lolglennbeckFollow

How the hell am I biased for what I said? Wow... Just wow!


Biased would be choosing to only comment on the discrepancy between attendance reported by the event planners and that estimated by more scientific methods when the event is held by people you don't agree with. Who's doing that? Not me.

Nah, biased would be you discounting both estimates as equally inaccurate when one is obviously more accurate than another.

Like you're doing. Yes, you can point out that the same can be said for "liberal" events, and you have. But the initial comment is still showing your bias. A bias shown on both sides still shows your own bias :-P

It was not a company, but CBS. A media outlet. I'm not saying their numbers or methodology are wrong, just pointing out a fact.

My point is that you didn't find it interesting when the same thing happened during the Obama inauguration, or for that matter, during pretty much every major outdoor political event.



So were the Obama supporters making the inauguration estimates. Yet I don't recall you (or anyone) making a big deal about it.



You need to look up the definition of hypocrisy though. Hypocrisy is requiring of others that which you don't do yourself. Now if you can find examples of Beck and friends slamming liberal political operatives for exaggerating their attendance numbers, then you'd have a point.

What you are doing is applying a double standard. Which is the cousin of hypocrisy, isn't it?



Huh? I never mentioned anything about it until after you posted numnuts!. You brought it up all on your own. WTF?



Because you brought it up! I hadn't even posted in this thread before you did that. Your first post was to comment on how the estimates were different. My first post was in response to that. I was pointing out the double standard being applied. Why do you care about this in this case, but not in others? Seems pretty selective, doesn't it?


Did you perhaps read some blog, or editorial which pointed this out to you? Seriously. Ask yourself why you thought this was interesting, or why you were even aware of it, then ask yourself if perhaps someone put that idea in your head for a reason? I mean, maybe you just came up with that on your own, but that seems pretty amazingly unlikely. And why in this case, and not others?

Why did you post that? It certainly wasn't in response to anyone else, so where did the idea come from?

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 5:59pm by gbaji

No kidding, I posted first... which I said. Are you lacking reading skills? You were the one who ran in through your hamster wheel of a brain and decided to run with it, when I was simply pointing out it was odd how the numbers didn't add up. You added any political slant to my observation.

Also, the part of comment on was preceded by:

Nice going, slick.


Yeah, and to mention that specific numbers didn't matter - it was "large." Brushing off a difference of 70-80k to a million. 'Cause, those're similar numbers...

I read the OP, and that's it. I don't read blogs for the post part, the exception being those linked to CNN (faith blog is interesting) or NYtimes from time to time. I read the vastly contrasting estimates and thought to myself "Huh, odd that they're so different. I'd go with the company contacted to do an actual estimate over the organizers." Zomg, a thought without being told! What a revolutionary idea... for you.

Yes. Locke made it seem like the event organizers hired some company to calculate the number of people at their event and then, when the numbers didn't match what they wanted, tossed them out and went with their own exaggerated ones instead.

CBS hired a company to calculate attendance numbers. Hence, it's their numbers. The reality is that the numbers CBS gets from this company are consistently very very much lower than those estimated by the event organizers. This is not partisan. It's not done more by conservatives than liberals. Everyone over estimates their own attendance (for an assortment of reasons).


I was pointing out the double standard present by members of this forum when they make a big deal about those discrepancies when it's a conservative event, while ignoring similar discrepancies when it's a liberal event. This is made even more of a double standard when you correlate that with the increased frequency with which the same posters will make a big deal about event numbers in the first place. I seem to recall you making a big deal about pro-immigration rally numbers a few years back Joph. And you made a big show of attacking previous Tea Party events because of lack of turnout.


I guess what I'm saying is that if you really do think numbers at these things matter, then aren't you really just lying to yourself when you do this? I don't get it.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 6:13pm by gbaji

Since the OP didn't mention attendance at all, you must have read something more than the OP, right? You read some article or editorial or blog that pointed out the discrepancy to you.

What was it? And can't you acknowledge that whatever you read which told you that influenced you? If said source *hadn't* mentioned the discrepancy, would you have known about it? Would you not agree then that you were manipulated by whatever that media source was?



You were told though. That's the point. It wasn't your own thought. It was someone else's. You just repeated it.

You get that if the media sources you watch/read tell you about a discrepancy when it's Beck's rally, but don't mention it when it's a liberal event, then you are being manipulated, right? And when you repeat their biased coverage of those events, you are simply being a puppet. Not sure when you decided this constituted original thought, but whatever...

I'm pretty sure that was a given.

Though, it would be nice to read a bit of a transcript, I could use a laugh.

It's biased to say that we should judge event planners who exaggerate their attendance numbers the same regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative? Lol...

It's biased when you only point it out when it's the other side doing it, while ignoring it when your own side does it. I was pointing out bias in others, not being biased myself. Which is why this is so ironic.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 6:28pm by gbaji

hmmm

I don't remember who brought it up. This was an old thread. But someone was making a big deal about small attendance at Tea Party events. I certainly didn't bring up numbers first.



Sigh... If that were true, then the same people would have attacked the Obama media people for estimating that 5 million people showed up to the inauguration, when the same CBS company estimated about 800k.



No. They aren't. That's the point. That you have the impression that it is only conservatives who do this is the direct result of people like Locke commenting on it only when it's conservatives doing it, and whatever news source he got his information from only writing about it when it's conservatives.


I'd be looking elsewhere for sources of lies if I were you. Just a suggestion.

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 6:43pm by gbaji

What the hell is wrong with you? I have *never* said this. My entire first post was to point out that it's not interesting or unusual for someone to exaggerate the numbers because everyone does it. I have never attempted to argue that Beck's numbers are not exaggerated.

My entire point was that it's biased to only point out when one side does it, but not the other. I was observing that Locke made a point of talking about it in this case, but *not* when the Obama inaugural attendance was similarly exaggerated. And Joph made a similar point about Tea Party exaggerations, but *not* about immigration rally exaggerations.


There is some serious projecting going on here. I am the one arguing that both sides do this, so it's unfair to selectively choose when to make a big deal out of it. Try reading the damn thread next time!

There was no indication that the numbers I was using at the time were exaggerated.

No, you tried to imply that the much more accurate numbers were as false as Beck's. "One side is low, one side is high". The truth isn't in the middle, the truth is just that Beck, Palin & Co are a bunch of liars.

lolirony

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 9:10pm by Jophiel