that lie to him and suffer from MJ syndrome.

[Necrosis]

What LYING? The numbers are there for anyone with a decent set of peepers to see.

OH NO!! The graph is off. AAAAAAHHHH!!!! (as if no one can see the "8.6%" number on the screen   )

You and Whork appear to be the unstable ones, obsessing over a news network and yelping about graphs, even though the data is spelled out in the plainest of terms.

But, of course, to you and Necrosis, the graph is WAAAAAY more important than the actual numbers shown (clearly displaying Obama's miserable failings on the economy).

the pie graph equals more the 100% you titty, how is that plainest of terms? clearly false information. Then you have graphs starting at an arbitrary number in order to fool people, there is no other reason for it. They are purposely lying and being deceitful. Just like the predictions they gave election night.

[whork]

the pie graph equals more the 100% you titty, how is that plainest of terms? clearly false information. Then you have graphs starting at an arbitrary number in order to fool people, there is no other reason for it. They are purposely lying and being deceitful. Just like the predictions they gave election night.

I get it now Mcway is a Seinfeld/Costanza fan.

[blacken700]

most of the repubs on here let talk radio do there thinking for them,and if they miss the show they fall back to fox news  . all you have to do is go back to the election there is no denying it 

[MCWAY]

You are a funny one Mcway.

FOX's poll numbers already embarressed you and still you defend them. Is this some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome thing?

And you hate Obama but listen to his economic team. Makes sense

What's funny is that you're whining about a graph, even though the numbers clearly said that unemployment was 8.6% last November.

So, was it 8.6% or not?

Of course, your concern is more about the pretty picture than the fact that unemployment was (and continues to be) WAAAAAY higher that the guy who just got re-elected and his administration said it would be.

[MCWAY]

Apparently FOX news info even when "plain" to see can cause mistakes.

The info had Romney winning as well.

Which info? Where on Fox News did EVERY SINGLE PUNDIT on the network call the race for Romney?

Let's see:

Beckel? NOPE!

Williams? NOPE!

Powers? NOPE!

Colmes? NOPE!

Sabato? NOPE!!

Rasmussen? NOPE!

And the list goes on.

Yes, Rove and Morris did make that call. But, the last time I checked, they do NOT make up all of Fox News.

[MCWAY]

the pie graph equals more the 100% you titty, how is that plainest of terms? clearly false information. Then you have graphs starting at an arbitrary number in order to fool people, there is no other reason for it. They are purposely lying and being deceitful. Just like the predictions they gave election night.

You do realize you can back MORE THAN ONE person on that graph? As if someone who backed Huckabee would ONLY back him and not back Palin or even Romney.  

If that graph allows someone to pick more than one person, you get numbers like that.

And, as for "they", multiple pundits made predictions on the election. The conservatives backed Romney; the liberals backed Obama...WHAT A SHOCKER!!!  

As if that weren't enough, that graph is NOT from the Fox News Channel but from a local Fox affiliate in CHICAGO.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[240 is Back]

You do realize you can back MORE THAN ONE person on that graph? As if someone who backed Huckabee would ONLY back him and not back Palin or even Romney. 

If that graph allows someone to pick more than one person, you get numbers like that.

And, as for "they", multiple pundits made predictions on the election. The conservatives backed Romney; the liberals backed Obama...WHAT A SHOCKER!!! 

They didn't vote for him though.

[MCWAY]

They didn't vote for him though.

At least, not enough of them did.

[Necrosis]

You do realize you can back MORE THAN ONE person on that graph? As if someone who backed Huckabee would ONLY back him and not back Palin or even Romney.  

If that graph allows someone to pick more than one person, you get numbers like that.

And, as for "they", multiple pundits made predictions on the election. The conservatives backed Romney; the liberals backed Obama...WHAT A SHOCKER!!!  

As if that weren't enough, that graph is NOT from the Fox News Channel but from a local Fox affiliate in CHICAGO.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

can't tell if serious.

[whork]

What's funny is that you're whining about a graph, even though the numbers clearly said that unemployment was 8.6% last November.

So, was it 8.6% or not?

Of course, your concern is more about the pretty picture than the fact that unemployment was (and continues to be) WAAAAAY higher that the guy who just got re-elected and his administration said it would be.

You keep whining about the unemployment rate how about coming up with solutions instead of just complaining?

[whork]

Which info? Where on Fox News did EVERY SINGLE PUNDIT on the network call the race for Romney?

Let's see:

Beckel? NOPE!

Williams? NOPE!

Powers? NOPE!

Colmes? NOPE!

Sabato? NOPE!!

Rasmussen? NOPE!

And the list goes on.

Yes, Rove and Morris did make that call. But, the last time I checked, they do NOT make up all of Fox News.

Im not talking pundits im talking polls.

[tbombz]

What LYING? The numbers are there for anyone with a decent set of peepers to see.

OH NO!! The graph is off. AAAAAAHHHH!!!! (as if no one can see the "8.6%" number on the screen   )

You and Whork appear to be the unstable ones, obsessing over a news network and yelping about graphs, even though the data is spelled out in the plainest of terms.

But, of course, to you and Necrosis, the graph is WAAAAAY more important than the actual numbers shown (clearly displaying Obama's miserable failings on the economy).

well, i think the graph probably is more important than the labels on the graph. if people see a trend line, thats what they pay attention to.. not so much the particulars of the data it represents.  and if the trend line is misleading, then that is going to cause confusion.

[garebear]

What's funny is that you're whining about a graph, even though the numbers clearly said that unemployment was 8.6% last November.

So, was it 8.6% or not?

Of course, your concern is more about the pretty picture than the fact that unemployment was (and continues to be) WAAAAAY higher that the guy who just got re-elected and his administration said it would be.

McWay, are you being intellectually dishonest or can you really not see that, in the graph, 8.6 is at a higher position than 8.8?

Come on, man. You're embarrassing yourself on here.