The fools at faux fail again: This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual. What is funny is the usual...

BoJester

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

LurkingTom Loc: North Dakota

BoJester wrote:

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

HA HA HA HA huh? more tripe from the left

BoJester

Really h**e facts don't you? T***h is the eternal enemy of conservatives

LurkingTom wrote:

HA HA HA HA huh? more tripe from the left

LurkingTom Loc: North Dakota

BoJester wrote:

Really h**e facts don't you? T***h is the eternal enemy of conservatives

What? facts ... you wouldn't know what a fact is if it was rammed up your a**.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Those charts are copyrighted.

BoJester wrote:

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

MrEd Loc: Georgia

BoJester wrote:

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

Why can't you have 137% of the people polled. They had 120% of the registered v**ers v**e for Obama.

LurkingTom Loc: North Dakota

MrEd wrote:

Why can't you have 137% of the people polled. They had 120% of the registered v**ers v**e for Obama.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

MrEd wrote:

Why can't you have 137% of the people polled. They had 120% of the registered v**ers v**e for Obama.

They sure had more Obama v**es than people registered in some v****g precincts. Also, when they got 100% of the people who were registered they failed to realize that that is statistically impossible.

LurkingTom Loc: North Dakota

oldroy wrote:

They sure had more Obama v**es than people registered in some v****g precincts. Also, when they got 100% of the people who were registered they failed to realize that that is statistically impossible.

:thumbup:

banpc27

BoJester wrote:

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

yet more people watch fox than the next 5 networks combined,,,,,left or right...............splain dat one. :lol: :lol: :lol:

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

banpc27 wrote:

yet more people watch fox than the next 5 networks combined,,,,,left or right...............splain dat one. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Easy.
There's a sucker born every minute. (P T Barnum)

jasfourth401

banpc27 wrote:

yet more people watch fox than the next 5 networks combined,,,,,left or right...............splain dat one. :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's easy. You are using cable audience figures. The big three network news programs aren't calculated. Their audience is far bigger.

1OldGeezer

BoJester wrote:

This time it is math, they can't even come up with a graphic to support the portly governor without looking as stupid as usual.

What is funny is the usual suspects will try and deflect or distort the fact that faux, their beacon of mis-information, is wrong yet again

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/24/fox-news-math-fail-christie-137-percent/

Bo,
You gotta keep Christie in the news or someone may mention the harmful effects of the new health care law....or maybe there might, maybe, some mention of B******i in the MSM.

You (and your cohorts) must really be hard up for something worth talking about when you come up with a misprint in the reporting as a major item for discussion. (I know, you can't really discuss the issues, you have to denigrate someone or something in order to do your job.)

Or is this just another example of Obama's new common core mathematics ???????

FOX news must really be hurting your misinformation efforts if you go after them this much!!!
Keep trying, its good for a laugh anyway.
1oldgeezer

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Key word is CABLE not network.

The big three are calculated!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/evening-news-ratings

jasfourth401 wrote:

That's easy. You are using cable audience figures. The big three network news programs aren't calculated. Their audience is far bigger.

olsoljer Loc: ARIZONA

1OldGeezer wrote:

Bo, br You gotta keep Christie in the news or some... (show quote)

Simple questions - what are the top 5 most watched news programs in the USA? What network are they on? Why has the administration gone after this network, and why are the most rabid democrats increasing their vitriol toward it?