Gee. Who peed in your Cheerios today?
:smack: I both regret and retract my effort to give Beck that measure of credit.
Also, who the fuck are you?
Obama
Did he get it on video?
Yes. He did clarify it, and I stand corrected.
Minimum estimate is 300,000 from the Park Service. And they are not morons. They are pissed-off voters. I hope the politicians were listening.
Uh…no.
Liberation theology is Marxism disguised as religion. Black Liberation Theology took that and threw a healthy dose of victimhood into the stew.
Here’s a reasonably good explanation: The Marxist roots of black liberation theology | Acton Institute
What are they pissed off about? That they lost a fair election?
These are not mutually-exclusive traits.
Yes, they are morons. And so are you. You are a fucking clueless idiot masquerading as a moronic buffoon. Your statement above is either wrong or a lie. And no, I won’t give you time to retract it and tell us which one.
The National Park Service never gave that estimate of crowd size for this event. NEVER. I can state unequivocally that they gave NO ESTIMATE of crowd size at any time. You wanna know how I know that?
Because the National Park Service hasn’t given out estimates of crowd size since 1997. Asshole. Idiot. Ignorant twat.
STFU already and let knowledgable adults have a discussion.
The Park Service permit was for 300,000.
Clothahump, you need to find a better blog to follow.
Not morons? Okay. Fox News “I didn’t know what ignoramus meant so I googled it and it means ‘ignorant lawyer’” Channel viewers.
Actually, we know quite a bit about them. I have been advised by experts that they, after long years of study and analysis, are firmly in favor of the Austrian School of Economics. They also nearly unanimously favor Comcast, Verizon and so forth in the recent struggle over “net neutrality”. Of course, this hardly surprising given how wildly popular and beloved are America’s cable and mobile phone companies.
I thought it wasn’t political?
And that is for a reason given in the second link Bosstone posted in the post just below:
They’d had trouble with releasing official estimates before, that was just the last straw. They had been repeatedly accused of undercounting by one side of an issue and overcounting by another, because people seem to confuse attendance at a rally with proof of the inherent rightness or wrongness of a cause. So come 1997, they said, fuck it, work out your own estimates. And that, boys and girls, is how we come up with estimates of “probably less than 100,000” from one source and “certainly over 500,000” from another for the same damn gathering. Thank you, politically motivated crybabies. Thank you so much.
It might be worth noting that CBS used much the same method the Park Service used to use, and came up with their own estimate of between 79,000 and 96,000 attendees when the photos were taken at noon. That isn’t exactly shabby, but I guess it doesn’t have the fund-raising potential of half a million, does it. Therefore, it must be wrong.
Well, I once told my sister she was a spoiled, over-reacting cunt and she socked me right in the mouth. So I regretted saying it - but like Hell I’m retracting it 
Why hold back? Despots throughout history, Hitler being a classic example, have used similar techniques. Harking back to a fictional glorious past, scapegoating a minority and glorification of the military are textbook fascist moves.
This is his clear pre-emptive strike technique. He scapegoats others using race so he claims to be holding a civil rights rally, boldly “standing up for” poor downtrodden whites. He uses fascist techniques so is outspoken against the third reich. He uses his media clout to support Palin’s political ambitions so he makes sure he describes the rally as non-political.
I’m sure if the event participants realized they had created 6 pages of consternation and finger pointing from the usual crowd on this board, they would be reassured in feeling they are on the right track.
I don’t think we should rely on the scientific methods of taking actual pictures of the actual crowds and extrapolating attendence numbers, as has been done to reasonable accuracy in the past. Otherwise you may be assailed with something as far-fetched as:
“[T]hey noted that with a margin of error of 9,000, ‘between 78,000 and 96,000 attended the rally.’”
What we should do is take the word of completely apolitical attendants such as Michele Bachman, who said:
“We’re not going to let anyone get away with saying there were less than a million here today – because we were witnesses.”
And perhaps we can hammer the point home with eminent wordologist, Sarah Palin, who tweeted:
“Silly media reports ‘maybe thousands’@Beck’s ‘irrelevant’ event;insinuating MSM sheeple mustn’t believe their own eyes&ears…”
I mean, what terms do you want to run across when figuring out estimates on pretty much anything? “Margin of error” or “sheeple?”
Wake up … um … people who resemble sheep!