What a historic event Obama's inauguration was, absolutely world changing. Everyone loves Obama, he has the whole country eating out of his hand. Conservatism is dead, Liberalism is the way of the future... Except, wait... "The Obama inauguration was watched by 37.8 million, second only to Reagan’s 41.8 million in 1981." -tv by the numbersWait folks, this isn't right. The Messiah is groundbreaking, he is the future. Surely some old conservative "fascist" from the religious cook fringe couldn't have beaten out The One... Except, oh yeah, that's right, Obama didn't win by a landslide. And, oh yeah, conservatism isn't dead, and will never die, so long as we stand up for our conservative values.
It is difficult to include internet viewer numbers, as those are global, and harder to accurately count, since there is no uniform system (like televisions Neilsen ratings). Also, how many people would have watched Reagan's inauguration on the internet had it been available, while they were at work, etc; that could have really boosted Reagan's numbers. So to make it as accurate, and fair as possible, one must exclude the unreliable internet numbers.
"News sites worldwide spiked at 5.4 million visitors per minute during Obama's swearing in, with North America accounting for 4.6 million of the users.
That ranks fifth on content-delivery network Akamai's measurement of online traffic events, behind Day 1 of U.S. college basketball playoff coverage in 2006 (ranked fourth), then again in 2008 (ranked third). The U.S. getting eliminated by Ghana in the 2006 World Cup ranks second. " -thrfeed.com
Still, even if one was dead set on those 7 million +/- internet hits being included in the final numbers, consider this. Reagan was confirmed in 1981, Obama 2009. US population 1981: 229,465,714, US population 2009: 305,665,677. That's a difference of 76,199,963 more people available to watch Obama's inauguration. So, your telling me, that Obama, even with the internet, and with 76 million more citizens, was only able to muster up 3 million more viewers? Yes, yes, historical and groundbreaking.
One last thing. The Trash Was Historic, Too... 130 tons of inaugural garbage hauled away... Aren't these democrats? The party of the environment? The party of save the trees, save the bees, get on your knees we are all going to die from global warming? Hmmmm, seems a little hypocritical. There really should have been more recycle bins.
Castro 'believes in Obama'...
DICK MORRIS: HERE COMES SOCIALISM...
'This is a new era'...
CNN's Larry King: 'Black is in... my eight-year-old son wishes he was black'...
12 comments:
Yeah see, there's this thing we have now called the internet..
But obviously you know this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/20/tech/main4741768.shtml
Give it up already.
But as you know, we have this thing called geography. The internet, as you know, is available to people all over the world, including all the people that love Obama in Cuba, Kenya, France and Germany. So obviously, you can't count those numbers the same way you would neilsend ratings.
And, since you are obviously smart, you also know that I was talking about Americans, watching him on TV, not some cheese eating, surrender monkey in France watching the inauguration on his cell phone.
Give it up already.
Oh, so all us Americans who watched it on the internet don't count now? By the way, cheese is pretty tasty.
Fucking idiot.
Swearing makes you tough, and smart. You should pepper more profanity into your posts, it will make people respect you more.
Also, your not very bright. I simply said you can't accurately count internet hits, since those are global, and don't accurately represent US viewership.
Also, your not very bright. I simply said you can't accurately count internet hits, since those are global, and don't accurately represent US viewership.
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that it's very simple to determine the geographic location of anyone watching a video stream. Thus, it's very simple to tell how many people watched on the Internet from the US.
But don't let silly things like facts stop you -- you're doing a great job of showing everyone what a simpleton you really are.
Additionally:
It is difficult to include internet viewer numbers, as those are global, and harder to accurately count, since there is no uniform system (like televisions Neilsen ratings). Also, how many people would have watched Reagan's inauguration on the internet had it been available, while they were at work, etc; that could have really boosted Reagan's numbers. So to make it as accurate, and fair as possible, one must exclude the unreliable internet numbers.
Still, even if one was dead set on those 7 million internet hits being included in the final numbers, consider this. Regan was confirmed in 1981, Obama 2009. US population 1981: 229,465,714, US population 2009: 305,665,677. That's a difference of 76,199,963 more people available to watch Obama's inauguration. So, your telling me, that Obama, even with the internet, and with 76 million more citizens, was only able to muster up 3 million more viewers? Yes, yes, historical and groundbreaking.
Anonymous, see below for my response to your "argument."
I see, but your insulting response obviously elevates you above my level since you don't have a potty mouth. You are tough and smart. You are truly a genius.
Fucking idiot.
"I see, but your insulting response obviously elevates you above my level since you don't have a potty mouth. You are tough and smart. You are truly a genius.
Fucking idiot."
Glad you've seen the light, and admitted my genius.
Hey guess what Yoweigh? I love you! God bless!
The best way to "win" an argument is to change a couple variables until it fits into a winning argument for your side. For example: The Detroit Lion WOULD have won the super bowl this year had they run a better offense, possessed a better defense, won more games, and scored more points (the Lions went 0-16 this season). Of course the only people making that particular argument are disconnected, out-of-touch, crazy Lions fans. Unfortunately when viewed with an objective perspective it's impossible to say what would've been had certain things changed during the season. All that we can look at are the numbers, and not what might have been, or numbers that are completely unreliable.
In this case, the numbers...the OBJECTIVE numbers say that more Americans viewed the inauguration of Reagan than Obama. That's the objective standard used. While some Lions fans may say that they still have a good team because of talent, ability, or some "unmeasurable standard"; unfortunately, the objective numbers state otherwise. Along those same lines, some would like to say that Obama is the most popular president of ALL TIME!!! (Lincoln reincarnated) That more people would watch, and did watch the inauguration than any other president of ALL TIME!!! However, those are just the disconnected, out-of-touch, crazy Obama fans attempting to add to the objective standard with some "unmeasurable" number to bolster the outcome.
There's no use in a Lions fan saying their team is actually the best team in the NFL because of some unquantifiable ability, and there's no use in saying more Americans watched Obama because of some unquantifiable and unreliable number theorized by the liberals at CBS News.
Don't worry, I secretly love you too. :)
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.
While you're at it, visit our message boards!