The Not-So-Silent-Anymore Majority [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

03-20-2007, 03:55

This Saturday, 30,000 men and women marched in Washington DC not to denounce the Iraq war - but to express their support for the war effort and our Soldiers.

They far outnumbered the anti-war protesters by at least 3 to 1 and perhaps up to 6 to 1.

Yet the media concentrated on the anti-war marchers almost completely.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/us/18protest.html?_r=2&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) even said their were only a few hundred war supporters present:

As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the antiwar movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counterdemonstrators. Many were veterans in biker jackets who said they had come to protect the nearby Vietnam Memorial, citing rumors that had circulated among veterans groups that the demonstrators planned to deface it.

Despite the National Park Service's estimate of 30,000 people. I guess the NYT can't be bothered to ask someone who's not horribly biased.

The anti-war marchers were organized by ANSWER - a socialist, anti-America group, and I am happy to see the moonbats following them were so outnumbered by real Americans.

The site that organized the march supporting our soldiers:
http://gatheringofeagles.org/?p=191

Michelle Malkin - a conservative pundit that is everything Coulter isn't - good looking, intelligent, articulate, etc., has a nice summary:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007109.htm

Crazed Rabbit

Watchman

03-20-2007, 04:04

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 04:08

You can get 20 years in PC jail for recognizing the above event, in fact I've heard it referred to already by some fringe campus protesters as almost Neo-Nazi in its nature.

Can you believe that marching in support of the war and calling out the reckless editorializing of fiction into fact is equivalent to being a Nazi? Well believe it and you'll hear more of it as the silent majority finally gets some air time.

I would guess not, as it'd presumably ruin your rare spell of warm fuzzy jingo euphoria.

Actually the counter protestors have always been ignored, even in great numbers, when in opposition to the mainstream media's dig on the topic. Rallies and events largely go uncovered as they are the norm and not the exception. This is getting air time now because we've had 4 years of weak argument, flag waving, psuedo intellectuals and now the norm is the exception.

Watchman

03-20-2007, 04:15

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 04:20

You're saying the pro-war folks are the norm in the US ? Darn. And I had started hoping people had finally started seeing sense over there.
~:mecry:
Must you make it so difficult for me to think well of Americans ? I'm a nice person who would prefer to like people if possible...

Think of us as you will, but I'd rather have you dislike us out of fact in contrast to your personal beliefs than like us based on fiction that jives with your personal beliefs.

Crazed Rabbit

03-20-2007, 04:23

I wonder if you ever took into account most folks harboring anti-war sentiments are long past the Waving Banners On Street stage...?

I would guess not, as it'd presumably ruin your rare spell of warm fuzzy jingo euphoria. :beam:

Oh, I know some have graduated to burning effigies of US soldiers.

But what else would they do? Long past protesting? Are they writing angry letters? It seems there are lessmarchers every year - perhaps the normal people in the marches didn't like being near the moonbats and kooks.

Oh, and thanks for the nonsensical insult.

You're saying the pro-war folks are the norm in the US ? Darn.

They are necessarily people who'd want to do the whole invasion thing over again, but they recognize that pulling out now will not help us, nor Iraq. A sort of, you break it, you have to fix it, and realizing that our enemy in Iraq won't just go home if we do. Not that big of a leap of logic, but these anti-war kooks have a hard time getting it.

I love how supposed humanitarians think abandoning Iraq to war and slaughter is good.

CR

KukriKhan

03-20-2007, 04:24

I like Finlanderians. :)

Somebody Else

03-20-2007, 04:41

I like Finlanderians. :)

I like the fact that Crazed Rabbit seems to be one of the few people I've come across outside of those I've met in her Maj's killing machine that thinks we should take responsibility for our screw-ups (though, that's nowhere near strong enough a word for what's happened).

Lemur

03-20-2007, 05:25

Despite the National Park Service's estimate of 30,000 people.
My understanding is that the National Park Service has always had good numbers. I know that both lefties and righties have whined and whinged in the past about their counts, so they must be onto something good.

I don't really understand the point of marching around, protesting for/against anything. I never got the sense that it changed much of anything ever. Donations, on the other hand, get heard loud and clear. Maybe I'm missing the American Protest gene or something ...

Lord Winter

03-20-2007, 05:34

My understanding is that the National Park Service has always had good numbers. I know that both lefties and righties have whined and whinged in the past about their counts, so they must be onto something good.

I don't really understand the point of marching around, protesting for/against anything. I never got the sense that it changed much of anything ever. Donations, on the other hand, get heard loud and clear. Maybe I'm missing the American Protest gene or something ...

Well it did work for the civil rights movement back in the 60's. I think it also has a big effect on the perception of the governments current policy. Any veiw that gets alot of news coverage gains supporters.

Lemur

03-20-2007, 06:33

Any veiw that gets alot of news coverage gains supporters.
Not (http://www.earthfirst.org/treesits.htm) necessarily (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html) true (http://www.americannaziparty.com/).

doc_bean

03-20-2007, 08:59

My understanding is that the National Park Service has always had good numbers. I know that both lefties and righties have whined and whinged in the past about their counts, so they must be onto something good.

I don't really understand the point of marching around, protesting for/against anything. I never got the sense that it changed much of anything ever. Donations, on the other hand, get heard loud and clear. Maybe I'm missing the American Protest gene or something ...

You should take a clue from the French, it ain't a protest march if you don't torch a few hundred cars. I'm sure the French government tries to avoid protest marches as much as possible...

Sir Moody

03-20-2007, 11:11

The last successful march in the UK was in 1999 and was about reducing the Gay age of consent to 16...

it was in Ricky Gervais stand up routine along with some other funny facts mixed in with his own style of attention deficit disorder :2thumbsup: (he is a great standup i just wish he would stay away from the TV, his shows (like the office) are awful)

Watchman

03-20-2007, 12:37

Oh, I know some have graduated to burning effigies of US soldiers.

But what else would they do? Long past protesting? Are they writing angry letters? It seems there are lessmarchers every year - perhaps the normal people in the marches didn't like being near the moonbats and kooks.
It gets stale after a while, especially if it doesn't seem to have any effect anywhere you know. Most people are lazy enough, and not quite dedicated enough, to eventually lose interest in something as effort-intensive as public rallies and instead settle for less intensive stuff like writing opinions to newspapers and generally grumbling and disagreeing in less readily obvious ways.

Oh, and thanks for the nonsensical insult.You're quite welcome. :bow: Come on now, are you trying to deny the gloating "what've I been telling you?!" undertone of your opening post ? Nevermind a certain tendency to jump into conclusions there too...

They are necessarily people who'd want to do the whole invasion thing over again, but they recognize that pulling out now will not help us, nor Iraq. A sort of, you break it, you have to fix it, and realizing that our enemy in Iraq won't just go home if we do. Not that big of a leap of logic, but these anti-war kooks have a hard time getting it.

I love how supposed humanitarians think abandoning Iraq to war and slaughter is good.I long ago gave up on expecting Americans draw correct conclusions about things, these days I'm willing to settle for them just grasping the general idea. Such as "teh war = teh suck". If enough of them had realized that from the start they wouldn't have just bad alternatives to choose from now.

Still, given that the war has by now caused far too more damage (whether you count expenses, dead and maimed people, or loss of face and credibility) to the US than Osama and that Frankenstein monster gone its own merry way of his, Al-Qaeda, could even in their wildest dreams hope to achieve over their entire lives, you can't really blame folks for being a little fed up with it. Nevermind now that it's killed quite a few times the number of reasonably innocent civilians - overwhelmingly Iraqis - most terrorist organizations put together have managed to over the entire span of their existences...

Oh, and for the record I've always been firmly in the "you break it you damn well fix it too" camp. What'd you have to say about "supposed humanitarians" (which, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, actually means "damn liberals" in the context...) again...?

BDC

03-20-2007, 15:45

The last successful march in the UK was in 1999 and was about reducing the Gay age of consent to 16...

Most the marches since then have been far too confused to make much sense of though. We had the religious "we're-not-homophobic-we-just-don't-think-gay-people-are-part-of-our-god's-vision" march, and the "bring-the-troops-home-badly-thought-out-peace-march", and the worst of all, the "pro-killing-cute-fluffy-foxes" march.

There just haven't been any clear cut issues. March against Iraq, then you're marching for Saddam's baby-killing regime? March against Trident, you're marching for Britain to be occupied, the women raped, buildings burnt, etc?

Be better if the organisers worked out exactly what their alternative was and presented a proper argument. And banned anyone who looks like they just fell out of the 1960s, it looks bad on the cameras.

Lemur

03-20-2007, 16:14

Interesting -- apparently the Park Service no longer provides crowd size estimates. To anyone. Ever. Too many people have complained about their estimates, so they've taken their marbles and gone home.

So somebody's lying. And it's probably the people who are saying what the Park Service said, which we now know they didn't. Crazed Rabbit, I'm afraid you've been punked.

Gathering of Eagles says that they got an "unofficial" NPS number of 30,000. They provide no link and no backup. And the NPS has a policy of not giving out numbers, so something's screwy. Michele Malkin reprints the number as a fact, without any corroboration, and declares that the MSM is lying again.

This whole subject now stinks to high heaven.

[edit]

A little documentation.

"The U.S. Park Police, which oversees activities on the Mall, does not provide estimates of crowd size." -- Washington Times (http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0301nn/030119nn.htm), January 19, 2003.

"The National Park Service encountered so much flak for calculating a crowd of 400,000 at the 1995 Million Man March that it decided, under pressure from Congress, to no longer attempt estimates. And that was an agency with 30 years of experience in judging huge turnouts in the nation's capital." -- San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/21/ED48812.DTL), Feb 21, 2003.

"the first unofficial NPS estimate of the Eagle turn-out today… 30,000! That figure may be adjusted upward as more figure are tallied during the week." -- Gathering of Eagles (http://gatheringofeagles.org/?p=191), lying through their teeth.

Goofball

03-20-2007, 16:55

This Saturday, 30,000 men and women marched in Washington DC not to denounce the Iraq war - but to express their support for the war effort and our Soldiers.

I'm glad you threw that very important word in there. It shows (I hope) that you at least recognize that "supporting the war effort" and "supporting your soldiers" are distinct and seperate things. They are also independent of each other.

One can:

1) Support the war effort and not support the troops (I would argue that Bush has fallen into this cattegory from the start)

2) Support the war effort and support the troops (it seems that the 30,000 marchers in your story most likely fall into this category)

3) Not support the war effort and support the troops (polls would indicate that the majority of Americans now fall into this category)

4) Not support the war effort and not support the troops (this would be fringe lefties who believe all soldiers are baby-killers)

Make any sense to you?

Adrian II

03-20-2007, 16:57

So somebody's lying. And it's probably the people who are saying what the Park Service said, which we now know they didn't. [B]Ouch. Besides, what I got out of the NYT article is that the anti-war march was smaller than previous ones and that participants were puzzled by the socialist slogans of the organizers, suggesting they were being used for fringe party politics. In fact, not a good impression at all. :no:

doc_bean

03-20-2007, 17:05

So somebody's lying.

Damn liberals...

Ice

03-20-2007, 18:38

I long ago gave up on expecting Americans draw correct conclusions about things, these days I'm willing to settle for them just grasping the general idea.

:laugh4: ~:rolleyes:

These threads get better and better. Generalizations about certain groups of people are good!

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 19:18

These threads get better and better. Generalizations about certain groups of people are good!

Didn't you know we are all part of a pan American Jewish conspiracy involving the Illuminati and the satanic symbol on the medal of honor? We are so blinded by their gifts of covert action and control through capitalism that we cannot reason rationally, show prudence, investigate, or expect responsibility?

Well of course this does not include those incredibly self proclaimed astute domestics that can see and know all along with their foreign brother's in enlightenment.

You're being sent to re-education Ice :whip:

Crazed Rabbit

03-20-2007, 19:29

You're quite welcome. :bow: Come on now, are you trying to deny the gloating "what've I been telling you?!" undertone of your opening post ? Nevermind a certain tendency to jump into conclusions there too...

I could be called euphoric, but jingoistic? That's a tad far, methinks.

Too bad we didn't realize that 'war=teh suck' 70 years ago and save hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, eh?

3) Not support the war effort and support the troops (polls would indicate that the majority of Americans now fall into this category)

Somehow saying you support someone, but not what they're doing and you want them to give up and stop doesn't really sound like you're supporting them.

Crazed Rabbit

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 19:39

Somehow saying you support someone, but not what they're doing and you want them to give up and stop doesn't really sound like you're supporting them.

Al-qaeda's rallying cry against America is that they love the infidel, just not what they do....honest.

Islamo-Fascists love Jews and West that backs them, but hate what they do...err yeah, thats it

Non-Americans love America, just not what they do, unless its for them. there, got it right.

Love-hate is such a lovely dichotomy. You get to appear enlightened but yet free yourself from the responsibility of integrity to principle.

Ser Clegane

03-20-2007, 19:50

Somehow saying you support someone, but not what they're doing and you want them to give up and stop doesn't really sound like you're supporting them.
I guess the parents among the patrons on this board would not necessarily subscribe to this point of view (and I am not specifically talking about the parents of soldiers).
If you care for somebody you should not just blindly support everything they are doing.

@ShadeHonestus:
Cute...

Tribesman

03-20-2007, 19:58

Too bad we didn't realize that 'war=teh suck' 70 years ago and save hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, eh?

They did , and they drew up a treaty on it . its still on the books remember :idea2:
Its just that some silly buggers sitting in office keep forgeting how much wars suck and think maybe his time it will be different .

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 20:56

If you care for somebody you should not just blindly support everything they are doing.

It's called constructive criticism, something that those CR was referring to seemed to lack a grasp of. (i'm getting really bad at ending my sentences with prepositions, gah)

Cute...

:beam: There are times you just can't go near a cliff without...

...pushing some other people off it.

Goofball

03-20-2007, 21:00

3) Not support the war effort and support the troops (polls would indicate that the majority of Americans now fall into this category)Somehow saying you support someone, but not what they're doing and you want them to give up and stop doesn't really sound like you're supporting them.

It's a good thing that's not what I meant then.

Try this:

I honor our troops because they are willing to risk their lives in my and my family's defence. Because I have such respect for them and for their lives, I don't want to see their lives thrown away in a war that I believe benefits neither me nor my country.

Louis VI the Fat

03-20-2007, 21:19

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/us/18protest.html?_r=2&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) even said their were only a few hundred war supporters present:
Uh, no they did not. In an article about the anti-war march the NYT simply says that this march met several hundred counterdemonstrators before their march, and about 50 some time later.
They didn't make any estimate whatsoever about the size of war supporters present. They simply related the march they were reporting about, and are not at all silent about their encountering pro-war groups.

As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the antiwar movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counterdemonstrators. Many were veterans in biker jackets who said they had come to protect the nearby Vietnam Memorial, citing rumors that had circulated among veterans groups that the demonstrators planned to deface it.

Crossing the bridge toward the Pentagon, the marchers met another group of about 50 counterdemonstrators by the Arlington Cemetery, one holding a sign that said: “Go to hell traitors. You dishonor our dead on hallowed ground.”

Somehow saying you support someone, but not what they're doing and you want them to give up and stop doesn't really sound like you're supporting them.I support a friend of mine who's an alcoholic by disagreeing with what he's doing and urging him to give it up. :book:

I long ago gave up on expecting Africans to draw correct conclusions about things, these days I'm willing to settle for blacks just grasping the general idea. Wait, did you say Africans or Americans? Oh well if it's Americans I guess it's okay to make such a sweeping statement. Never mind then. :shame:___

Devastatin Dave

03-20-2007, 21:37

Kralizec

03-20-2007, 22:07

Lemur

03-20-2007, 22:30

Well, that seems to confirm "truth has a well-known liberal bias"
In this case, apparently it does. I think our dear CR is going to have to back off this li'l thing:

Despite the National Park Service's estimate of 30,000 people. I guess the NYT can't be bothered to ask someone who's not horribly biased.
It seems that the NYT did its job just fine, whereas Malkin and Gathering of Eagles (is that name for real?) are guilty of, at the very least, mis-representing their sources.

[edit]

Did they take their name from this?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/200px-Gathering_of_Eagles_poster.jpg

Adrian II

03-20-2007, 22:36

Oh piffle. What truly disappoints me is that Malkin woman. She's not good-looking at all.

In fact she's damn ugly. :whip:

Lemur

03-20-2007, 22:45

What, you Dutchies don't go for the sultry Filipina look?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/michelle-malkin.jpg

ShadeHonestus

03-20-2007, 22:47

I'd take a swing at that...but it would probably result in a check swing ruled on by the first base ump.

Watchman

03-21-2007, 00:39

:laugh4: ~:rolleyes:

These threads get better and better. Generalizations about certain groups of people are good!Glad it makes you happy. And wouldn't it be creepy if I was too perfect ? :verycool:

Crazed Rabbit

03-21-2007, 06:16

In this case, apparently it does. I think our dear CR is going to have to back off this li'l thing:

It seems that the NYT did its job just fine, whereas Malkin and Gathering of Eagles (is that name for real?) are guilty of, at the very least, mis-representing their sources.

The NYT that asked biased parties for information? That relied solely on the anti-war people's statements? The NYT that did no research for itself, and seemingly didn't have even a reporter there?!

That's good journalism?

Or good editorializing, which is all the NYT really does now?

Lemur, nothing you posted says a darned thing about unofficial estimates. I'm not going to back off that estimate yet.

Because I have such respect for them and for their lives, I don't want to see their lives thrown away in a war that I believe benefits neither me nor my country.

They are the ones fighting, and they are the ones volunteering, and continuing to reenlist. They are the ones doing all the work, and might have different beliefs than you.

Crazed Rabbit

Lemur

03-21-2007, 06:45

The NYT that asked biased parties for information? That relied solely on the anti-war people's statements?
The biased parties appear to be the police (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2007/mar/18/031806852.html), who are the only people on record giving out estimates of crowd sizes. I haven't been able to find any number from anyone else who isn't directly connected to one of the protests.

Police no longer give official estimates but said privately that perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war demonstrators marched, with a smaller but still sizable number of counterprotesters also out in force.

Feel the bias.

Lemur, nothing you posted says a darned thing about unofficial estimates. I'm not going to back off that estimate yet.
Then it's on you to source the "unofficial" estimate, 'cause right now it looks like a complete and utter fabrication. Reminds me of the silliness over the "Million Man March," frankly.

Adrian II

03-21-2007, 12:55

Feel the bias.Go Lemur! ~;)

However, there may be a misunderstanding underlying all of this. If the police says there were 10,000 to 20,000 antiwar demonstrators plus a 'sizeable contingent' of counterprotesters, this would add up to about 30,000 demonstrators in all. Quite possibly the NPS official who unofficially mentioned 30,000 was talking about this grand total. His remark may have been overheard but not digested by the ugly woman with the surly look.

Just my two dollar.

Goofball

03-21-2007, 16:56

Because I have such respect for them and for their lives, I don't want to see their lives thrown away in a war that I believe benefits neither me nor my country.They are the ones fighting, and they are the ones volunteering, and continuing to reenlist. They are the ones doing all the work, and might have different beliefs than you.

With all due respect to members of the military (of your country and mine), deciding which wars to fight for the benefit of their nation is "above their pay grade." That is one of the most important cornerstones of modern democracies:

The will of the people (via their civilian elected officials) decides when and where the military will be used.

The soldiers on the ground might have a better idea about what the tactical situation is, but when it comes to deciding the importance of the conflict as a whole (i.e. is this war worth fighting), their opinions have no more validity or importance than those of any other citizens.

Crazed Rabbit

03-21-2007, 16:56

The biased parties appear to be the police (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2007/mar/18/031806852.html), who are the only people on record giving out estimates of crowd sizes. I haven't been able to find any number from anyone else who isn't directly connected to one of the protests.

Are we reading the same article?

As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the antiwar movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counterdemonstrators. Many were veterans in biker jackets who said they had come to protect the nearby Vietnam Memorial, citing rumors that had circulated among veterans groups that the demonstrators planned to deface it.

That doesn't sound like the police. You've nothing to support your point that the NYT was doing good reporting, which is what your quoted post was allegedly responding to.

Then it's on you to source the "unofficial" estimate, 'cause right now it looks like a complete and utter fabrication. Reminds me of the silliness over the "Million Man March," frankly.

And what sort of source do you have? The article in your link? Some completely anonymous source that the writer says said a certain thing?

Police no longer give official estimates but said privately that perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war demonstrators marched, with a smaller but still sizable number of counterprotesters also out in force. An hour into the three-hour Pentagon rally, with the temperature near freezing, protesters had peeled away to a point where fewer than 1,000 were left.

That offers no backing for your claim, certainly no more than the GoE estimate.

:rolleyes:
CR

Lemur

03-21-2007, 17:28

And what sort of source do you have? The article in your link?
I've posted links to reports about the NPS not giving any estimates to anyone. I've posted links that contain quotes from the police. As far as documentation goes, it's Lemur 2, Gathering of Eagles 0.

That offers no backing for your claim, certainly no more than the GoE estimate.
Um, that's an interesting perspective. GoE claims that the NPS gave them an "unofficial" estimate of 30k. That number can't be substantiated anywhere. I'm not really clear how my research on this subject is equivalent to them pulling a number out of their nether regions. Are we indulging in a bit of factual relativism?

Look, it's not like I really care. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't see the point to protests. They may have served their purpose in the civil rights campaign of the sixties, but these days protests just seem outdated. The only thing that interests me here is the fact that GoE and Malkin made a big whoop about how their numbers were mis-reported by the MSM, while in fact they have absolutely nothing of substance to back up their claim.

In other words, they're screaming that others are lying, but their basis for saying so does not exist. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

You know I love you, CR, but in this case the people you're defending are misguided at the very least.

[edit]

Here's what Malkin writes on her blog:

Heidi at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more.
Shall we accuse her of sloppiness (for not checking her facts) or straight-up misrepresentation?

And once again, for emphasis, GoE still has this up at their website:

the first unofficial NPS estimate of the Eagle turn-out today… 30,000! That figure may be adjusted upward as more figure are tallied during the week.