View Full Version : A Comparison of 2 Rallies You Decide
REDWHITEBLUE2
10-03-2010, 05:33 PM
Becks
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mall2.jpg
10/02
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mall1-620x362.jpg
Pictures without context, nice.
darin
10-03-2010, 06:15 PM
Context:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/even-msm-doesnt-buy-one-nation-claim-that-102-rally-attendance-topped-becks/
The pics still don't look in sync, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the tea party rally was larger, but by the look of those pics you'd think only a few thousand attended the democrat rally.
darin
10-03-2010, 06:38 PM
what kind of sync do you need? I don't get your statement. One is showing a Glenn Beck rally, the other pic - with 1/4th the attendance is from another rally by libs - who insinuated they had MORE than Beck's rally.
jimnyc
10-03-2010, 06:41 PM
Pictures without context, nice.
No need for context. 2 rallies, 2 huge differences in size. Compare that will democrat led rallies from just 2 short years ago and you'll see participation is down about 60% where their rallies and "get togethers" have been lately.
what kind of sync do you need? I don't get your statement. One is showing a Glenn Beck rally, the other pic - with 1/4th the attendance is from another rally by libs - who insinuated they had MORE than Beck's rally.
So if you where given those two pics, and had to guess the difference in attendance you'd say 4times?
darin
10-03-2010, 06:50 PM
I'd say the second rally had about 1/4th the attendance at the time the photo was taken. There is the context needed...if one pic was taken at the high point in a rally, and the other pic was taken 2hrs before start, etc...but from reading at the link provided, I'm assuming that wasn't the case. Can't be sure, though.
I'd say the second rally had about 1/4th the attendance at the time the photo was taken. There is the context needed...if one pic was taken at the high point in a rally, and the other pic was taken 2hrs before start, etc...but from reading at the link provided, I'm assuming that wasn't the case. Can't be sure, though.
Really? The left field is almost totally empty in the second pic, I'd say there's allot more than 4 times the number in the first, but I guess that's subjective.
darin
10-03-2010, 07:04 PM
Really? The left field is almost totally empty in the second pic, I'd say there's allot more than 4 times the number in the first, but I guess that's subjective.
Does it really matter? 4x? 5x? 5.2343x?
Does it really matter? 4x? 5x? 5.2343x?
Yes it does, because it my mind it arouses suspicion over the context of the two pictures. Like I said I think there were more at the tea party rally, but not by the margin those pics would suggest, which would turn them into manipulated propaganda
darin
10-03-2010, 07:12 PM
what are you talking about?
(sigh).
Right.
I'm pretty sure there would have been more at tea party than the dem rally. But the difference in numbers in that pic is just too obvious
So if those pics where taken at different stages of the day as you said before(but represented as similar) then it would make the difference seem much greater than it is. Turning it into propaganda.
darin
10-03-2010, 07:48 PM
if those pics where taken at different stages of the day as you said before(but represented as similar) then it would make the difference seem much greater than it is. Turning it into propaganda.
Right. But the viewer doesn't know. We read the text of the accompanying links in the link I provided, however, and we get the idea the pics are representative of peak participation...but again, it's all speculation.
Right. But the viewer doesn't know. We read the text of the accompanying links in the link I provided, however, and we get the idea the pics are representative of peak participation...but again, it's all speculation.
Exactly, we don't know.
All that is on the webpage are those two pics and then a load of quotes that one was bigger than the other. At no point does it say that the picks where both taken at the peak of the days talks making them comparable. It just leaves the pics there so that someone assumes they are comparable and then spread it (like the OP of this thread) under the belief that they are when there is no context of the pictures. Which has been my point all along.
darin
10-03-2010, 08:01 PM
that's what I'm saying.
:):beer:
that's what I'm saying.
:):beer:
Oh...fairplay :laugh:
:beer:
Little-Acorn
10-03-2010, 08:12 PM
If the second pic was taken before the liberal rally, or otherwise carefully selected to show a slack time rather than the peak time, then why are the liberals trying so hard to conceal the maximum numbers at their rally???
Oh, for Christ's sake.
Do you really believe the second shot is NOT at the peak time of the liberal rally???
How much twisting, turning, shucking and jiving are you willing to go through, to pretend the attendance at the liberal rally was anywhere near what the Beck rally's was?
And how stupid do you expect your audience on this board to be, to believe you???
Quit insulting everyone's intelligence. Quit lying and distorting.
Would you leftists PLEASE start confronting the FACTS at last???
Liberalism is collapsing, Americans are basically conservative, and only your lying and coverups, with the help of a complicit media, have kept you even for any length of time. You've lost the media coverup now, people are rapidly getting wise to your duplicity, and are abandoning you in droves.
Time for you to go find some other country to fuck up. You've shot your wad here, and lost.
Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya...... :fu:
Maybe it was the peak, maybe it wasn't, I don't know and nor do you. I'd rather not assume one way or the other, if that makes me an idiot so be it.
BoogyMan
10-03-2010, 08:43 PM
The pics still don't look in sync, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the tea party rally was larger, but by the look of those pics you'd think only a few thousand attended the democrat rally.
That is because there WERE only a few thousand that attended the democrat led rally.
That is because there WERE only a few thousand that attended the democrat led rally.
From the pics I saw on the BBCWorldService there were more than a few thousand.
Just sayin'
BoogyMan
10-03-2010, 08:59 PM
From the pics I saw on the BBCWorldService there were more than a few thousand.
Just sayin'
Did the BBC follow suit with other organizations and use pictures from the Beck rally claiming they were from the democrat rally? (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/figures-cspan-uses-tea-party-rally-shot-for-leftist-one-nation-rally/)
I don't know, do you have any evidence suggesting they did or is that a completely unsupported statement?
BoogyMan
10-03-2010, 09:10 PM
I don't know, do you have any evidence suggesting they did or is that a completely unsupported statement?
With the Internet at your fingertips and you being a fairly intelligent guy, your asking for this is telling and prescient. The major media has been trying their best to distort this and make it appear that the democrat led rally was at least as large as the TEA party gathering. A falsehood by any honest viewing.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=17666
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/progressives-march-on-washington-for.html
You won't find anything in the major media because they are desperate to support the liberal agenda.
Do you have *any* evidence the BBC used false pictures for it's coverage...a yes or no will do.
darin
10-04-2010, 05:27 AM
Critical thinking is valid when applied to photographs too, folks. Everything takes faith.
I have faith - giving the benefit of the doubt - the photos were taken accurately represent attendance. I can't prove it, however...can't imagine anyone could.
That's the point, I believe, Noir and I are sharing.
Critical thinking is valid when applied to photographs too, folks. Everything takes faith.
I have faith - giving the benefit of the doubt - the photos were taken accurately represent attendance. I can't prove it, however...can't imagine anyone could.
That's the point, I believe, Noir and I are sharing.
Pfffffffff, typical liberal.
Quit insulting everyone's intelligence. Quit lying and distorting.
Would you leftists PLEASE start confronting the FACTS at last???
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
red states rule
10-04-2010, 05:38 AM
Pictures without context, nice.
Even when the union thugs and NAACP offer FREE bus rides to their rent a mob people, they still can't compete with the people
November 2 is a day the people are looking forward to - while the libs are dreading it
Even when the union thugs and NAACP offer FREE bus rides to their rent a mob people, they still can't compete with the people
November 2 is a day the people are looking forward to - while the libs are dreading it
Nothing to do with the context of the pictures, but far enough.
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 10:50 AM
If the second pic was taken before the liberal rally, or otherwise carefully selected to show a slack time rather than the peak time, then why are the liberals trying so hard to conceal the maximum numbers at their rally???
Oh, for Christ's sake.
Do you really believe the second shot is NOT at the peak time of the liberal rally???
How much twisting, turning, shucking and jiving are you willing to go through, to pretend the attendance at the liberal rally was anywhere near what the Beck rally's was?
And how stupid do you expect your audience on this board to be, to believe you???
Quit insulting everyone's intelligence. Quit lying and distorting.
Would you leftists PLEASE start confronting the FACTS at last???
If at first a flame doesn't succeed...try again?
:laugh:
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 11:28 AM
If the second pic was taken before the liberal rally, or otherwise carefully selected to show a slack time rather than the peak time, then why are the liberals trying so hard to conceal the maximum numbers at their rally???
Oh, for Christ's sake.
Do you really believe the second shot is NOT at the peak time of the liberal rally???
How much twisting, turning, shucking and jiving are you willing to go through, to pretend the attendance at the liberal rally was anywhere near what the Beck rally's was?
And how stupid do you expect your audience on this board to be, to believe you???
Quit insulting everyone's intelligence. Quit lying and distorting.
Would you leftists PLEASE start confronting the FACTS at last???
If at first someone avoids answering the question you asked, ask it again.
PostmodernProphet
10-04-2010, 11:44 AM
I have to admit, based on shadows, the second pic was either taken early in the morning or late in the afternoon.....not sure which direction the reflection pool runs.....
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 11:53 AM
I have to admit, based on shadows, the second pic was either taken early in the morning or late in the afternoon.....not sure which direction the reflection pool runs.....
So why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
I have to admit, based on shadows, the second pic was either taken early in the morning or late in the afternoon.....not sure which direction the reflection pool runs.....
Not you too!
That's yourself and DMP that concur with my idiotic leftist lies and distortions that no one on this borad you be stupid enough to believe!!!
:coffee:
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Not you too!
That's yourself and DMP that concur with my idiotic leftist lies and distortions that no one on this borad you be stupid enough to believe!!!
:coffee:
So why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
:slap:
Okay, if you want *questions* answered....
If the second pic was taken before the liberal rally, or otherwise carefully selected to show a slack time rather than the peak time, then why are the liberals trying so hard to conceal the maximum numbers at their rally???
I don't know.
Oh, for Christ's sake.
Do you really believe the second shot is NOT at the peak time of the liberal rally???
There's nothing to suggest that it is or isn't. Thus I believe (or rather know) is that I don't know, and nor do you.
How much twisting, turning, shucking and jiving are you willing to go through, to pretend the attendance at the liberal rally was anywhere near what the Beck rally's was?
All I ask for is proof that both pics show similar periods in the days proceedings, do you have any proof or are you just assuming they are?
And how stupid do you expect your audience on this board to be, to believe you???
Well apparently as stupid as DMP and PMP, if you consider them stupid fair enough, your call.
Quit insulting everyone's intelligence. Quit lying and distorting.
You're the only one that has been insulting of other members intelligence.
And sorry of you consider looking for proof as lying and distorting, not much I can do about that.
Would you leftists PLEASE start confronting the FACTS at last???
Facts! I like facts, now tell me, can you prove for a fact that those two pics where both taken during the peek of attendance?
So why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
:slap:
So the absence of a larger crowd pic means the pics in the OP must both have been taken at the peak of attendance?
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 12:59 PM
So the absence of a larger crowd pic means the pics in the OP must both have been taken at the peak of attendance?
Why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
:slap:
:slap:
Why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
:slap:
:slap:
I don't know, and I really don't care. Infact if that pic was of them Dem rally at peek attendance I wouldn't care either, but I want PROOF that it is. Now, do you have this proof or not?
Kathianne
10-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Why is there a complete absence of any pictures showing the mall with lots of people attending the Democrats' rally? At ANY time?
:slap:
:slap:
Indeed. On their own website, they post no pictures from the rally, instead a black and white of MLK speech at the site. IF they had them, they'd be there.
darin
10-04-2010, 01:33 PM
Not you too!
That's yourself and DMP that concur with my idiotic leftist lies and distortions that no one on this borad you be stupid enough to believe!!!
:coffee:
Uh...it was YOU agreeing with ME, bro. Not the other way around.
:D
Uh...it was YOU agreeing with ME, bro. Not the other way around.
:D
But I had the first post lol, about being unable to compare the pics because they were just pix without context...
PostmodernProphet
10-04-2010, 02:25 PM
other interesting pics from the One Nation rally....
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Second%20Americaneocon/OneNationMarch09.jpg
PostmodernProphet
10-04-2010, 02:26 PM
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Second%20Americaneocon/OneNationMarch05.jpg
PostmodernProphet
10-04-2010, 02:27 PM
one of my favorites....
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Second%20Americaneocon/OneNationMarch07.jpg
Little-Acorn
10-04-2010, 04:53 PM
I don't know,
and I really don't care.
I wouldn't care either,
but I want PROOF that it is.
Three out of four Noirs agree: Undisputed, unrefuted pictures of attendance at different rallies aren't important. :lol:
Three out of four Noirs agree: Undisputed, unrefuted pictures of attendance at different rallies aren't important. :lol:
You re clearly not getting what I am saying (deliberately or not I can not tell)
But to make this as clear as an unmudded lake. I have no vested interest in this, I don't care about how many where at the rally, be it five or five million. However, I would like some proof that the OP pic was taken at the peak of the rally.
So I'll ask again (though you keep ignoring it) do you have proof that it was?
darin
10-04-2010, 07:31 PM
But I had the first post lol, about being unable to compare the pics because they were just pix without context...
Right - but I gave the narrative of your cryptic reply. :coffee:
Trigg
10-04-2010, 08:29 PM
can't fine definitive proof for Noir but here goes.
One Nation rally attendance was evaluated at 175,000 by the organizers while independent reports were more nuanced estimating the event’s crowd between 60000 and less than 100000. One Nation Rally was probably less successful in terms of gathering people than its conservative counterpart: Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally.
http://news.spreadit.org/one-nation-rally-attendance/
The Beck rally
Rally organizers, in applying for their permit, said they expected a crowd of up to 300,000. And on Sunday, after the rally, Beck himself said on Fox News that the event drew 300,000 people on the low end, and perhaps as many as 650,000 people on the high end.
The numbers are never officially counted, so I, and everyone else, can only go on the estimated numbers give by the organizers themselves and any pictures they might release that make it look like the numbers are as huge and they claim.
can't fine definitive proof for Noir but here goes.
http://news.spreadit.org/one-nation-rally-attendance/
The Beck rally
The numbers are never officially counted, so I, and everyone else, can only go on the estimated numbers give by the organizers themselves and any pictures they might release that make it look like the numbers are as huge and they claim.
Yep, those are the kinda numbers I found while looking around, and idk about you, but IMO there is no way (using the lower estimate) there are 60,000 people in the OPs 'one nation' picture
Trigg
10-05-2010, 02:16 PM
Yep, those are the kinda numbers I found while looking around, and idk about you, but IMO there is no way (using the lower estimate) there are 60,000 people in the OPs 'one nation' picture
so you spent 4 pages arguing about something you actually agree with because you didn't like the fact that the pictures weren't taken at the same time and verified. Good lord.
so you spent 4 pages arguing about something you actually agree with because you didn't like the fact that the pictures weren't taken at the same time and verified. Good lord.
I said at the start I'd not be surprised if the tea party rally as greater than the democrat one, and by all accounts it is. However, the OP implies the difference is much greater than it was, I'm not gonna let obvious propaganda pass by without mention or a request for proof.
Trigg
10-05-2010, 03:12 PM
I said at the start I'd not be surprised if the tea party rally as greater than the democrat one, and by all accounts it is. However, the OP implies the difference is much greater than it was, I'm not gonna let obvious propaganda pass by without mention or a request for proof.
Naaa, you just like to argue, go on, admit it.:poke:
Little-Acorn
10-05-2010, 03:19 PM
Naaa, you just like to argue, go on, admit it.:poke:
Actually, he's trying desperately to pretend the Democrat rally might have been as well attended as the conservative one, despite all available evidence that suggests otherwise. And he's frantically generating excuse after excuse why ALL photos of the Dem rally should NOT be interpreted as showing the skimpy attendance seen.
A pretty hilarious performance by Noir, all in all. Isn't he cute? :laugh:
Naaa, you just like to argue, go on, admit it.:poke:
I've made no bones about one rally being less than the other, and stated clearly that I didn't care about that anyway. What I did care about, and what was my point from post was the context of the 2 pictures (which is missing) which distorts the message that the OP convays somewhat.
Actually, he's trying desperately to pretend the Democrat rally might have been as well attended as the conservative one, despite all available evidence that suggests otherwise. And he's frantically generating excuse after excuse why ALL photos of the Dem rally should NOT be interpreted as showing the skimpy attendance seen.
A pretty hilarious performance by Noir, all in all. Isn't he cute? :laugh:
You still haven't provided the proof I've asked for several times,
Though I will agree that I am pretty cute ^_^
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.