Tens of thousands attend broad protest of government in nation's capital

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
If there's any evidence that the New Left offered an apology to the NPS for their actions, I would love to hear it. As the public record stands, however - it was a perfect example of New Left radicalism using their place, gained rightfully or wrongly, as a way to demonize a very fair and balanced institution.

Ignoring claims that stipulate: defending the NPS for being moderate and for being a color-blind institution is somehow similar to being against the Million Man March's principles, is bad enough. Yet to continue by saying that both views are those held by the majority of 'them, the conservatives' is blindly radical to a whole new degree that no one, save you, is willing to take. For implied beneath that is can can be against the Million Man March, certainly, but you are using the shallow assumption that one would need to be a anti-black, sexist, fascist of some sort to be against them.

Which is why, in essence, I'm ignoring such statements. That the people who were defending the NPS were just a selection of rightist, anti-black male, fascists. Regardless of whether they had a record of being centrist, moderate people is not something that can be debated - it is literally, just too radical for rationality to affect.

"The New Left"(love that term, even if it is basically meaningless) did nothing to NPS. One organization did something. I know this is complicated, so I will take it slow: one group doing something does not mean everyone did something.

And to continue this logic that seems to go way over your head: just because a few radical people make outrageous statements does not mean that those statements are representative of the mainstream. Just as "birthers" do not represent the right, The Nation of Islam is not representative of the left.

I know all that is hard to follow, especially since you are unwilling to see what you choose not to, but it is all true, and accurate.

There exists transcripts of an assortment of 'black leaders,' which are accessible to anyone with an internet connection, stating a wide assortment of statements that basically summarize "NPS is not suited for this role." Which leads me to believe, surprise, that the New Left supports the idea that the NPS should not conduct the census. Now, if those statements had been retracted, or if another vote had been held in the Democratically controlled Senate or House. I'd say you had a point, however - I'm working off the public record while you are offering nothing but what amounts to your personal opinion. Do you have any polls? Any studies?

And there are any number of examples of people on the right making outrageous claims, which using your logic, that the "New Right" supports the idea that those outrageous claims are accurate.

This organization did not magically spring up, Congress did not arbitrarily decide to stop "similar controversies" from happening. They required support from their constituencies. Constituencies which were, decidedly, not rightist. Alas, no it is not for a multitude of reasons.

I am not even sure what you are trying to claim here.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 19, 2009

BmanMcfly said:
Good to know there are so many people that will refuse to accept any information contrary to what fox news or the new york times will say...

Not sure I'm following you. ...are Glenn Beck and Foxnews not the source of these exaggerated numbers in the first place? I mean, other than you looking at a picture and magically pronouncing the crowd size to be in the upper hundreds of thousands. :mrgreen:

Yes... digital manipulation... it was really 20 people at the even that just photoshopped each other hundres of thousands of times spanning 6-7 blocks + going into the cross-streets along the way.

Yes, film and video manipulation is possible, but it takes TIME to do that, and especially alot of time if you plan to do it well enough that it isn't plainly obvious even to the non-expert.

Now, now...it's hardly THAT time consuming. And anyhow, it's clear at this point that the organizers of this event don't care whether anyone outside their little fringe movement takes their numbers seriously or not. I mean why else would they have released a 10 year old photo of a Promise Keepers rally and claimed that it was a photo of the 9/12 event?

No, I don't think that the fire dept has an agenda, I just think they were ONLY counting the people directly in the area of the stage.

Oh....so you're saying that the DC fire dept, when asked by the media to estimate the crowd size, opted to estimate just part of the crowd.

Right.

What's your problem with accepting something that's plainly obvious in photo and video sources??? Which you clearly won't even look at for whatever reason...

Plainly obvious? Sorry but I have looked at the photos and videos....my estimate of the crowd would be in the 30 to 50k range tops. But then I have no real expertise in this sort of thing.

Nor do you.

Harshaw · Sep 19, 2009

REO SpeedDealer said:
The 60-70k estimate is from the DC fire dept....who have at least some expertise at this sort of thing. No offense, but I tend to trust their opinion over yours or Glenn Beck's in a matter such as this.

Oh, and while I was at it, I decided to look into the DC Fire Department estimate as well.

Interestingly, from the Politifact article debunking the photo showing a filled mall:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...arty-photo-shows-large-crowd-different-event/

Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, said the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. But the day of the rally, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.

“It was in no way an official estimate,” he said.

We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.

“It was an impressive crowd,” he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, the crowd “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street,” he said.

The Capitol Grounds up to Third Street represents the area in the USA Today article I linked to in the last post as the 240,000 area -- though on that map, the 240,000 area contained the first segment of the Mall beyond Third St. HOWEVER, it also had the grounds around Grant's Tomb -- roughly the same size as that segment -- as empty, but the 912 crowd filled it. Area-wise, that's a wash; so the estimate for the area Piringer says the crowd filled is ~ 240K by the USA Today article methodology.

So, Piringer is the source for the much-quoted "DC Fire Department Estimate," but he's also the source for the area the crowd filled, which I just examined. So, you decide if he's credible or not.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 19, 2009

Harshaw said:
Oh, and while I was at it, I decided to look into the DC Fire Department estimate as well.

Interestingly, from the Politifact article debunking the photo showing a filled mall:

PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event

The Capitol Grounds up to Third Street represents the area in the USA Today article I linked to in the last post as the 240,000 area -- though on that map, the 240,000 area contained the first segment of the Mall beyond Third St. HOWEVER, it also had the grounds around Grant's Tomb -- roughly the same size as that segment -- as empty, but the 912 crowd filled it. Area-wise, that's a wash; so the estimate for the area Piringer says the crowd filled is ~ 240K by the USA Today article methodology.

So, Piringer is the source for the much-quoted "DC Fire Department Estimate," but he's also the source for the area the crowd filled, which I just examined. So, you decide if he's credible or not.

No offense....but I find him more credible than you.

Harshaw · Sep 19, 2009

REO SpeedDealer said:
No offense....but I find him more credible than you.

Credible at which part?

The part where he says his estimate wasn't official?

The part where he describes the area the crowd filled, which according to USAToday holds about 240,000?

If you don't find me credible, care to point out where my analysis is wrong?

Metternich · Sep 19, 2009

Redress said:
Redress said:

"The New Left"(love that term, even if it is basically meaningless) did nothing to NPS. One organization did something. I know this is complicated, so I will take it slow: one group doing something does not mean everyone did something.

Click to expand...

That is the term used to distinguish between the Old Left of the Grand, New Deal Coalition and the distinctly less successful New Leftism of the 60's Radicalism. I would suggest you continue to revisit some sources, and try to find something to substantiate that this was done without the approval of your self-identified political coalition. Especially telling is the vote to restrict the funds from the NPS (for census making) in the future - which I, again, suggest you investigate. I certainly do not see some sort of objection from the New Left, or wait - is Congress just 'one organization' that shouldn't be represenative of the wider opinion?

And to continue this logic that seems to go way over your head: just because a few radical people make outrageous statements does not mean that those statements are representative of the mainstream. Just as "birthers" do not represent the right, The Nation of Islam is not representative of the left.

Click to expand...

So what is representative of the New Left mainstream? Quotes? Sources? Polls? I've asked this a few times, I believe there is a silent and growing consensus that you are fighting an increasingly losing battle against the public record.

No, the entire New Left is not made out of Black Nationalism and Multiculturalism, yet to say the New Left is not Black Nationalism (or Multiculturualism) is just flat out wrong. What's worse, is to say the New Left gave up their fellow radicals when the going got tough - for that makes them spineless windbags.

I know all that is hard to follow, especially since you are unwilling to see what you choose not to, but it is all true, and accurate.

Click to expand...

Quotes? Sources? Polls?

And there are any number of examples of people on the right making outrageous claims, which using your logic, that the "New Right" supports the idea that those outrageous claims are accurate.

Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that you're wrong.

And for the record, no, I do not think I'm just as extreme as you are.

I am not even sure what you are trying to claim here.

Click to expand...

Turn that last sentence into its own paragraph. Should make more sense.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 19, 2009

Harshaw said:
Credible at which part?

Hmmm...that would be the part where he's described as being a spokesman for the DC fire dept, an organization with some expertise at estimating crowd size. :mrgreen:

Harshaw · Sep 19, 2009

REO SpeedDealer said:
Hmmm...that would be the part where he's described as being a spokesman for the DC fire dept, an organization with some expertise at estimating crowd size. :mrgreen:

Which he says was "in no way official," and was given before the crowd filled the Capitol grounds, which he described as filling an area which holds 240,000.

So, if you accept him as the authority on this, you have to accept that, too.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 19, 2009

Harshaw said:
Which he says was "in no way official," and was given before the crowd filled the Capitol grounds, which he described as filling an area which holds 240,000.

Where did he say that filling the Capital grounds =240k?

Where is it indicated that he made that estimate before the crowd filled the capital grounds?

Harshaw · Sep 19, 2009

REO SpeedDealer said:
Where did he say that filling the Capital grounds =240k?

Read what I say. He said it filled an area which, according to this USA Today article concerning Obama's Inauguration, holds 240K.

Park service changes course, plans to offer crowd estimate - USATODAY.com

Where is it indicated that he made that estimate before the crowd filled the capital grounds?

News sources were quoting that number before 11 am.

Anyway, photos do show that the 240K area (and them some) was filled:

_Device%20Memory_home_user_pictures_IMG00034-20090912-1328.jpg

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
That is the term used to distinguish between the Old Left of the Grand, New Deal Coalition and the distinctly less successful New Leftism of the 60's Radicalism. I would suggest you continue to revisit some sources, and try to find something to substantiate that this was done without the approval of your self-identified political coalition. Especially telling is the vote to restrict the funds from the NPS (for census making) in the future - which I, again, suggest you investigate. I certainly do not see some sort of objection from the New Left, or wait - is Congress just 'one organization' that shouldn't be represenative of the wider opinion?

So what is representative of the New Left mainstream? Quotes? Sources? Polls? I've asked this a few times, I believe there is a silent and growing consensus that you are fighting an increasingly losing battle against the public record.

No, the entire New Left is not made out of Black Nationalism and Multiculturalism, yet to say the New Left is not Black Nationalism (or Multiculturualism) is just flat out wrong. What's worse, is to say the New Left gave up their fellow radicals when the going got tough - for that makes them spineless windbags.

Quotes? Sources? Polls?

Thank you for admitting that you're wrong.

And for the record, no, I do not think I'm just as extreme as you are.

Turn that last sentence into its own paragraph. Should make more sense.

Asking for quotes and sources when you have provided none is amusing. In your very first paragraph in fact, you make unsourced claims. Care to enlighten me on what you are talking about there, with sources so I can check your work?

Metternich · Sep 19, 2009

Redress said:
Asking for quotes and sources when you have provided none is amusing. In your very first paragraph in fact, you make unsourced claims. Care to enlighten me on what you are talking about there, with sources so I can check your work?

If you have some time on your hands, so I can both dismiss your potential claims of 'the internet is not a source' and 'reich-winger bias!,' I point to Rick Perlstein's work Nixonland, as well as his book on Goldwater. Pages 380 and 381 capture the gist of it in Nixonland, though a quick thumb through his centerfold pictures also give the right flavor. Rick Perlstein, as we both known, is today's Leftist anthropologist/sociologist who converts the 'base impulses' (punctuation for emphasis, not exact quote) of conservatism into intelligible writing for the more refined cultural elites who vote for Obama. So really, I'm going above and beyond for filling in with not only history you should know, but history that you should know written by someone I don't even really 'want' to read.

I accept your apology.

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
If you have some time on your hands, so I can both dismiss your potential claims of 'the internet is not a source' and 'reich-winger bias!,' I point to Rick Perlstein's work Nixonland, as well as his book on Goldwater. Pages 380 and 381 capture the gist of it in Nixonland, though a quick thumb through his centerfold pictures also give the right flavor. Rick Perlstein, as we both known, is today's Leftist anthropologist/sociologist who converts the 'base impulses' (punctuation for emphasis, not exact quote) of conservatism into intelligible writing for the more refined cultural elites who vote for Obama. So really, I'm going above and beyond for filling in with not only history you should know, but history that you should know written by someone I don't even really 'want' to read.

I accept your apology.

No apology offered. Internet sources please. I am not running out and buying some book because a random guy on the internet told me to. Considering you act and talk like a hard right hyper partisan dittohead, pardon me if I don't take your word for your claims, nor trust much your suggested reading.

You made the claim(it's all the fault of the "new left" in general that the NPS cannot supply crowd estimates), it's up to you to back up that claim with sources.

Metternich · Sep 19, 2009

Redress said:
No apology offered. Internet sources please. I am not running out and buying some book because a random guy on the internet told me to. Considering you act and talk like a hard right hyper partisan dittohead, pardon me if I don't take your word for your claims, nor trust much your suggested reading.

You made the claim(it's all the fault of the "new left" in general that the NPS cannot supply crowd estimates), it's up to you to back up that claim with sources.

It is not 'some book,' but if you do not want to read up on your history - that's fine. Come on, what other reason would the National Park Service stop doing the events unless they came under pressure? What, were the racist-fascist Reich-wingers so disappointed by the low estimate they put pressure on the National Park Service?

Bah.
Ignorance is Strength!

Anyhow, Office of the Clerk Congressional Profile

Do some keyword searching. See how many of the New Left politicians went against your opinion and see how many went with the facts.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March]Million Man March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Do some reading, read between those lines.

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
It is not 'some book,' but if you do not want to read up on your history - that's fine. Come on, what other reason would the National Park Service stop doing the events unless they came under pressure? What, were the racist-fascist Reich-wingers so disappointed by the low estimate they put pressure on the National Park Service?

Bah.
Ignorance is Strength!

Anyhow, Office of the Clerk Congressional Profile

Do some keyword searching. See how many of the New Left politicians went against your opinion and see how many went with the facts.

Million Man March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do some reading, read between those lines.

So basically, you cannot document your position whatsoever. Gotcha. Get back to me when you have something more concrete than the congressional makeup and a wiki link about the million man march.

Metternich · Sep 19, 2009

Redress said:
So basically, you cannot document your position whatsoever. Gotcha. Get back to me when you have something more concrete than the congressional makeup and a wiki link about the million man march.

I'm so utterly confused, what do more do you need? You say my initial examples were false - I provide you with a source.

New Left politicians decided to take away their funding (Source 1), because New Left pressure (Source 2).

It's not exactly rocket science. What do you want? It's there.

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
I'm so utterly confused, what do more do you need? You say my initial examples were false - I provide you with a source.

New Left politicians decided to take away their funding (Source 1), because New Left pressure (Source 2).

It's not exactly rocket science. What do you want? It's there.

Your source 1 is the makeup of the current congress. It has zero to do with what you are claiming. The second link says that Farrakhan threatened to sue the NPS. One person is hardly "the New Left". Come on, you can do better than this.

justabubba · Sep 19, 2009

Metternich said:
It is not 'some book,' but if you do not want to read up on your history - that's fine. Come on, what other reason would the National Park Service stop doing the events unless they came under pressure? What, were the racist-fascist Reich-wingers so disappointed by the low estimate they put pressure on the National Park Service?

Bah.
Ignorance is Strength!

Anyhow, Office of the Clerk Congressional Profile

Do some keyword searching. See how many of the New Left politicians went against your opinion and see how many went with the facts.

Million Man March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do some reading, read between those lines.

wasn't the NPS chastized for its official estimation for the million man march (well under a million) ... creating a political stir and causing the congress to prohibit federal funding to be used to create official estimates in the future?

Redress · Sep 19, 2009

justabubba said:
wasn't the NPS chastized for its official estimation for the million man march (well uner a million) ... creating a political stir and causing the congress to prohibit federal funding to be used to create official estimates in the future?

Right. The '97 congress forbade them from doing crowd estimates in DC.

Metternich · Sep 20, 2009

justabubba said:
wasn't the NPS chastized for its official estimation for the million man march (well under a million) ... creating a political stir and causing the congress to prohibit federal funding to be used to create official estimates in the future?

"Chastized" by whom?

Come on Redress, say it with me.

"The Left."

Come on, you can do it. Together, we can defeat ignorance.

"The Left."

Redress · Sep 20, 2009

Metternich said:
"Chastized" by whom?

Come on Redress, say it with me.

"The Left."

Come on, you can do it. Together, we can defeat ignorance.

"The Left."

No, that is not accurate. They where threatened with a lawsuit by Farrakhon, so congress said fine, they simply won't do more estimates in DC and it won't be a problem again. You make these wild left wing conspiracy claims with no backing whatsoever. I know logic can be hard, but you could try it just once, maybe you will like it.

Metternich · Sep 20, 2009

This isn't a vast conspiracy, they're fairly upfront about this. It's any political reaction. Trying to act like the New Left is 'above' criticizing those who run contrary to their opinion of something is not only uneducated, it's a touch pathetic.

Redress · Sep 20, 2009

Metternich said:
This isn't a vast conspiracy, they're fairly upfront about this. It's any political reaction. Trying to act like the New Left is 'above' criticizing those who run contrary to their opinion of something is not only uneducated, it's a touch pathetic.

And apparently creating strawmen is not above the right. No one has suggested that the left is above criticizing those we disagree with, nor are those on the right.

So tell me, when are you going to document your claim that the left got the NPS banned from doing crowd estimates since we were pissed about the Million Man March estimate? Do you have any evidence whatsoever?

BmanMcfly · Sep 20, 2009

REO SpeedDealer said:
Not sure I'm following you. ...are Glenn Beck and Foxnews not the source of these exaggerated numbers in the first place? I mean, other than you looking at a picture and magically pronouncing the crowd size to be in the upper hundreds of thousands. :mrgreen:

No, Glen Becks claims were in the 1.5-2 million range, which I also find to be a gross exaggerration... New york times and other news outlets claimed the opposite extreme.

I looked at the videos and pictures (not the one that was shown to be fake) and made my determination that around the 500k mark is at least a reasonable estimate.

Now, now...it's hardly THAT time consuming. And anyhow, it's clear at this point that the organizers of this event don't care whether anyone outside their little fringe movement takes their numbers seriously or not. I mean why else would they have released a 10 year old photo of a Promise Keepers rally and claimed that it was a photo of the 9/12 event?

Umm... you are aware that photoshopping is different from grabbing a file photo??

Oh....so you're saying that the DC fire dept, when asked by the media to estimate the crowd size, opted to estimate just part of the crowd.

Right.

They were probably asked to estimate the crowd around the stage... which DOES seem to be around the 60-70k range... but there's no way that the video is that small of a crowd...

Plainly obvious? Sorry but I have looked at the photos and videos....my estimate of the crowd would be in the 30 to 50k range tops. But then I have no real expertise in this sort of thing.

Nor do you.

Smoke another one.... or drop your partisan bias for long enough to take an objective look, one or the other is blocking you from seeing reality.

REO SpeedDealer · Sep 20, 2009

Harshaw said:
Read what I say.

I did. Here's what you said:

"Which he says was "in no way official," and was given before the crowd filled the Capitol grounds, which he described as filling an area which holds 240,000."

The DC fire spokesman never described the Capital grounds as an area that could hold 240k.

He said it filled an area which, according to this USA Today article concerning Obama's Inauguration, holds 240K.

There...that's better. See how easy it is to be honest.

The USA Today piece also states that crowd estimates are dependent on crowd density. The 240k figure appears to have been specifically slated for the ticketed seating of the Obama inauguration.

News sources were quoting that number before 11 am.

Irrelevant. The DC fire quote was from after the rally...note that DC fire didn't amend their estimate. It remains their "unofficial" estimate.

Anyway, photos do show that the 240K area (and them some) was filled

Not even. The 240k area in the USA Today map shows densely packed ticketed seating all the way to 4th St. The sparse crowd in your photo barely makes it to 3rd St.

Tens of thousands attend broad protest of government in nation's capital

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Member

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Member

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Member

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Member

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

long standing member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Member