Cknolls Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) Going back to the numbers of the 9/12 protesters I did a little reading and figured out the sequence of events. Some conservative blogger, I forget who, said there were between 1 and 1.5 million and attributed it to ABC News. He basically completely made that number up, didn't link to it or anything. Malkin repeats this on her blog but she "rounded up" and said there were 2 million protesters, and from here it got linked to/repeated everywhere, and of course Beck jumped on the bandwagon too. ABC, having not said anything remotely close to this, has to come out with an article essentially saying "we have no idea where the 2 million number came from but it wasn't us, we cited the Capitol Police/Fire Dept. number that said 60-70k." Malkin eventually corrected herself Interestingly the guy who started the whole thing corrected himself too but blamed the "media" for the inaccuracy. The photo with the big crowd is apparently one from years ago that someone arbitrarily started passing around and saying it was a picture of 9/12. This is what the crowd looked like on Inauguration Day by the way. And this isn't showing the crowds in the streets that didn't get into the Mall. Edit: I'm not a hypocrite btw, the number isn't that important if we're talking about the difference between 70k and 100k, it is in fact a large crowd, but we're talking about multiplying the number by 28.5 times the actual number. Funniest analogy I saw was from Nate Silver who said exaggerating by a factor that large is like claiming to have a 53 inch penis. I will post a blurb in a bit with numbers in the 400k range IIRC; the person citing these numbers contacted the transportation dept. and used their numbers for public transportation use to come up with a crowd estimate. They compared 9/12's #'s to innauguration day and I believe million man march day. Give me a few and I will post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 09:02 AM) I will post a blurb in a bit with numbers in the 400k range IIRC; the person citing these numbers contacted the transportation dept. and used their numbers for public transportation use to come up with a crowd estimate. They compared 9/12's #'s to innauguration day and I believe million man march day. Give me a few and I will post. I think the capitol police number, 60 to 70k, is most likely to be accurate, just because I doubt they have any motivation to skew it either way. If anything, when PD's give out numbers like that, they tend to exagerrate up, just to make the point about how much work they had to do. But whatever, seriously, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, the 2 million number was so absurdly silly, that its worth pointing at and saying "uh, yeeeeeeeeahnnnnooooooo", but if its 100k, or 200k, or 80k - whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) I think the capitol police number, 60 to 70k, is most likely to be accurate, just because I doubt they have any motivation to skew it either way. If anything, when PD's give out numbers like that, they tend to exagerrate up, just to make the point about how much work they had to do. But whatever, seriously, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, the 2 million number was so absurdly silly, that its worth pointing at and saying "uh, yeeeeeeeeahnnnnooooooo", but if its 100k, or 200k, or 80k - whatever. I agree, 2+ million, come on, someone is smoking something. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-912-crow...eah-it-was-big/ FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman Should five per cent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet. Don't ask me what I want it for If you don't want to pay some more 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman Now my advice for those who die Declare the pennies on your eyes 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Hey Poland, Barack says HAPPY 70th ANNIVERSARY!! Smooth like sandpaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Criegh Deeds in a presser today, "I'm not going to raise taxes, but I'm going to sign a transportation plan that raises new revenue." Then in the post-debate press conference, he says, within milliseconds of each other, "I have no plans to raise taxes" followed by "everything is on the table." Good s*** maynard!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) Criegh Deeds in a presser today, "I'm not going to raise taxes, but I'm going to sign a transportation plan that raises new revenue." Then in the post-debate press conference, he says, within milliseconds of each other, "I have no plans to raise taxes" followed by "everything is on the table." Good s*** maynard!! You could take those quotes, and they are pretty much exactly the same as what BushCo was saying about attacking Iran. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/17/final-...-for-roll-call/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 04:13 PM) http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/17/final-...-for-roll-call/ Good. What's the reason people are allowed to vote 'present', by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) Good. What's the reason people are allowed to vote 'present', by the way? Well, they are allowed to not vote at all. Voting present is the same, except you send a message (as opposed to not being there for the vote or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) Good. What's the reason people are allowed to vote 'present', by the way? There's a lot of different reasons, I would list more but I'm about to leave work. One reason might be that you agree with the bill in principle but there is something about it you didn't like and didn't want to compromise. Another is sending a message of disapproval like NSS said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) You could take those quotes, and they are pretty much exactly the same as what BushCo was saying about attacking Iran. Just sayin'. but what about change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 http://www.reason.com/news/show/136159.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 This is pretty amazing and pretty moving too! http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...the-ticket.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Seriously? What the f*** is this? US Should Shoot Down Isreal Air Force Over Iraq If They Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) Seriously? What the f*** is this? US Should Shoot Down Isreal Air Force Over Iraq If They Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities Posturing. Nothing else. I don't care that Obama is in the white house, it will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) Posturing. Nothing else. I don't care that Obama is in the white house, it will never happen. Yea, I hear you. But it does say a lot when this crap gets out, a lot. There's no love lost between this administration and Isreal. That's for damn sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 11:18 PM) Posturing. Nothing else. I don't care that Obama is in the white house, it will never happen. You are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:23 PM) Yea, I hear you. But it does say a lot when this crap gets out, a lot. There's no love lost between this administration and Isreal. That's for damn sure. Or Israelis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:23 PM) Yea, I hear you. But it does say a lot when this crap gets out, a lot. There's no love lost between this administration and Isreal. That's for damn sure. Its just Israel's way of putting pressure on the Obama admin to try to make sure they don't favor the other countries in the area too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Netanyahu needs his arm twisted some more though. The terms he's offering for "peace" are unacceptable, and he fully knows it. It's by design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Netanyahu needs his arm twisted some more though. The terms he's offering for "peace" are unacceptable, and he fully knows it. It's by design. That's why it was a shame Netanyahu found his way back in. I've said it before but I'm really pissed that Barak got himself in scandals because negotiations really would be better served under him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) That's why it was a shame Netanyahu found his way back in. I've said it before but I'm really pissed that Barak got himself in scandals because negotiations really would be better served under him. The negotiations were dead before they ever started. Netanyahu just doesn't get it. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/0...on_of_the_hawks This guy explains it better than I can. Basically Netanyahu sees the world in such a way that his policies actually makes things worse. People outside Israel can see this. People inside Israel (specifically Likud) can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Israel might consider some token consolidations if they get everything they want first. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts