Obama's Million Ghost March

reply to post by dbates


On the rating scale.. More people watched American Idol.. So...
It seems that more Americans still want their American Idol over Obama.

I don't care for either of them.. I'd rather work my job and make money than wasting my time watching either one of them.

However I can note. The whole Obama party was a very powerful event.
When I saw clips.. I almost got teary eye'd. And I don't normally get overly passionate about such things. But being an empath, I tend to pick up on people emotions. And everyone was crying their eyes out..

Okay so lets say there was between 800,00 and 1,000,000 people who paid from 100 to several thousand dollars to be there.....now add up all that money. People we are talking at the very LEAST 1 trillion dollars.( from front row 10,000 dollar seating, to all the permits for having vending and of course taxes included) It DID NOT COST that much money to set up and clean that place up! Garbage men don't make over 100 dollars an hour!
The 150 million cost proposed by the MSM just goes to show exactly how much EXCESS there was left after the party. WHO got it?

I think our focus should be more on just how many people PAID what and how much MONEY was collected for this function, because I can GUARANTEE YOU it far exceeded the cost of the set up and clean up. Not to mention the super high cost of the after party tickets that then served people 12 dollar champagne in plastic cups and had them sitting on floors.

Now where did all that EXCESS go?

Further more:

Try this one on for size.... there are like 300 million people in the USA most of whom do pay A LOT of taxes.... now if every tax bill had 10 to 100 dollars (per person) of the money going to the fed removed into a "states fund" do you realize that it would give each state close to 5 trillion dollars at the most to run things through this crisis? ( $100 per person is close to 5.4 trillion each state.) How many of you paid far in excess of 100 dollars per family member?

PERHAPS there should be a save the United States of America party at least once a year. Then we would know what kinds of funds where taken in and could use the EXCESS to start a fund and get the gov behind supporting it.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by KaginD
reply to post by DataWraith

 

This is very true. You would think that they would keep these things considering they were all telling the news anchors that it was such a historic event and it meant so much to them. Pretty typical though. Look at 9-11. Every house had a flag outside it for some time.. then POOF, they were all gone. Good point

Except around DC.


I didn't see any flags come down up to the point where I moved from there.

As a matter of fact, I went back 3 years later, and the flag I hung from a tree was still there.

Obviously you never heard of proper flag etiquette. I'm certain after 3 years of abandonment and neglect it was a filthy, ragged mess..

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



As always BH, you have come bearing RESEARCH and FACTOIDS :-)


I quoted this because I believe it deserves to also be on the second page as there appear to still be some people who are buying the lies which were in the OP.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by Crakeur]

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by KaginD
reply to post by DataWraith

 

This is very true. You would think that they would keep these things considering they were all telling the news anchors that it was such a historic event and it meant so much to them. Pretty typical though. Look at 9-11. Every house had a flag outside it for some time.. then POOF, they were all gone. Good point

Except around DC.


I didn't see any flags come down up to the point where I moved from there.

As a matter of fact, I went back 3 years later, and the flag I hung from a tree was still there.

Obviously you never heard of proper flag etiquette. I'm certain after 3 years of abandonment and neglect it was a filthy, ragged mess..

Actually I have heard of proper flag etiquette.

So you thought that when I moved I abandoned my house? And thus the flag?

No no sir... I SOLD my house to another family who were in the AirForce and they asked if they could keep it.

They maintain it to this day.

Why would you assume such derogatory things about a fellow patriot?

btw.. it was literally a flag of my fathers... for it was given to me at his funeral by the American Legion.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThe Washingtom Post did NOT get their number from the National park Service.

I didn't say that they got their number from the Park Service. I said that they were quoting statistic from the National Park Service as part of their tally. Parts of their count comes from the National Park Service.

The Washington Post's analysis of the image concluded that about 1 million people were on the Mall. The analysis did not include the parade route, which was supposed to accommodate 300,000

The estimate of the parade route was a statistic from the National Park Service. But then we're told that the National Park Service won't voice an opinion on the count because they're afraid they'll get sued. They indicated that the Washington Post count is what they will write down as the official estimate. That is circular logic.

Yes, there were a lot of people there, but the number keeps growing like the fish my uncle caught last summer. One of the previous comments had it dead on. This push to pump the count of those present feels like propaganda. While watching the event I heard the term "millions" thrown around numerous times yet it appears questionable if there were even 1 million.
O

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Actually I have heard of proper flag etiquette.

So you thought that when I moved I abandoned my house? And thus the flag?

No no sir... I SOLD my house to another family who were in the AirForce and they asked if they could keep it.

They maintain it to this day.

Why would you assume such derogatory things about a fellow patriot?

btw.. it was literally a flag of my fathers... for it was given to me at his funeral by the American Legion.
[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

I'm glad to hear that HH, please accept my apologies. The home I live in also had a flag displayed in the yard when I bought it, but it was a shameful sight to behold. It was weather beaten and ragged, and way beyond repair. My first act as the new owner of the property was to promptly take it down and burn it in the prescribed manner.

reply to post by LLoyd45


No worries Lloyd..

I once attended a flag retirement at a Cub Scout crossover...

It was a very moving experience.

I too am allergic to flags in disrepair, and feel they should be treated properly.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by dbates
Yes, there were a lot of people there, but the number keeps growing like the fish my uncle caught last summer.

This is true. Nobody knows the real number, so they repeat the biggest one they hear or even add a few hundred thousand for effect. And if no one knows, then we really cannot say that the 1.8 million estimate is overshooting it.

I guess what really bothers me is that I'm honestly sick to death of the insinuation that the only reason I (or any Obama supporter) voted for him is because we are willing pawns in the media's game and believe everything we're told. (Or else we only voted for him because he's black.)

Originally posted by dbates
The main stream media would have you believe that there were nearly 2 million people there. Yes, everyone loves Obama and you should too.

Yes, the media lies. But not all the people, especially the Obama supporters here on ATS, are blind zombies. If you (generic Obama detractor) continue to think that the only reason Obama got elected is that he was sold to us by the media OR because he's black and we feel "white guilt", then it is YOU (generic) who are believing a fantasy.

No offense to you, dbates, I'm honestly just tired of the fight.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by resistor
Everyone agrees that it was the most attended inauguration since Reagan. The exact numbers would only be important to a pundit trying to spin things one way or another.


BTW, I wonder how many know the origin of the word inauguration.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

good grief, that's creepy, what on earth is going on, why wasn't I aware of this sooner,

Life just gets stranger and stranger.

[edit on 103131p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

This honestly (Other than the political subject) wasn't supposed to be a political thread. It's more about media bias and propaganda. The article and my comments make no reference to Obama himself, any of his views, or anything about who voted for him and why. There are no photos of Obama holding the phone upside down.


You have to be able to compartmentalise the subject into sections or else you'll always be talking about the same generic thing in every thread. I can't believe that you didn't hear about "the millions" that attended. This is simply propaganda to 1. Pump the base supporters. 2. Get those that are not supporting on the same side so there are no detractors. Everybody's doing it so get on board.

No matter who the leader is I think it's healthy to have numerous numbers in the opposition. It keeps everyone honest. This just seems to be one step closer to 1984.

Here are some facts about those millions who watched on TV -

story here

Although the number of viewers watching the presidential inauguration coverage of Barack Obama was impressive, they fall short of those who saw Ronald Reagan take the oath of office for his first term in 1981.

According to Nielsen Media Research, 37.8 million television viewers tuned in Tuesday to watch the swearing-in ceremony, which was the largest inaugural audience in 28 years. Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 drew a whopping 41.8 million.

Obama's inauguration was popular to watch on TV, but Reagans from 28 years ago (with less people in the country) drew more viewers.

Reagan is still the most popular inauguration POTUS.

Even decades later, he's a tough one to beat.

Originally posted by dbates
You have to be able to compartmentalise the subject into sections or else you'll always be talking about the same generic thing in every thread.

Point taken.

Originally posted by dbates
I can't believe that you didn't hear about "the millions" that attended.

I did. It just didn't matter to me. I do think if we weren't in the middle of a recession, more people would have traveled to DC, though. Maybe some are including those numbers.

This is simply propaganda to 1. Pump the base supporters. 2. Get those that are not supporting on the same side so there are no detractors. Everybody's doing it so get on board.

You may be right. I'm not a fan of "bandwagon mentality" but I know it exists.

Tell me, what is the media's advantage to have everyone on board behind Obama? It would seem to me that the media would be interested in having dissension to bring in more viewers. Who's going to watch the news if everything is flowers and rainbows in Obama-land?

I mean, I know there are those who believe that the media is controlled by the government, and during the Bush years, it seems that may not have been far from the truth. But I don't see the media's advantage in getting everyone on Obamaboard.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


OBAMABOARD!


I love that...


-One Happy Obama Supporter

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't see the media's advantage in getting everyone on Obamaboard.

It’s just old fashioned personal bias coming through.

Example -

News Busters

Chris Matthews thinks it’s his job to help Obama’s presidency.
Not to report on it, but to make it successful.
He's just one of many ...

Media Research Center

the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You're correct. News thrives on chaos, but mainly what they want is something different. If every house but one blew up in your town, the camera crew would be a the house that didn't blow up. People would come for miles to see the house that didn't blow up when in reality this is just normal.

The media (or whoever controls it) has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fear card. Now it's time for the other story.Hope (mister.old.school thread). The terrorist threat is down and now it's the stock market and the evil bankers but you can only have the same bad story for so long before it becomes the norm. They're tired of using the stick so now it's time to switch to the carrot. And boy are they ever pushing the carrot and telling you just how many people love it.

Much like we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to get the terrorist but didn't quite succeed, we'll see a new and improved story where we fight to get hope but never quite reach it. For every idiot who thought that fighting in Iraq would kill all the terrorist, I'll show you a new idiot that thinks their bank account will be past 6 digits once we get a chance to fix things.

Sometimes everything just feels so manipulated. Fear the boogie-man terroist, now chase the money and get more. No one addresses real issues. That being the dead cow outside the front door. We just keep swatting flies as they come in thinking we're just about to solve the problem. No, we're fixing symptoms. Slapping a band-aid on a gun-shot would and crying success when the bleeding stops.

EDIT: Did you see how many millions came out to get the band-aid. We all love the band-aid.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by dbates]

reply to post by dbates


dbates

To me, that feeling of everything being manipulated...

That's just because the matrix has you

If you can learn to step out of your common perceptions I believe you will see that ultimately there are just a bunch of ant-like homonids running around.

We are nothing more than highly adaptable monkeys.

The whole of everything which appears to be conscious at one level will appear to be ultimately subconscious when looked at in greater detail.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Media Research Center

the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent.

That's from over 20 years ago. And excludes cable news.

From 2008:

The Liberal Media Myth

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would -- for any rational person -- forever negate the "Liberal Media" myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were "allowed to stand unchallenged." The Washington Post's own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as "independent analysts" spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media's pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals -- which led to his impeachment -- stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.

Originally posted by dbatesThe view from above doesn't show nearly as many people as the camera angle from the ground.

newsbusters.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have a feeling that the picture was taken while people were still gathering....the Ariel shots from the crane cameras showed it filled from side to side, I highly doubt the media, even in their love fest for Obama, would have the nerve to use CGI to fill in blank spaces. There was ALOT of people there, get over it.

According to the news, people stopped being admitted to the mall when it was full, and even people with tickets were turned away. The routes into the city were closed a couple of hours before the event. That means there were also who-knows-how-many people stranded en route or somewhere between the mall and the city limits.

The aerial photos showed the mall was packed from the Capitol building up to, and around, the Washington Monument. That's a long way, easily enough room for a million and a half or more.

As a former D.C. resident, I learned it is impossible to see or hear anything at all going on at the Capitol from that distance, thus the jumbotrons you see in the pictures. The only reason to go is to feel one is part of an historic occasion and enjoy the sense of strength in numbers. So I did what the majority of people did, and watched it on TV.

It's possible there was a bigger crowd for Ronald Reagan. It's possible he got more viewers on tv. The size of the Obama crowd is not necessarily any indication of how people will feel about him in a year or so. But arguing the crowd size still doesn't mitigate the fact that Obama is now hugely popular with the American people.



[edit on 24-1-2009 by Sestias]