Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 23, 2014, 12:28:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: This is funny  (Read 720 times)
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2012, 09:19:18 AM »

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 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2012, 09:22:28 AM »

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  Roll Eyes )

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8129


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2012, 09:51:11 AM »

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  Roll Eyes )

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2012, 09:57:32 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10840


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2012, 11:04:20 AM »

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  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy. all you have to do is go back to the election there is no denying it  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15735


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2012, 11:26:19 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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.

Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15735


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2012, 11:30:14 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15735


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2012, 11:32:37 AM »

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.  Roll Eyes

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!!!  Roll Eyes

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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbyhj8uTT8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbyhj8uTT8</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81735


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2012, 11:54:43 AM »

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.  Roll Eyes

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!!!  Roll Eyes

They didn't vote for him though.
Report to moderator   Logged

MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15735


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2012, 12:04:45 PM »

They didn't vote for him though.

At least, not enough of them did.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8129


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2012, 12:23:21 PM »

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.  Roll Eyes

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!!!  Roll Eyes

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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbyhj8uTT8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbyhj8uTT8</a>

can't tell if serious.
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2012, 05:36:38 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2012, 05:37:38 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2012, 06:05:02 PM »

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  Roll Eyes )

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2012, 06:41:32 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

G
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!