Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ibanez wrote:

I'm not a fan of the ACA but come on!

Ibanez wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy2zB8bLSpk[/youtube]

Pretty sure they put the numbers in there.

Ibanez wrote:

Do those numbers include only those who have enrolled and are paying their premiums? How many of those who have signed up for Obamacare, did so because they lost their policies because of Obamacare? How many of those Obamacare policies are subsidized and what percentage of the premiums are subsidized?

Inquiring minds want to know.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

Do those numbers include only those who have enrolled and are paying their premiums? How many of those who have signed up for Obamacare, did so because they lost their policies because of Obamacare? How many of those Obamacare policies are subsidized and what percentage of the premiums are subsidized?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

Ibanez wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Do those numbers include only those who have enrolled and are paying their premiums? How many of those who have signed up for Obamacare, did so because they lost their policies because of Obamacare? How many of those Obamacare policies are subsidized and what percentage of the premiums are subsidized?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

You can't be serious.

Ibanez wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Do those numbers include only those who have enrolled and are paying their premiums? How many of those who have signed up for Obamacare, did so because they lost their policies because of Obamacare? How many of those Obamacare policies are subsidized and what percentage of the premiums are subsidized?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

I'll wait for Analjelly's take on this. Graphs are his metier.

Ibanez wrote:

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

You can't be serious.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

Of course it's funny, but it's also a good example of how Faux News is anything but 'fair and balanced'. But I think everyone here not named St. Wronge or alphie already agrees with that.

But how can anyone take it as a badge of honor than more people have enrolled in a system that mandates enrollment. If you don't enroll you have to pay a fine. Not enrolling is against the law! The only thing not against the law is not paying for it.

Grizalltheway wrote:

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

Of course it's funny, but it's also a good example of how Faux News is anything but 'fair and balanced'. But I think everyone here not named St. Wronge or alphie already agrees with that.

might be a few more...

kalm wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Of course it's funny, but it's also a good example of how Faux News is anything but 'fair and balanced'. But I think everyone here not named St. Wronge or alphie already agrees with that.

might be a few more...

About as many as think Huffington is.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
might be a few more...

About as many as think Huffington is.

89Hen
Isn't this where you tell others to "Start your own thread"
Yours is not a relevant observation to the topic

Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

Shame on Fox News.

It's really disturbing that no news outlet presents facts without spinning them to their particular bias and allows people decide based upon "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

is no longer away to be informed, just indoctrinated.

CID1990 wrote:Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

Again, I don't think anyone on here would defend MSNBC as being any more fair and unbiased than FN, but this particular thread isn't about that network.

CID1990 wrote:Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

You're turning into Professor Haiku 2.

you and chizzy are starting to post alike without giving much thought to caps or punctuation

but thats part of your charm i guess

Ivytalk wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

You're turning into Professor Haiku 2.

you and chizzy are starting to post alike without giving much thought to caps or punctuation

but thats part of your charm i guess

No... I was making a point about how stupid 89Hens standard "Start your own thread" posts are in the middle of running debate and a valid point - in hopes that he stops doing that

and yes... We all "get it"
MSNBC and FOX are the same thing - Yin and Yang - blah blah blah
My point was 89Hen plays by one rule book when he agrees and another when he doesn't


try to keep up boys

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Since it says enrolled, i'm assuming Fox is just counting enrolled. Regardless, it's their presentation that is disturbing.

Who cares how it is presented as long as it is ACCURATE.

Spoiler: show

It made me laugh when I first saw it. Then I started thinking, how many sheep will not even look at the numbers and now I am worried..............

The tortoise and the hare run a race. They are the only two entrants. The tortoise wins.

The next day the news reports that the hare finished second, and the tortoise finished next to last. That is accurate, but misleading.

CID1990 wrote:Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

That's a cop out. MSNBC may be as biased as Fox, but I've never seen them, or anyone else, ever do a graph with the y-axis increasing as you go down.

BlueHen86 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Any thread that roasts FOX without also roasting MSNBC (or even CBS recently) is incomplete- to the point of "so what?"

anyone who argues with the premise of that same thread is consequently barking at the moon

there are times when i wonder if there are any information outlets ANYWHERE that are not at least partially agenda driven

That's a cop out. MSNBC may be as biased as Fox, but I've never seen them, or anyone else, ever do a graph with the y-axis increasing as you go down.

They don't do "graphs". They didn't take that class in clown college.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
That's a cop out. MSNBC may be as biased as Fox, but I've never seen them, or anyone else, ever do a graph with the y-axis increasing as you go down.

They don't do "graphs". They didn't take that class in clown college.

Unfortunately, FoxNews did take graphs in clown college, and they failed.