Guilty Pleasures: Sadly No!

Sorry to see a failed effort from one of the few Lefty blogs I read. It's ironic, as just last night I was showing a friend their "greatest hits" on me and we were in tears laughing. Politics aside, talent is talent and when it comes to wit and sarcasm, Sadly No is, imo, one of the funniest blogs around, even if I am a frequent target along with other Right-side bloggers.

Unfortunately, their latest effort fails:

Poor Dan Riehl. He’s always struggling with abstract concepts and the English language. Today he tried to do a gotcha on Hillary that went hilariously awry because he seems confused over the words “born” and “vote.” See for yourself:

Yes, please do see for yourself. Pssst - guys, that bit I wrote about the dates jibing? Obviously I did the Math correctly, you just over reached going for the laughs. I was only questioning Hillary's casting it as some great wave of support. You're better than that. I realize Libs are bad when it comes to reading comprehension but I expect more from you. Next time, try harder. You can do it.

The dates jibe but does the narrative, especially to support her claim of large numbers of women expressing such a sentiment?

I don't doubt that there may be a few women "in walkers" who might think that way, but given that there likely isn't a single woman Hillary has encountered while campaigning who was ever prevented from voting for her gender and a 95 year-old woman was given that Right when she was 8 years-old, I have a hard time believing her on the road encounters rise to the level she suggests in the narrative she constructed for The View.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

hehe. I'm not sure which impresses me more. That you got burned or that you'd make a long-winded post that basically says "Nuh-uh! You're stupider!"

Freak'n awesome. Keep it coming.

[The Disgruntled Chemist]

But Dan, Hillary didn't say that she talked to women who were of voting age in 1920 (and thus prevented from voting because they were women). She says that she talked to women who were born when it was illegal for a woman to vote. These are two vastly different claims.

You've debunked the claim that Hillary talks to lots of 105 year old women, which is a claim that nobody made. You have not debunked (nor can you debunk) the claim that Hillary talks to lots of women between the ages of 87 and 104, which she did effectively make. Every single person now in their 90s was born before women had the right to vote. Read your excerpt - this is exactly the language Hillary used.

Just say you're wrong, Dan, that you misunderstood the words used. It's no great shame.

[Dan Riehl]

"But Dan, Hillary didn't say that she talked to women who were of voting age"

I never said she did, I thought you guys were good at "nuance" Duh! Come on, read my entire post. you guys are simply blinded by partisanship.

[The Disgruntled Chemist]

What other reason could you have for writing this:

"but given that there likely isn't a single woman Hillary has encountered while campaigning who was ever prevented from voting for her gender and a 95 year-old woman was given that Right when she was 8 years-old"

than to make the point that people who were "prevented from voting for her gender" aren't prevalent at Hillary campaign stops? Why does it matter how old a 95 year old woman was when women were given the right to vote? She was alive, so Hillary's statement makes total sense. You have to remember that these women had mothers, aunts and grandmothers who were prevented from voting because they were women. It's not like women who weren't old enough to vote in 1920 were too young to know what the situation was.

[elmo]

So, Dan, if your point was not that those women, being 8 years old when the amendment was passed, would not have been denied the right to vote, what was it?

[Dan Riehl]

"what was it?"

Watch the video and actually read my post - pay particular attention to highlighted text - which is why we highlight things, after all.

1) I never claimed Hillary quoted women who were denied the vote - I correctly referenced their DOB vs the date of the Amendment and said I doubt her claim of "large numbers" of people expressing that to her added up.

All I suggested was that she expanded what may be one or two anecdotes into a sort of grand narrative with her language, "large groups of people" all designed to re-kindle thoughts of suffrage and align herself with those sentiments, which, I'd argue, don't really apply that much today.

No where in my post did I accuse her of mis-stating the underlying facts. She's spinning you and you can't even see it. God, you people must be desperate for a Presidential win. How long before the Chi-born? NY Senator tells you she's really from "Hope," and you eat that up, too.

[Dan Riehl]

BTW - read the key phrase which Sadly No actually quoted and then just ignored or missed:

"The dates jibe but does the narrative, especially to support her claim of large numbers of women expressing such a sentiment?

[ben]

Dan is just the gift that keeps on giving. It's just not stupid unless it's Riehl stupid. That's the gold standard.

[some guy]

so then, uh, wtf is "do the math" supposed to mean?

or, more specifically, why, o why, does this line: "95 year old woman would have been born in 1912. The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. Do the Math." exist??

[Dan Riehl]

What's sad is how petty so many of you Lefties are. Shame really, I link to the blog, admit at how talented I find the blogger, yet, all the idiots clicking here want to do is attack because they think they're scoring points, or something. You were wrong on this one and display no grace in handling it.

Whatevah ....

[Joshua James]

It's pretty clear what you wrote, and even clearer now that you are trying to say you didn't write what we can all plainly see you wrote.

Clinton (and I should add, I'm definitely not a fan of her) maintains she meets woman who were born before women were given the right to vote. She specifically says the age 95 to underline it.

Okay.

You pooh-pooh her statement and insinuate she didn't meet anyone such as she says, which she did, and you suggest (in your written words) that a 95 year old woman who was born in 1912 had the right to vote at that time, because the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920! As you say "Do the Math!"

Um, we did the math. Doesn't add up to what you think it means. May I suggest Strunk and White's Elements of Style? Because evidently what you think you mean when you write isn't what it actually means once the words are put together.

And can I add, it's this kind of basic, core dishonesty of meaning that really, really irritates the masses of people who are neither completely liberal or completely conservative. Most middle of the road people have ideas of both . . . . but they hate adjective dishonesty. The right wing pundits seem to take great glee in that type of hypocracy and that's why people are not trusting right wing neocons anymore.

You messed up. You made a mistake. Be a man and own up to it.

[curvedbrain]

"You pooh-pooh her statement and insinuate she didn't meet anyone such as she says"

Now here's a problem with basic English reading comprehension that Sadly No complains of. Dan never said nor did he suggest that Hillary didn't meet "anyone" alive when women were denied to vote. But those strawmen are so cute, aren't they?

Dan did stay that Hillary seemed to overstate their numbers, especially since a 95 yr. old woman today would have been 8 when women were given the right to vote. Math is a tricky thing, best left to Republicans. Which, give the math, Hillary's choice of words, "all these women in their 90's", is almost certainly another textbook Hillary exaggeration.. like "vast Right wing conspiracy" and this Hillary whopper http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp

It's who she is.

[curvedbrain]

"And can I add, it's this kind of basic, core dishonesty of meaning that really, really irritates the masses of people"

Are you referring to jackasses such as yourself who write outlight lies like this?:

"You pooh-pooh her statement and insinuate she didn't meet anyone such as she says"

[ch2]

"Are you referring to jackasses such as yourself who write outlight lies like this?"

No he meant someone like you. Hope that helped.

[Joshua James]

Exactly what ch2 said, and I would add I'm not afraid to sign my name and take responsibility for what I write and say.

[Lala]

I wonder about her "all these women in their nineties"
statement.

How many women are there in their nineties who go to political meetings? Do they get bused out of the nursing homes?

All the old people I used to know are all dead.

[Joshua James]

And I would add, curved, that anyone who can read basic english can understand this to be a very confused and incorrect sentence:

"95 year old woman would have been born in 1912. The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. Do the Math."

Trying to tell me how bad Clinton is (no matter how much I would agree, and I do) does not clarify or nullify the core wrongness of that sentence.

Listen, it's a mistake. If he'd just owned up to his own miscommunication, there wouldn't be a problem . . . instead he's doing exactly what so many accuse Bill Clinton of - depends on what definition of "is" is . . . and it's dishonest.

[curvedbrain]

"Listen, it's a mistake"

What you made was a mistake. A big one. You accused Dan, falsely, of saying accusing Hillary of never having met ANYONE of that age. He never said it. He never suggested it. You lied, or you made a mistake but are too dishonorable to own up to it.. take your pick which one.

Since you're so keen on telling others to take responsibility for one's own writings, you might own up to your own words.

[curvedbrain]

"Exactly what ch2 said, and I would add I'm not afraid to sign my name and take responsibility for what I write and say."

You mean like "ch2" whom you praise?

[g]

So, Dan, what was so offensive about my post that you had to delete it? The fact that I told you that even if you were to get the benefit of the doubt about your "born" vs. "vote" wording, the whole issue is so trivial?

You're pathetic. I can't believe anyone would seriously be trying to "prove" by pure speculation that maybe a candidate used the phrase "large numbers" when she really should have said "medium numbers".

But you go on, fight the good fight.

Maybe you can debunk whether Fred Thompson said "a heckuva lot" instead of "a whole messa."

[Joshua James]

Actually curved, I said Dan "insinuated" so there you go . . . he certainly did that, and you certainly are not able to read, are you?

I didn't make a mistake, nor have you shown me where I have . . . I pointed out Dan wrote that . . . forget it . . . listen, it's in black and white everywhere, if you can't see the mistake, it's because you are willfully ignoring it.

And here's where you accuse me of the same - typical playbook for people who care less about ideas and more about sniping.

No wonder people who hate hilary (of which I am one) would rather chose a democrat over any team of which you dishonest folk belong to.

And yeah, I'd put ch2 in that category for not signing their name.

[Joshua James]

curved"brain"

"What you made was a mistake. A big one. You accused Dan, falsely, of saying accusing Hillary of never having met ANYONE of that age. He never said it. He never suggested it. You lied, or you made a mistake but are too dishonorable to own up to it.. take your pick which one."

Show me what, exactly then, Dan means by this sentence: "95 year old woman would have been born in 1912. The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. Do the Math."

Because there's an insinuation there that supports more my position than it does yours, which is why you try to ignore this sentence.

[LOL]

"neither completely liberal or completely conservative"

Speaking of using Strunk & White

NOR

Stupid libruls

[Dan Riehl]

"what was so offensive about my post"

The language.

[Sophist]

[BTW - read the key phrase which Sadly No actually quoted and then just ignored or missed:

"The dates jibe but does the narrative, especially to support her claim of large numbers of women expressing such a sentiment?"]

If the main point of your post was the relative scarcity of 90 year old women, how come all the math and the supporting citation have to with calculating age of women relative to the age of the 19th amendment? Shouldn't you have posted census data or similar?

[Sophist]

>>How many women are there in their nineties who go to political meetings? Do they get bused out of the nursing homes?

Yeah, old people are notorious for not voting or participating in political events, as opposed to the young, who can always be counted on to show up.

>>All the old people I used to know are all dead.

And it's not like they're a renewable resource or anything. It's not as though the 90 year olds of today are the 80 year olds of 10 years ago.

Pillock

[Lala]

Here is my clarified comment

All the old people, who were born before 1920, that I used to know, are dead. They ain't making them anymore.

BTW, WWII veterans are dying at the rate of 1200 per day, so soon I can say that I don't know too many people who were born before 1930.

[bob]

You goofed. But don't admit it. A man must never admit a mistake in front of women.

[John in Chicago]

Maybe you can debunk whether Fred Thompson said "a heckuva lot" instead of "a whole messa."

Posted by: g | Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 11:29 PM

LMFAO!

And that, is this whole debate in a [wing]nut-shell.

It comes down to either

a) Riehl was trying to manufacture a controversy where none existed

b) Riehl was purposely being disengenuous

c) Riehl is just not very intelligent.

d) All the above

[Jay B.]

BTW, WWII veterans are dying at the rate of 1200 per day, so soon I can say that I don't know too many people who were born before 1930.

Trying to outdo one another with stupid. I can say I don't know anyone who would make such a ridiculous claim in order to defend an equally stupid claim trying to misunderstand the point that 95 year old women were born at a time when women couldn't vote -- and yet I still understand that people like you exist, despite my good fortune that I don't have to know you.

95-year olds exist. They vote. And many of them are women. And after the carnival of idiocy here, I have no doubts they would be voting for Hillary.

[Terry Karney]

I read that, and you're wrong.

By way of analogy, I was born before the internet. It happened, but it took place after I was born. And now I get to use it. But no matter what happens, I was still born before it happened. It might even have shaped how I look at the world.

My grandmother was born before the vote was given to women (she was also born before the airplane). I think (now that I do the math) she wasn't ever denied the vote (it's a tight call, but the odds are Ohio didn't give people the franchise until they were 21, ergo she wouldn't have been eligible until 1923).

It's not partisan to see that you screwed up. What's stupid is that you are trying to paint your screw-up as something it isn't (a brilliant engagement in nuance to embarrass, "the Liberals" or whatever lame excuse you are peddling). It wasn't a subtle joke, it was an error of attention. You didn't think it through, tried to score a point on Clinton, and missed.

Better to take your lumps, learn the lesson and move on. But no, you have to keep digging.
So she was born before women had the vote, she was never denied the vote.

[Fred Beloit]

Boy, Terry, there are some dizzy whiners here but what in the hell is this supposed to mean?

"I was still born before it happened. It might even have shaped how I look at the world."

Does this mean we should vote write-in for Al Gore because he invented the internet after you were born and saved the world? Is this your message? No? Then tell us what was Hillery's point in making up this bogus story?

[dave]

Brownshirt gets popped for lying, starts whining.

In other news, sun sets in west...

[jj]

No, Fred, the message from Hillary is...who knows? It just sounded cool on The View. My question would be why would someone vote for a woman just because she was a woman. More liberal silliness, I guess. What a surprise.

[Fred Beloit]

Officious proclaims: "HRC says that she meets women in their nineties, who look forward to the day a woman is elected President, given the fact that when they were born a woman couldn't vote."

One stands, how shall I say it, in awe before the blinding glint of cold logic! (Partial thanks to Richard Harris, now deceased but not when he played English Bob in "Unforgiven".)

"In 1971 the United States ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18-20-year-olds."

Whenever I speak with someone born before 1971, they always tell me we need a constitutional amendment that would change the minimum age of qualification to be POTUS to 18. They look forward to a day when an 18-year-old can be elected Preseident, given the fact that when they were born an 18 to 20 year-old couldn't even vote.