Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on September 19, 2009, 06:15:59 AM
-
Denial State the University that did the study
Here you go a real life research professor and expert on crowd estimation (not a ROTC cadet) says the crowd was about 75,000
Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University research professor and expert on crowd estimation, said his informal research from media coverage indicates 75,000 as the peak number. Peter Piringer, a spokesman for the District of Columbia Fire Department, said he made an unofficial estimate of 60,000 to 70,000 at the beginning of the event.
Since when is it OK to only agree with the president? Is this guy serious? Has he completely blotted the Bush years out of his memory? From 9-11 through most of 2005 if you disagreed with Bush you were an America-hating enabler who supported the terrorists. What a total ass hat. ONLY on the propaganda network could this tool get away with such nonsense.
-
well it's official now... ::) If that's 1.7 million, then I have to ask how many were actually at Obama's inauguration? That crowd dwarfed the 9/12 protest which never once filled the mall. Must have been 5 million at the inauguration huh fox?
-
No longer can we hear "Hey, FOX never claimed it, just the wingnut organizer of the event!"
75,000 looks about right, and was the estimation of a Boston University research professor.
Beck, of course, believes there were TWENTY times that.
now, imagine if Olbermann went on MSNBC and said there were THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE at the Obama inauguration (the same 20x exaggeration). He'd be mocked for the next ten years.
-
No longer can we hear "Hey, FOX never claimed it, just the wingnut organizer of the event!"
75,000 looks about right, and was the estimation of a Boston University research professor.
Beck, of course, believes there were TWENTY times that.
now, imagine if Olbermann went on MSNBC and said there were THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE at the Obama inauguration (the same 20x exaggeration). He'd be mocked for the next ten years.
LOL you guys...
FOX reported 10's of thousands beck who has gone a bit wacko said 1.7 million
-
LOL you guys...
FOX reported 10's of thousands beck who has gone a bit wacko said 1.7 million
Beck is on FOX.
he's repeatedly said 1.7 million, and tried to explain how he reached this conclusion.
They endorse his re-telling of this obvious lie by allowing him to keep retelling it.
So by putting Beck on the air to say "1.7 million!" over and over, they're reporting it.
-
Denial State the University that did the study
Here you go a real life research professor and expert on crowd estimation (not a ROTC cadet) says the crowd was about 75,000
Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University research professor and expert on crowd estimation, said his informal research from media coverage indicates 75,000 as the peak number. Peter Piringer, a spokesman for the District of Columbia Fire Department, said he made an unofficial estimate of 60,000 to 70,000 at the beginning of the event.
Since when is it OK to only agree with the president? Is this guy serious? Has he completely blotted the Bush years out of his memory? From 9-11 through most of 2005 if you disagreed with Bush you were an America-hating enabler who supported the terrorists. What a total ass hat. ONLY on the propaganda network could this tool get away with such nonsense.
You're having a hard time letting go of this protest thing huh?
-
You're having a hard time letting go of this protest thing huh?
Beck's been bragging 1.7 million nonstop.
-
You're having a hard time letting go of this protest thing huh?
1.7 million? uh yea...
-
1.7 million? uh yea...
Did I ever claim anything close to a million? What's informal research? Who cares? This is getting old fast.
There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. ::)
-
Beck is on FOX.
he's repeatedly said 1.7 million, and tried to explain how he reached this conclusion.
They endorse his re-telling of this obvious lie by allowing him to keep retelling it.
So by putting Beck on the air to say "1.7 million!" over and over, they're reporting it.
FOX SHOWS HAVE ALSO SHOWN 10's OF THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jack ass
beck is his own person and as such allowed to do whatever he wants
you think olbeiman continuing to allow garofallow on his show continuing to allow her to call be racists and even worse says that MSNBC agrees with her b/c they allow her to keep coming on?
fuking idiot
try listening to FOX instead of beck FOX is saying 10's of thousands as the clip clearly states...
-
FOX SHOWS HAVE ALSO SHOWN 10's OF THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They reported it both. Wither further analysis, we know 1.7 is incorrect. yet they allow beck to keep reporting it. on Fox. Your assertion they only say 1.7 "some of the time" is correct.
try listening to FOX instead of beck FOX is saying 10's of thousands as the clip clearly states...
So fox radio is telling the truth, but FOX TV news is lying? I can accept that, thank you.
-
You're having a hard time letting go of this protest thing huh?
I'm having a hard time with you fuck nuts believing what this moron says without doing a little research yourself. then going out on election year and voting.AS PAT BUCANNAN SAYS THE DUMBING DOWN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
-
Did I ever claim anything close to a million? What's informal research? Who cares? This is getting old fast.
There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million.There was a million. No, there was 60,000. No there was 200,000, No. there was 2 million. ::)
I didn't say you, I was commenting on "you're having a hard time letting go" I was just pointing out that of course it's going to be talked about when the number is overblown like that. That's what's being talked about here, the number. So I didn't mean to imply you said, I'm just saying why...
-
FOX SHOWS HAVE ALSO SHOWN 10's OF THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jack ass
beck is his own person and as such allowed to do whatever he wants
you think olbeiman continuing to allow garofallow on his show continuing to allow her to call be racists and even worse says that MSNBC agrees with her b/c they allow her to keep coming on?
fuking idiot
try listening to FOX instead of beck FOX is saying 10's of thousands as the clip clearly states...
did fox report that it was a sea of people filling the mall? yup... ;D was it? Nope... ;D
-
did fox report that it was a sea of people filling the mall? yup... ;D was it? Nope... ;D
again huggy "full" is a subjective term
did they report 10's of thousand? YUP ;) was there? YUP ;)
guess which one is concrete and which one is up for interpretation? ;D
I know youre smarter then this you just walked down a bad road and refuse to turn around but at the very least you can quit heading the wrong direction...
-
tony,
why do you think FOX allows their employee beck to keep spuouting numbers which we now know to be untrue?
-
"full" is a subjective term
no it's not. you can estimate a full mall. All estimations of a full mall are a million+ lies lies lies ;) The fox reporter pointed to the crowd in front of him and said the whole mall was the same. That's packed. That's as many people that were there for Obama. That's a huge lie.
-
tony,
why do you think FOX allows their employee beck to keep spuouting numbers which we now know to be untrue?
it attracts attention same as MSNBC and olbeirman
if you think different please answer why MSNBC allows olbeirman to do the things he does?
-
no it's not. you can estimate a full mall. All estimations of a full mall are a million+ lies lies lies ;) The fox reporter pointed to the crowd in front of him and said the whole mall was the same. That's packed. That's as many people that were there for Obama. That's a huge lie.
actually brain child it is
when you get a drink at a restaraunt they bring you a full glass but is it full to the point of overflowing? no so is it not full?
full a subjective term like a "big" crowd
-
actually brain child it is
when you get a drink at a restaraunt they bring you a full glass but is it full to the point of overflowing? no so is it not full?
full a subjective term like a "big" crowd
LOL... did you actually just type this out or am I dreaming? Is she still a complete person after losing 30 lbs of fat from liposuction. It's subjective, 1/5th of her is out back in a barrel. 1/5th is now dead. If you loved her 100% before, do you only love her 90% now or 200% because she looks better. It's subjective, yea baby... (this went over tony's head :D see the following post)
-
LOL... did you actually just type this out or am I dreaming? Is she still a complete person after losing 30 lbs of fat from liposuction. It's subjective, 1/5th of her is out back in a barrel. 1/5th is now dead. If you loved her 100% before, do you only love her 90% now or 200% because she looks better. It's subjective, yea baby...
"love" is subjective too hugo
do you understand what subjective means? Im starting to think that you dont....
subjective means that each person internalizes it differently or its subject to each persons interpretation...
I was thinking you were just trying to make a point which while stupid as shit had the slightest bit of credibility but now Im not sure...
If youre trying to make a point hugo stick to beck he put it in concrete terms 1.7 million not subjective terms like "full" or "large" crowd.
-
If I step on a bug and half of him runs off, did I kill the bug, it's subjective :D Brilliant tony... yea, this is funny shit you got going but what the fox reporter said is not subjective. The reporter pointed to a group of people in front of him and said that it was the same all the way to the end of the mall. The group he pointed to was tightly packed. So he said the whole mall was the same as the tightly packed group he pointed at. There's nothing subective about that. At no time did the bulk of the mall ever come close to what he said. There's nothing subjective there, it's a lie! All pictures and video show wide open spaces in the mall.
-
when you brush your hair and some comes out in the brush, do you still have a full head of hair, it's subjective :D god I love that. funny stuff tony, I had a good laugh but hope you see your error here.
-
If I step on a bug and half of him runs off, did I kill the bug, it's subjective :D Brilliant tony... yea, this is funny shit you got going but what the fox reporter said is not subjective. The reporter pointed to a group of people in front of him and said that it was the same all the way to the end of the mall. The group he pointed to was tightly packed. So he said the whole mall was the same as the tightly packed group he pointed at. There's nothing subective about that. At no time did the bulk of the mall ever come close to what he said. There's nothing subjective there, it's a lie! All pictures and video show wide open spaces in the mall.
are you fuking serious right now hugo?
what you said is he said it was "full" now what you just typed is a different story...which one is it?
when you brush your hair and some comes out in the brush, do you still have a full head of hair, it's subjective :D god I love that. funny stuff tony, I had a good laugh but hope you see your error here.
you seriously dont understand the term "subjective" do you?
really define it for me in your own words please
-
are you fuking serious right now hugo?
what you said is he said it was "full" now what you just typed is a different story...which one is it?
you seriously dont understand the term "subjective" do you?
really define it for me in your own words please
No, are you fucking serious?. sadly I think you are.
-
tony, don't cry... sometimes people like you say stupid shit. I forgive you 8)
-
lol please hugo define "subjective" for me
really do this for me please
-
lol please hugo define "subjective" for me
really do this for me please
you're really a freaking dimwit sometimes. I was making fun of YOUR application of subjective--your stupid full glass story. I didn't say it's not what subjective means ::) I'm making fun of it because it does not apply at all since the reporters statement IS NOT SUBJECTIVE IN ANY FUCKING WAY... He points to a group of people and says it applies all the way to the back of the mall. There is nothing subjective there. It implies a direct condition of the mall that DID NOT FUCKING EXIST YOU MORON....
enjoy your day :)
-
it attracts attention same as MSNBC and olbeirman
Allowing an anchor to exaggerate numbers by a factor of 30... for attention?
Um, okay.
-
you're really a freaking dimwit sometimes. I was making fun of YOUR application of subjective--your stupid full glass story. I didn't say it's not what subjective means ::) I'm making fun of it because it does not apply at all since the reporters statement IS NOT SUBJECTIVE IN ANY FUCKING WAY... He points to a group of people and says it applies all the way to the back of the mall. There is nothing subjective there. It implies a direct condition of the mall that DID NOT FUCKING EXIST YOU MORON....
enjoy your day :)
well since you spun the reporters words into "he said it was full" what do you expect?
when you said he reported it was "full" that was subjective
what you just said wasnt as much maybe next time you shouldnt spin or just say what the reporter actually said ::)
-
and you're the idiot. go back and read my love and lipo example. It clearly shows a subjective situation, you then go on in the next post to tell me love is subjective too ::) duh... That's what I was saying. I was mocking you, laughing at you. It's stupid to point out since the condition the fox reporter stated is not subjective. It was just false. At no point did the mall ever match the description given. at no point did the mall reflect the group of people he pointed at. PERIOD.
-
well since you spun the reporters words into "he said it was full" what do you expect?
when you said he reported it was "full" that was subjective
what you just said wasnt as much maybe next time you shouldnt spin or just say what the reporter actually said ::)
now you're really being a dumbshit. What is the difference between him pointing to a tightly packed group and saying it goes back like that all the way to the end AND full? It's the same fucking thing Tony. You're getting desperate.
-
Allowing an anchor to exaggerate numbers by a factor of 30... for attention?
Um, okay.
allowing an anchor to call ppl racists agree when a guest on their show calls ppl racist rednecks...
um, okay ::)
-
now you're really being a dumbshit. What is the difference between him pointing to a tightly packed group and saying it goes back like that all the way to the end AND full? It's the same fucking thing Tony. You're getting desperate.
LOL no sir youre the desperate one
pointing to an example and saying the rest is the same is a lie
saying "full" is open to interpretation ::)
-
LOL no sir youre the desperate one
pointing to an example and saying the rest is the same is a lie
saying "full" is open to interpretation ::)
LOL no sir youre the desperate one.
-
Either Obama's inaugurations had "10s of thousands"
OR
The 9/12 March had "1.8M"
Also, the 9/12 March was not allowed to have a permit to use the Mall. The people on the Mall should not have been there, and were told by security to stay off - even though they/we pay for it.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_estimated_to_have_attended_Barack_Obama's_Inauguration_Speech
Q: How many people are estimated to have attended Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech?
A: Estimates vary between 800,000 and 3 million people in attendance:
-- The 800,000-person calculation was made based upon a satellite image taken at 11:20 a.m. ET;
-- The 3-million calculation was based upon the video footage of the event.
Go look at:
Park service changes course, plans to offer crowd estimate (Obama)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm
The big green area in the "240,000 Ticketed area" is the water in the following shots
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/conservative-woodstock-rocks-the-capital/
Notice the people backed up in the streets on the left and right - the one on the right is Constitution Ave.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/hundreds-of-thousands-of-patriots-march-on-dc
Do your own research so you can see for yourself with images you yourself deem as not being photoshopped.
-
Either Obama's inaugurations had "10s of thousands"
OR
The 9/12 March had "1.8M"
Also, the 9/12 March was not allowed to have a permit to use the Mall. The people on the Mall should not have been there, and were told by security to stay off - even though they/we pay for it.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_estimated_to_have_attended_Barack_Obama's_Inauguration_Speech
Q: How many people are estimated to have attended Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech?
A: Estimates vary between 800,000 and 3 million people in attendance:
-- The 800,000-person calculation was made based upon a satellite image taken at 11:20 a.m. ET;
-- The 3-million calculation was based upon the video footage of the event.
Go look at:
Park service changes course, plans to offer crowd estimate (Obama)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm
The big green area in the "240,000 Ticketed area" is the water in the following shots
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/conservative-woodstock-rocks-the-capital/
Notice the people backed up in the streets on the left and right - the one on the right is Constitution Ave.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/hundreds-of-thousands-of-patriots-march-on-dc
Do your own research so you can see for yourself with images you yourself deem as not being photoshopped.
so maybe you have an explanation for why the Fox reporter depiced the mall as full? Why would he lie like that if they couldn't even be on it? If that's even true.
-
I believe most of them just pull numbers out of their a$$.
-
so maybe you have an explanation for why the Fox reporter depiced the mall as full? Why would he lie like that if they couldn't even be on it? If that's even true.
you have a clip hugo?
you said he said "full" then you said he implied it now youre saying he said "full" again.
Just post a clip or link to what he said verbatim
-
Do you guys not find it amusing that you are getting your panties in a twist over a news channel directed by an Australian ?
This is Murdoch TV, that's what you are witnessing here. FOX reporters are just doing what their paymaster wants. It really is that simple & evident wherever Murdoch has a large footprint in the media.
This is entertainment, not politics.
-
you have a clip hugo?
you said he said "full" then you said he implied it now youre saying he said "full" again.
Just post a clip or link to what he said verbatim
oh shut up, what he said is the same as full. So what, I paraphrase by saying full because what he said is exactly the same as saying it was full. And it doesn't matter how subjective "full" is. Subjective estimates for a full mall are all huge. It could mean 950,000 or 1.4 million in the mall. And the point of my question is why did the fox reporter even say the crowd went all the way back on the mall if they didn't even have permission to be on the mall if that's actually true? You are the one spinning it, you and the reporter for Fox.
-
oh shut up, what he said is the same as full. So what, I paraphrase by saying full because what he said is exactly the same as saying it was full. And it doesn't matter how subjective "full" is. Subjective estimates for a full mall are all huge. It could mean 950,000 or 1.4 million in the mall. And the point of my question is why did the fox reporter even say the crowd went all the way back on the mall if they didn't even have permission to be on the mall if that's actually true? You are the one spinning it, you and the reporter for Fox.
so he never said full?
or full could mean that you have trouble walking without having to move out of the way...ever been to a mall during the holidays i consider that full probably no where near a million ppl in there though...
I agree with you alot of inconsistencies in this story, but you "paraphrasing" cough(spinning) doesnt help ::)
bottom line if fox got it wrong they should retract it, so should msnbc, cnn etc if they showed pics that werent accurate...
no discuss the merits of their message...
-
do you know what synonymous means?
tell me what the difference between someone saying "full" and someone saying "that packed crowd goes all to the end of the mall"
::)
-
if anything I'm cutting the fox reporter a break by saying "full" Pointing to that packed crowd like he did and saying it goes all the way back a mile is representitive of your glass being filled to the brim ;)
-
if anything I'm cutting the fox reporter a break by saying "full" Pointing to that packed crowd like he did and saying it goes all the way back a mile is representitive of your glass being filled to the brim ;)
and like ive already said stick with that b/c you have a point there and I already said I agreed with you
but you paraphrased and its not the same
-
and like ive already said stick with that b/c you have a point there and I already said I agreed with you
but you paraphrased and its not the same
oh good grief lol... Ok, I quit, I win and I accept your apology for being wrong ;D
-
oh good grief lol... Ok, I quit, I win and I accept your apology for being wrong ;D
hahahahah ;D
-
Sad really, to see that none of you can see what is behind your own arguments.
Rupert Murdoch Vs Ted Turner is not the issue.
Intelligence & knowledge Vs Turner & Murdoch is the issue.
You can argue which channel has it right all you like.You are NOT debating the issues, but you are arguing about an obfuscation of the issues.
Keep on going on about 1.4 Million vs 60K people & you will have done what Turner, Murdoch et al want you to do - argue about the difference between 2 or 3 corporations interpretation of the issues instead of actually looking at the issues themselves.
The US has become a parody of democracy. I'm glad I live in a corrupt 3rd world backwater where I'm an alien that can't vote - at least I don't have to kid myself I have a choice.
-
Sad really, to see that none of you can see what is behind your own arguments.
Rupert Murdoch Vs Ted Turner is not the issue.
Intelligence & knowledge Vs Turner & Murdoch is the issue.
You can argue which channel has it right all you like.You are NOT debating the issues, but you are arguing about an obfuscation of the issues.
Keep on going on about 1.4 Million vs 60K people & you will have done what Turner, Murdoch et al want you to do - argue about the difference between 2 or 3 corporations interpretation of the issues instead of actually looking at the issues themselves.
The US has become a parody of democracy. I'm glad I live in a corrupt 3rd world backwater where I'm an alien that can't vote - at least I don't have to kid myself I have a choice.
pm either me or MB_722 on this. you might be shocked at what you discover. by the way, Turner doesn't have any control of CNN anymore but that's not the point, just for your info.
-
pm either me or MB_722 on this. you might be shocked at what you discover. by the way, Turner doesn't have any control of CNN anymore but that's not the point, just for your info.
Are you talking about ze Jews ?
-
Are you talking about ze Jews ?
not for me
-
No longer can we hear "Hey, FOX never claimed it, just the wingnut organizer of the event!"
75,000 looks about right, and was the estimation of a Boston University research professor.
Beck, of course, believes there were TWENTY times that.
now, imagine if Olbermann went on MSNBC and said there were THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE at the Obama inauguration (the same 20x exaggeration). He'd be mocked for the next ten years.
You mean like when he said Palin plagerised Newts speech and was PROVEN a liar?Or when he said that THE reason that Republicans went after Van Jones was because he called Republicans a-holes?This guy does NOTHING but lie.When has the media called him on any of that?When was the media outraged that the NY TIMES printed a lie and said McCain had an affair?Please,NO LIBERAL EVER gets called out on anything by other libs!!!
-
You mean like when he said Palin plagerised Newts speech and was PROVEN a liar?Or when he said that THE reason that Republicans went after Van Jones was because he called Republicans a-holes?This guy does NOTHING but lie.When has the media called him on any of that?When was the media outraged that the NY TIMES printed a lie and said McCain had an affair?Please,NO LIBERAL EVER gets called out on anything by other libs!!!
please don't be one of those dildoes who doesn't include FOX in "the media".
FOX brags about being the biggest part of "the media".
-
please don't be one of those dildoes who doesn't include FOX in "the media".
FOX brags about being the biggest part of "the media".
Speaking of dildoes, 240, i'm sure yours has has gotten a lot of usage.
-
Speaking of dildoes, 240, i'm sure yours has has gotten a lot of usage.
yawn. yet he's still over 50% approval. go figure.
-
yawn. yet he's still over 50% approval. go figure.
Maybe in the trailer park, sure, but with people lilely to vote in 2010, the dems are are going down huge!
-
Maybe in the trailer park, sure, but with people lilely to vote in 2010, the dems are are going down huge!
meltdown
-
meltdown
Ha ha. 240 you know we are cool. You just like to push buttons but we know in the end your are pulling the lever for Palin.