• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Showdown in Washington, D.C.

elbe said:
It's good that Beck moderated himself for the rally, though I'm guessing his ulterior motive is to increase his own viewers (judging by one of Beck's regular advertisers his current viewership is probably dying) and then try to woo them into his insanity.
Click to expand...

Any good con man knows you have to win the confidence of the victim before you can start the actual con.That is why they are called "confidence men".(No Joke;that is where they got the name.)
 
Cicero said:
You mean your misdirection.

Why does CBS news make a point of mentioning Beck's rally count and characterizing his rally as "controversial," while not mentiong numbers at all at Shaprton's apparently non-controversial rally? What's up with that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6819262n
Click to expand...

Katie Couric? Am I right?

Seriously though. It was controversial for many reasons, here are the top two.
1. Statements that glenn beck has made in the past
2. That the event occurred 47 years to the date and at the same place as a water shed moment in the civil rights struggle was controversial to many people.

Believe it or not but not everyone agrees with beck.
 
Cleon said:
Sharpton's rally was a non-issue; why do you think there's some sort of point to be made there?


Can you point to any flaws in the methodology APL used, or not?
Click to expand...

I think Cleon has shown in other threads that he is no fan of Rev Al. A lot of us think Beck and Sharpton are birds of a feather, there are just working opposite sides of the street.
 
Cicero said:
Since you are an expert on the rally, perhaps you can explain what was controversial? .
Click to expand...
Don't be daft. I never claimed to be an "expert". I didn't watch the damn thing. It was controversial in its premise, if not in its content. A bunch of ill-informed white conservatives led by a man who reviles "social justice" looking to "take back" the civil rights movement from... someone... on the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech? I can't think of anything MORE controversial than that.
 
Biscuit said:
Katie Couric? Am I right?

Seriously though. It was controversial for many reasons, here are the top two.
1. Statements that glenn beck has made in the past
2. That the event occurred 47 years to the date and at the same place as a water shed moment in the civil rights struggle was controversial to many people.

Believe it or not but not everyone agrees with beck.
Click to expand...

Hell, if a majority of people ageed with Beck I am on my way to Canada.
 
Cicero said:
Did Beck mention T.R. at his rally? If he didn't, would mentioning his opinion of T.R. in this thread be a "misdirection?"

CBS did a superb job of advertising their 86,000 figure. Let's see if The New York Times, NBC, SkyNews, etc, will now revise down their 300,000 and 500,000 estimates.
Click to expand...

Apparently the New York Times, NBC, SkyNews did an excellent job of advertising their numbers as well. They just haven't advertised how they got those numbers though like CBS did.
 
dudalb said:
Hell, if a majority of people ageed with Beck I am on my way to Canada.
Click to expand...

My aunt's husband primarily watches Beck, I was once told that he doesn't watch O'Reilly anymore because he's too liberal, or something insane like that. It's a sad state of affairs when O'Reilly is too liberal.
 
Biscuit said:
Believe it or not but not everyone agrees with beck.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not but not everyone agrees with Al. If the standard for a rally to be considered controversial is based on the primary speaker at the event, then how is Al's rally not controversial?
 
According to CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html ) , AirPhotosLive estimates there were between 78,000 and 96,000 people at the rally.

Here are a bunch of photos of the event:

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/crowdblowup.jpg

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bigcrowd.jpg

Also at ...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44952/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44954/ and http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44958/ .

Notice that the crowd extends into the trees on both sides of the reflecting pond and covers pretty much the entire length of the pool. Only a few places out in the open are relatively free from people. Conservatively, the area of the crowd appears to be well over 3 times the width of the reflecting pool (just look how far the crowd extends on the right side of the pool and photos also show it also goes into the trees on the left side.

So let's assume we fill in some of the more sparsely crowded areas in the visible 3x's the reflecting pond width area with the people that are outside that three times area. I think doing that would guarantee that the density of people packed into the 3x's width area would be quite high … certainly what the park service calls "dense", which is about 5 square feet a person. A tightly packed crowd is 1 person per 2.5 square feet. Since the reflecting pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide, just a dense crowd would produce a crowd estimate of 2029 * 167 * 3 / 5 … i.e., over 200,000. So it would appear CBS underestimated the crowd.

In any case, Obama thinks he can just ignore them.

We will see if he still feels the same way, come November. :D
 
Cicero said:
You mean your misdirection.
Click to expand...

Um, I hate to remind you that YOU were the one who brought up T.R. first. I merely pointed out that you were busy defending Beck despite him not thinking well of your conservative paragon (T.R.).


Why does CBS news make a point of mentioning Beck's rally count and characterizing his rally as "controversial," while not mentiong numbers at all at Shaprton's apparently non-controversial rally? What's up with that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6819262n
Click to expand...

Is there a controversy about Sharpton's rally numbers? It must have escaped my notice. Feel free to link. Thanks.
 
Cicero said:
Believe it or not but not everyone agrees with Al. If the standard for a rally to be considered controversial is based on the primary speaker at the event, then how is Al's rally not controversial?
Click to expand...

Did you not see the two reasons I stated in that post? That was not the standard I set.

When your primary speaker has called the president a racist amongst other controversial statements then his rally is going to be controversial. Its not rocket science.

As I understand it Al led a commemorative march of a much smaller crowd. Commemorating a historic event is a lot less controversial than holding a "take back america" rally with two polarizing figures leading the event.

Now, do you have a methodology for estimating the crowd at over 200K?
 
The Charnel Expanse said:
If a majority of people agreed with Beck, there wouldn't be a place on earth far enough away for me.
Click to expand...

Then you've a big problem because I suspect they do.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...now-they_ve-been-conned-639878-101758743.html

The American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks has quite accurately described America as a 70/30 nation, with the 70 percent presently massively underrepresented in the federal government, the Manhattan-Beltway media elite and academia.

The 70 percent is appalled by the placebo economics practiced by the president and the Congress over the past two years, shocked by its profligacy with the wealth of the republic, and sickened by the looting of the next generation's opportunities.

The 70 percent did not want Obamacare, but it has been thrust upon them.

The 70 percent did not want federal judges to declare "game over" in the complex discussion of what marriage is and means.

The 70 percent want a fence on the border that works, and do not want their concern over unregulated immigration dismissed as nativisim.

The 70 percent are not ashamed of their belief in God, deeply resent being labeled bigots because they view ground zero as land that ought not to be exploited for "messaging" of any sort by any group, and are enraged by the scorn which they encounter everywhere in media except Fox News and talk radio.

The 70 percent believe that the federal government is remote and clueless, and that the Constitution's principles of enumerated and limited powers and the sovereignty of the states are vibrant, important core values to the republic.

The 70 percent think Iran is in the grip of an evil, theocratic fascism, and that Israel is our true friend and ally deserving of our full-throated support.
Click to expand...

And just wait till November when the voice of the 70% is finally heard.
 
BeAChooser said:
According to CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html ) , AirPhotosLive estimates there were between 78,000 and 96,000 people at the rally.

Here are a bunch of photos of the event:

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/crowdblowup.jpg

http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bigcrowd.jpg

Also at ...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44952/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44954/ and http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44958/ .

Notice that the crowd extends into the trees on both sides of the reflecting pond and covers pretty much the entire length of the pool. Only a few places out in the open are relatively free from people. Conservatively, the area of the crowd appears to be well over 3 times the width of the reflecting pool (just look how far the crowd extends on the right side of the pool and photos also show it also goes into the trees on the left side.

So let's assume we fill in some of the more sparsely crowded areas in the visible 3x's the reflecting pond width area with the people that are outside that three times area. I think doing that would guarantee that the density of people packed into the 3x's width area would be quite high … certainly what the park service calls "dense", which is about 5 square feet a person. A tightly packed crowd is 1 person per 2.5 square feet. Since the reflecting pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide, just a dense crowd would produce a crowd estimate of 2029 * 167 * 3 / 5 … i.e., over 200,000. So it would appear CBS underestimated the crowd.

In any case, Obama thinks he can just ignore them.

We will see if he still feels the same way, come November. :D
Click to expand...

I think your assumption of being a dense crowd is incorrect. That far end is very sparse and I'm not sure many people would be under the trees. You can't see anything in there.
Maybe 100,000 people, which is close to the upper range of the CBS number.
 
Lurker said:
Um, I hate to remind you that YOU were the one who brought up T.R. first.
Click to expand...

No. That would be dudalb.

Is there a controversy about Sharpton's rally numbers? It must have escaped my notice. Feel free to link. Thanks.
Click to expand...

In order to have a controversy about numbers, CBS would first have to post Al's rally numbers. Why didn't they?
 
Cicero said:
In order to have a controversy about numbers, CBS would first have to post Al's rally numbers. Why didn't they?
Click to expand...

Because nobody cares about Sharpton's rally. Well, nobody except you, anyway. I didn't know you were such a fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom