I’ve heard several reports that there were more people in Washington on 9/12 than there were at the coronation of the Marxist. Leave it too a foreign news source to report closer to the truth numbers. Glenn Beck did an outstanding job in covering the event for those of us that could not attend. He is also doing a terrific job in uncovering the real motives for this administration, and all his Czars.
Darkstar- As I said, you will never accept any information that doesn’t agree with your opinion. How about you bring your chosen info here for all of us to analyze? I expect it to be “non-slanted info. Let’start with your info and go from there.
Glenn Beck wasn’t even there, so how could he cover it?
As for his uncovering of the secret Marxist-Communist-Stalinist-Leninist-anti-Americanist plot to overthrow the United States, it sure is a piece of investigative reporting the likes of which the world has never before seen.
“We had a university, I think it’s University of — I don’t remember which university it is — um”
Apparently his sources don’t even reveal themselves to him.
Here’s to hoping he’s holding his breath until his Pulitzer Prize is announced.
For once I have to agree with Steve. Becks quote on the 1.7 million estimate from ” University of Illinois” was very questionable. I was there and am pretty sure there were a million plus but I will not repeat Becks number without real proof.
Thanks BRG. Now, I’ll push my luck a bit further.
You are happy to stick with your “a million plus” estimate even though you have no “real proof” for that either other than what you saw. The only public official who made an (unofficial) estimate was Peter Piringer, DC Fire and Emergency Department Public Affairs Office, who told one reporter that he thought the crowd’s size was 60,000 – 75,000. In a later interview with Politifact, Pilinger reiterated that his was an unofficial estimate. However, he did say that while “it was an impressive crowd,” it “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street.” Like you, Piringer was there. He also, I would guess, has as much if not more experience with large crowds. So, how to account for the fact that your estimate is approximately 15 times greater than his? I wasn’t there and have no idea how big the crow was. I am happy however to accept the definition that it was “impressive.”
For the record, the earlier comment on this site that the Park Police estimated more than one million “and they should know” is completely unfounded. Since their estimate of 460,000 attendees at the Million Man March in 1995 (against the organizers’ claims of more than a million and a threatened lawsuit), the Park Police have been prohibited by Congress from making and publicizing these sort of estimates. The Park Police did not make the crowd size estimate claimed on this site or any estimate for the event. Period.
Finally, even if 60 million Americans truly believe that our President was born in another country and is a secret Marxist trying to subvert the destiny of the United States, that doesn’t make it true. All it means is that 60 million people believe that to be the case. We aren’t discussing religious doctrine or theology here in which differences of opinion come down to differences in belief. We’re talking about the real, empirical, physical world, and if you don’t have solid, verifiable evidence to back up your claims you shouldn’t be making them.
But what do I know, I’m just an unemployed mamma’s boy drinking Kool-Aid and typing in her basement. Or so some would like you to believe.
“But what do I know, I’m just an unemployed mamma’s boy drinking Kool-Aid and typing in her basement.”
You said it not me. You obviously don’t have a life if you will spend time debating the number of people at a rally and disregard all the photographic evidence. but keep up the posts I can always use the entertainment.
P.S. I really do not care were Obama was born, I just care what he his doing to this country as do millions of others.
“filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street”
Yes, largely because we didn’t have permission to be on The Mall past that point. Which accounts for the streams of people under the trees along the gravel paths, as well as the crush of standing-room-only humanity on the Capitol lawns. (I was there in that crush, and Obama’s birthplace, BTW, which I have no doubt was Hawaii, had nothing to do with my attendance.)
Since we’re agreed that the crowd ‘only’ extended “up to Third Street,” let’s examine that: the Park Service method for estimating crowd size at the inauguration (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm ) – which was based on a seating arrangement with aisles! – would put the lower limit of a crowd covering that area at about 250,000. Adjust for the actual density – look at the picture, Steve – no room for sitting, no chairs, no aisles – and you get to 350,000 easily, maybe even 500,000.
But you just go ahead and keep underestimating us, Steve, if it helps you sleep at night. Heh.
The 60K – 75K crowd estimate was made at 9:43 AM, at least an hour and a half BEFORE the march was even set to begin. Why was this crowd estimate made so early? Why not wait till 1 PM to get a better idea of crowd size? My husband and I attended the rally/march on Saturday, and at 9:43 AM we were in line at the Vienna station waiting to buy tickets to get on the metro – it took us an hour to make our way through that line, because so many people were there trying to get to the rally. It took another hour to actually get downtown, the train was SRO. Every station we stopped at had hundreds of people waiting on the platform trying to get on a train to attend the rally. Thousands of attendees weren’t anywhere near downtown at 9:43 AM to even be included in the count made at that time. I can’t support saying the crowd was near the million number, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that 250K showed up, which is a darn good showing, IMO.
twitter.com/dcfireems is the webpage source of the 9:43 AM crowd size estimate, just keep hitting “more” at the bottom of the page till it brings you to the posts made on Sept. 12.
Felicity, Thank you for the excellent information and insights into the crowd estimate I cited. I was not aware of the early hour at which it was made. And thank you also for doing the work to figure out the size up to Third Street. For the record, since there seems to be some misunderstanding, I made no estimate of the crowd’s size in my post – all I was trying to do was come to grips with the vast disparity between high and low counts, refute the erroneous claim made elsewhere on this site that the Park Police had made an estimate of a million or more, and argue that folks should really stick to the facts.
You’re welcome! I’m glad to know you were chiefly concerned with the facts. I did indeed infer your preference for Mr. Piringer’s estimate from your rhetoric — especially your point that “Like you, Piringer was there. He also, I would guess, has as much if not more experience with large crowds.” However as your estimation of Mr. Piringer’s powers of enumeration were purely conjectural, perhaps I should not have made that surmise.
Steve, nice to see you hanging in there!
Who cares the exact number (though it’s obvious there were some deceptive counts). The march on DC was a success if Washington heard that we’re all tired of our tax dollars being spent unwisely and recklessly by congress. BUT the predominent sentiment was ANTI-OBAMA, with distastefull signs, when it’s well known that the two presidents who left the office with unprecedented debt were Reagan and G. W. Bush.
Discourse- Can you get past “it’s all that evil Bush’s fault”? And, if you had any intellectual honesty you would also know that Obama has outspect every president in history- and that’s only in his first 7 months in office. O
Sandy, where were you the past 8 years? Did you forget that the deficit was run up quite a bit by the prior administration? Or the fact that former Pres. Bush had set up the bailouts before Obama even won the Presidency? Of course, there is also the fact that former Pres. Bush’s administration hid the actual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the budget to make it look like he was lowering the deficit.
I would like to debate you on how the president has spent the most money of any other president in history. If you can provide any background or evidence of such, I’d be glad to read it (outside of obviously slanted evidence, that is).
Of course, Obama could have done nothing, and taken back the remainder of the bailouts. Then when the economy failed completely, you would still be complaining. It sounds to me like you are the one engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
“Can you get past “it’s all that evil Bush’s fault”? ”
Well no, not really. The debt bomb we are experiencing now was foreseen at least in 2003/4, and Greenspan and the rest of the Bush administration did nothing.
Sandy, instead of acting on the message, you’re too busy eviscerating the messenger. Try examining the policies and events that allowed the unregulated corporate greed to cause the financial breakdown– that initiated the panic to bail-out failing (banks & auto) industries.
I’m not in agreement with what the current administration is doing to shore-up failing institutions. Much of the TARP and other bail-out money has been lost to corruption and the bailed banks have no incentive to help citizens losing their homes.
It’s about convincing, cajoling, writing, offering pragmatic solutions to lawmakers and getting them to do the right thing to help society, not personal attacks.
Darkstar- When you say that “if” Obama starts spending money for useless endeavours, you will question it. How about the Stimulus package, which was one of the largest spending sprees in history. It has been widely reported that “it didn’t work” to stimulate anything, except to pay back those special interests that helped to get Obama elected. In fact, every bill that has been signed into law since Obama became president has been loaded with Pork spending. Didn’t he say he was going to stop that?
As to the war in Afghanistan, he should listen to “his” Generals. It seems that you are with him on his “hate America First” tour. The fact that the Russians couldn’t defeat the who Darkstar? you don’t say. The Russians were trying to “take over Afghanistan” and to turn it into their form of Communism. There’s a big difference between the Taliban and AlQuida. I’ll agree with you one thing, if he isn’t there to win, then he should bring all our troops home immediately. Since he released his first plans for Afghanistan in March, 317 more soldiers died. And he is so intent on passing a disasdisastrous healthcare bill than he is about honoring the wishes of the General he choose to conduct the war in Afghanistan. That is when he isn’t appologizing for the evilness of the US to the world. He’s an empty suit, who still is on training wheels, and will destroy the country with his arrogance and ego.
Intellectual honesty would be acknowledging that Obama’s allocatted funds to address our economic crisis has a total spending as of this month of $84,587,463 or just 14.5% of the money allocated. He has stated that much of the funds set aside might not be needed depending on the recovery. This sounds to me like very good economic planning.
Darkstar and rugrat,
If we must point to original sources of government profligacy, we’ll have to go back to Virginia’s own Woodrow Wilson, to the beginning of the steady erosion of Constitutional limits on government (always with the best of intentions, of course) that began with the Progressive movement.
And now that those limits have been breached to the point that the President can simply take over banks and automobile manufacturers, where should it end? How can it end? Without Constitutional limits, how is government to be constrained by the people?
Darkstar- You said- “Bush hid the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the budget to make it look like he was lowering the deficit.” and also, “If you can provide any background or evidence of such, I’d be glad to read it (outside of obviously slanted evidence, that is). No matter what evidence is shown to you, if it is not what you “want to hear” rather than what the facts are, it will be deemed “slanted.” But, for whatever it is worth here goes-
Please read all the way down to the additional comment that states that the information in fact does include the war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, how much will Obama spend on what is now “his war” in Afghanistan. Didn’t he and your party claim that Bush took his eye off the ball in leaving the “right war” in Afghanistan, and went into IRAQ wrongly? So far Obama has “changed his mind on the war in Afghanistan” as though he is a women moving the furniture around in the house. His latest “plan” now is to go after alquidea in Pakistan, a country that wants no American military presence, so he is going to send drones to fight the battle. Do drones come for free? Why has he decided to go against Gen. McCrystal, who was his choice? So far, he has only proven one thing, he doesn’t have a clue, and, the world is now recognizing that.
Rugrat- You said- “Try examining the policies and events that allowed the unregulated corporate greed to cause the breakdown that initiated the panic to bailout failing banks and auto industries.”
To gain any understanding of what you are referring to above, you need to go back and start with the sub-prime mortgage mess. Why have you neglected to start there, but, rather jump in with the bailouts? That’s like starting the race a yard from the finish line. Please go back and start from the beginning on where the economic woes started. To neglect the facts and issues, and just blame “unregulated corporate greed” shows me that you are reading from the Democrats playbook, and have no interest to do any of your own research on the topics. When you can discuss all of the “policies and events” that “initiated the panic” I will be happy to go point for point with you. As to your statement that “unregulated corporate greed” was the cause of it all, then please explain to me why Obama is still in favor of bailed-out companiesbanks still paying gigantic bonuses to those who ran the companies into the ground? I’ll give you a hint- His team Geithner and Sommers both came from the companies that were bailed out. Please also explain the rationale in Obama supporting the growth and profitability of GE, while he says out of the other side of his mouth, Corporate Greed has been the culprit. What has GE done other than get their CEO Jeff Immelt on Obamas right hand side. If you think the problem is corporate greed, why would it be corporate greed with everyone but one company?
First off, Sandy, the Heritage Organization is well known for pushing only right wing & ultraconservative points of view (not that the left doesn’t have theirs as well). Of course, they will state that Obama is spending more than Bush did, since Bush supposedly did great things while in office. At the very least, Bush started a war that we had no reason to start (Iraq) and spent a lot of money that ended up being wasted.
Should Obama also start spending money for useless endeavors, I will also start to question his motives. But obviously, since you know exactly where I stand politically, you won’t believe it anyway.
As far as Afghanistan, what do you think we should do? Shall we drain our coffers fighting there endlessly, doing the same things that the former Soviet Union did (who were there for 10 years and were never able to deal with them)? Or should we start going mainly after the Taliban & al Qaida, instead of running all over the country? They are the threat we need to deal with, not the country itself.