69 replies to this topic

[sUper GeNius]

Johnson had 1.2 million. Seems like Obam'a big party was in fact the most expensive one in history, even per capita. Article below outlines the hypocrisy of the media. Let's face it, the mainstream media does in fact lean left. No doubt about it now. The 800,000 figure comes form mathematical estimates calculated today.

http://www.rushlimba...5110.guest.html

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 05:24 AM.

[FunkOdyssey]

What is your point? What should we do with this information? I'm lost.

Should we make a new thread every time alot of money is spent on a public event even when most of that money came from private contributions? I think that might get tedious.

[sUper GeNius]

What is your point? What should we do with this information? I'm lost.

Should we make a new thread every time alot of money is spent on a public event even when most of that money came from private contributions? I think that might get tedious.

How about we just start new threads about liberal hypocracy on January 20th? Private or public, Obama's inaugural has been obscenely expensive. Why not ask your donors to contribute to the DC public school system? What Friends school are the Obama kids attending? I forget.

What should we do with this information? Use it at parties...

p.s. This thread costs no one anything!

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 05:46 AM.

[Prometheus]

Let's face it, the mainstream media does in fact lean left. No doubt about it now.

Watch FoxNews instead. Fair, balanced and exquisitely targeted for that special IQ range.

[Live Forever]

Having less than they expected really doesn't surprise me the way that the media, law enforcement, etc. was saying how you would die or at the very least be seriously maimed if you set foot in DC on inauguration day. (plus they closed down bridges coming into the city and things like that) They were actively discouraging people from showing up, and it sounds like it worked.

[Mixter]

Mmmm, political boulevard sheeple crowd cheering stuff... must... buy... 10 feet gold statue of president...

[niner]

What is your point? What should we do with this information? I'm lost.

Should we make a new thread every time alot of money is spent on a public event even when most of that money came from private contributions? I think that might get tedious.

How about we just start new threads about liberal hypocracy on January 20th? Private or public, Obama's inaugural has been obscenely expensive. Why not ask your donors to contribute to the DC public school system? What Friends school are the Obama kids attending? I forget.

What should we do with this information? Use it at parties...

I guess you missed (or chose to ignore?) the news:

MediaMatters completely debunked the 150 millions figure. This inauguration will barely cost more than the one in 2005. The 150 millions figure is obtained by adding the cost of security. When you do the same for 2005 you get a figure of 157 millions. Yet again, dishonest right wing journalism at work.

http://mediamatters....ns/200901170003

Honestly, has the right no shame? I wonder what sort of wingnut math came up with 800,000? Is this another mistake (cough) lie (cough) that is going to have to be debunked?

p.s. This thread costs no one anything!

You're wrong here, too. It costs us all in civility; it spreads lies, it angers people. It costs us in time as many of us feel an obligation to correct the record. It costs us in lost opportunity as the time that we spend on this thread doesn't get spent on more valuable work.

[Lazarus Long]

More trash from the spin zone. I can't believe you quoted Limbaugh on those figures BTW.

Actually the numbers were cut in half, from estimates of 3 to 5 MILLION. Here is a serious satellite analysis that shows at least 1.1 million to 1.4 million in the open areas and that did not count those in building overlooking the area or in other ticketed zones. At least Janes is an unbiased analyst matters like this.

http://www.salem-new...owd_1-20-09.php

Allison Puccioni, IHS Jane’s Satellite Imagery Analyst, explained, “After measuring the size and analyzing the density of the crowd populations in the image taken by the GeoEye-1 satellite at 11:19 a.m. East Coast Time, we have concluded that there are between 1.031 million and 1.411 million people present.”

“This does not include the assumed 240,000 people in the designated ticketholder areas. If all ticketholders are present, the number increases to 1.271 – 1.651 million people,” she said.

Puccioni continued, saying, “Our margin is dependent upon the estimated levels of crowd density, we used a conservative estimate for the allotted area, then a higher-end estimate for the same area, hence the spread.”

Three points to note about the estimate:

This does not include those people present in the federal buildings that were specifically open to the public – the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, the Old Post Office, the FAA buildings (East and West), and the Ford Senate house. I cannot estimate the number of people who were in those buildings.

The satellite image does not extend over the White House, Farragut Square, McPherson Square, Franklin Square, and Lafayette Square (though Lafayette doesn’t matter as it is a designated ticketholder area). There may likely be people present there too.

The flux of people outside Smithsonian Metro Station, Union Station, and the apparent security checkpoints strongly indicates that people are still flowing into this event at the time of satellite image acquisition.

Source: IHS Jane's

The Secret Service estimates over 2 million were present and they were the ones that announced the original estimates were cut in half.

http://www.washingto...2102224_pf.html
http://www.washingto...9011902042.html

Also the guy Steve Doig who estimates that this was 800,000 also says the figures for Johnson were highly inflated too but he is only one analyst. Anyway he is still saying Obama's crowd was larger than Johnson's and his figures also do not account for anyone not in the direct image. He later agrees that at least 1.2 million is possible based on the extent of the crowding and people in buldings.

http://news.cnet.com...0146632-76.html

Steve Doig, a journalism professor at Arizona State University who specializes in crowd counting, said he is estimating there were 800,000 people in attendance, based on a satellite image taken by GeoEye about 40 minutes before the swearing-in ceremony.

"The space-based image is fascinating because all the low-level shots make you think the crowd is much larger. (In the satellite images), you see the very dense clots of people in front of the JumboTrons, but then the wide open spaces elsewhere," Doig said. "I'd still suspect this crowd was larger than the Lyndon Johnson one, which wasn't estimated with the benefit of an image from this excellent viewpoint."

Estimates have put Johnson's inauguration attendance at 1.2 million, but Doig said he thinks that figure is inflated.

Nor have you addressed the record web and media coverage not just in the US that actually jammed the internet for a while and slowed it down but represented at least hundreds of millions more even possibly a billion people around the world that watched the event live all the way into the censored coverage in China.

[Lazarus Long]

You're wrong here, too. It costs us all in civility; it spreads lies, it angers people. It costs us in time as many of us feel an obligation to correct the record. It costs us in lost opportunity as the time that we spend on this thread doesn't get spent on more valuable work.

For the record this is also why we have had many notable individuals, who work in and support the science of this effort but are professionals disassociate themselves from this organization in the past. It doesn't just cost us wasted time and effort but has already cost us legitimacy for our image and membership.

[Cyberbrain]

p.s. This thread costs no one anything!

Maintaining this site is not free. It costs us members money. It also wastes memory space and time.

[sUper GeNius]

Hmm. I meant to start this OP on the Free Speech forum, as I have done for my last few politico-rhetorical posts. Navigator(s), please move this thread to Free Speech.

[sUper GeNius]

http://news.cnet.com...torsPicksArea.0

Clear explanation for the 800,000 figure. 2,000,000 can fit when crammed. There was plenty of unused space as evident from satellite images, one I posted earlier.

And the price tag for the event was still obscenely expensive.

[Lazarus Long]

Hmm. I meant to start this OP on the Free Speech forum, as I have done for my last few politico-rhetorical posts. Navigator(s), please move this thread to Free Speech.

The others that have replied to this thread have done so under the rules of the regular forum. You are free to start another similar topic in the Free Speech area but this one should stay here in my opinion.

[Lazarus Long]

And the price tag for the event was still obscenely expensive.

The price tag to the government was only 40 million as determined by law. The same price of other such events. The rest was paid by those that had the party.

[sUper GeNius]

And the price tag for the event was still obscenely expensive.

The price tag to the government was only 40 million as determined by law. The same price of other such events. The rest was paid by those that had the party.

Yes, a semi-private party, and still obscenely expensive. Had Bush done the same, the media would have been moaning for weeks how the "rich" had thrown a party for their man.

I've always taken claims of media bias with a grain of salt, but this is just so blatant.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 03:47 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

I am redirecting this thread to where I meant to start it. Free Speech.



Go here:

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=27213

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 03:46 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Continued from here:

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry294156

I meant to post here, in Free Speech.

And the price tag for the event was still obscenely expensive.

The price tag to the government was only 40 million as determined by law. The same price of other such events. The rest was paid by those that had the party.

Yes, a semi-private party, and still obscenely expensive. Had Bush done the same, the media would have been moaning for weeks how the "rich" had thrown a party for their man.

I've always taken claims of media bias with a grain of salt, but this is just so blatant.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 03:47 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Niner:

You're wrong here, too. It costs us all in civility; it spreads lies, it angers people.

Angers people? Spreads lies? Oh, I get. I quote a "crowd expert," but because I'm splashing water on a liberal wet-dream, I'm evil. LOL.

[Lazarus Long]

I am redirecting this thread to where I meant to start it. Free Speech.



Go here:

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=27213

If you meant it to go into the Free Speech area before anyone posted then moving it would be fine but once people expecting to post to a moderated thread have replied they are entitled to continue under such a regulated forum and you are still free to start a different thread.

It is just as arbitrary and tyrannical to force people to reply in an unmoderated forum when they expected to be in a moderated one as it is to force people to reply in a moderated one when they expected to be posting in an unmoderated one.

[sUper GeNius]

[

It is just as arbitrary and tyrannical to force people to reply in an unmoderated forum when they expected to be in a moderated one as it is to force people to reply in a moderated one when they expected to be posting in an unmoderated one.

A rather subtle point, but I do understand. "Tyrannical" is a far reach though.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 06:54 PM.

[Mind]

Remember when the mainstream media reigned down rhetorical fire and ridicule for days on end upon Governor Palin for spending $300,000 on wardrobe and make-up (stuff she didn't even ask for, in post election interviews she said she was fine with her pedestrian wardrobe and make-up, but campaign managers wanted a make-over). Seems so long ago.

[Zenob]

Remember when the mainstream media reigned down rhetorical fire and ridicule for days on end upon Governor Palin for spending $300,000 on wardrobe and make-up (stuff she didn't even ask for, in post election interviews she said she was fine with her pedestrian wardrobe and make-up, but campaign managers wanted a make-over). Seems so long ago.

Just the small matter of that not being true. The "she didn't ask for it, they MADE her take all these designer clothes" line is just really wet spin. Here's some reality to dry it up with:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Link

So in other words, she willfully exploited the situation for her own personal gain, then when she got BUSTED doing it, she LIED and said they MADE her take thousands of dollars of crap. Yeah. That's like standing in front of a judge and saying, "no really your Honor, those bank clerks MADE me take those sacks of money". Oh, and if any news organization has the audacity to write anything about Palin and her looting of GOP coffers, well then that news organization is clearly part of the "liberal media" and is just attacking her because she's a women or something. Not because she's a lying weasel.

Edited by Zenob, 21 January 2009 - 08:07 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I have heard a few on the far left complaining about the inordinate expense of the inauguration however it is hard to bitch when you are still hungover from the party. Hey perhaps those complaining the most are those that weren't invited.

Or maybe they just didn't like the idea of those "have-nots" getting some for a change when they didn't have the lion share for once.

I think this discussion is a side show and frankly irrelevant.

A more interesting question of public expense is the fact that among Obama's first executive orders today he froze White House staff salaries, ordered compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and extended the time lobbyists must wait after leaving government service before they can work as lobbyists. It also appears the order to close Gitmo before the year is out is also about to be announced.

http://www.msnbc.msn...7687/?GT1=43001

[sUper GeNius]

Remember when the mainstream media reigned down rhetorical fire and ridicule for days on end upon Governor Palin for spending $300,000 on wardrobe and make-up (stuff she didn't even ask for, in post election interviews she said she was fine with her pedestrian wardrobe and make-up, but campaign managers wanted a make-over). Seems so long ago.

Just the small matter of that not being true. The "she didn't ask for it, they MADE her take all these designer clothes" line is just really wet spin. Here's some reality to dry it up with:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Link

So in other words, she willfully exploited the situation for her own personal gain, then when she got BUSTED doing it, she LIED and said they MADE her take thousands of dollars of crap. Yeah. That's like standing in front of a judge and saying, "no really your Honor, those bank clerks MADE me take those sacks of money". Oh, and if any news organization has the audacity to write anything about Palin and her looting of GOP coffers, well then that news organization is clearly part of the "liberal media" is just attacking her because she's a women or something. Not because she's a lying weasel.

Consider the source. McCain people trying to cast blame on a scapegoat for an electoral college rout.

Edit. Hillary was right. Look at THIS sexism. Don't see much discussion about Obama's taste in clothes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28770061/

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 07:59 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Hey, our new Chief Executive's got rhythm! You think he'll do the bump with Carla Bruni?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28774419/

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 21 January 2009 - 08:08 PM.

[Zenob]

Consider the source.

Wishful thinking. For one thing this fits with a pattern of behavior for her. She has a clear history of abusing/exploiting her position for personal gain. For another thing, I don't think McCain gives a shit. This was his last run. He's not going to be back in 2012 so I don't think he has any vested interest in trying to cover his ass by making false accusations.

[sUper GeNius]

Consider the source.

Wishful thinking. For one thing this fits with a pattern of behavior for her. She has a clear history of abusing/exploiting her position for personal gain. For another thing, I don't think McCain gives a shit. This was his last run. He's not going to be back in 2012 so I don't think he has any vested interest in trying to cover his ass by making false accusations.

McCain was not the source of the comments. The persons running his campaign hope to have long successful careers. An electoral college rout is not exactly a feather in their caps.

[sUper GeNius]

I have heard a few on the far left complaining about the inordinate expense of the inauguration however it is hard to bitch when you are still hungover from the party. Hey perhaps those complaining the most are those that weren't invited.

Or maybe they just didn't like the idea of those "have-nots" getting some for a change when they didn't have the lion share for once.

I think this discussion is a side show and frankly irrelevant.

A more interesting question of public expense is the fact that among Obama's first executive orders today he froze White House staff salaries, ordered compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and extended the time lobbyists must wait after leaving government service before they can work as lobbyists. It also appears the order to close Gitmo before the year is out is also about to be announced.

http://www.msnbc.msn...7687/?GT1=43001

Almost all fluff. One hundred employees have salaries frozen. I'm sure that'll make a dent in the deficit. One year to two years for lobbying. Real hard to hold off another year for your payola. Not much substance there. Does look good after last night's hangover though.

[Lazarus Long]

Not fluff just first on a long list to come. I was only pointing out that he has already started and you can certainly do the usual song and denial dance as to importance but the point is that some spending cuts are coming as well as tax cuts BTW. It is just a debate as to who deserves the cuts and who doesn't.

Now I think we need to catch more rip off brokers like the one that crashed that perfectly good plane trying to pretend he was dead so he could run off with the cash.. Seems to be a real surge in rip off rich that are trying to hide stolen capital and themselves, like the one in Sarasota, Nadel that ran off with his clients millions last week to the tune of 350 million.

Between Bernie Madoff and a few others in just the last month we have almost 60 BILLION dollars in ripped off capital that wasn't government's fault per se; it was just a few typical banker types like the former head of SEC, and Nadel who was nominated by the Wall Street Digest in 2003 as America's Top Ranked Money manager.

This one European Hedge fund has lost 350 million dollars just due to Madoff.

These guys need to start a school for how to steal big under capitalism, kill your community and get ahead by crushing your neighbors, friends, and family.


You want obscenely expensive these guys are obscene.

[Zenob]

Consider the source.

Wishful thinking. For one thing this fits with a pattern of behavior for her. She has a clear history of abusing/exploiting her position for personal gain. For another thing, I don't think McCain gives a shit. This was his last run. He's not going to be back in 2012 so I don't think he has any vested interest in trying to cover his ass by making false accusations.

McCain was not the source of the comments. The persons running his campaign hope to have long successful careers. An electoral college rout is not exactly a feather in their caps.

The quotes came from the staffers not the campaign head. The staffers all had to migrate to other jobs after the election loss so what incentive would they have had to lie? You are just engaging in fantasy at this point.