See what I mean about effeminate rethugs?
Look at Riehl’s soft fleshy face, so milkmaid like.
Republicans are just the party of the sexually insecure.They can’t help their madness.

See, that’s why they shouldn’t give prizes for math and science. Math and science are objectively anti-wingnut, and thus no fair. See!

I… I…. that’s just stunning.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©:

The first paragraph mentioned Muhammed and contained arabic script. I haven’t read the article, but clearly this Al-Gebra is out to kill us!

Dan, you ignorant slut….

Dan fails to take into account that these older women had moms and aunts who who couldn’t vote when they were of age. But hey, probably in his mind the old are useless and irrelevant and should be collected in wheelbarrows and carted off to the dump.

Btw, Herman Munster was cute and nice – not at all like Dan!

I am constantly amazed that an asshat like this gets paid to attempt to think.

GIVE HIM TEH SAMMICH!

Tragically for the commonweal, Riehl’s fervent perfervid followers are no better at math than he is. They, and he, will go right on believing that Dan pwned those 95-year-old hos!

On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton were to challenge Dan Riehl to a thumb-wrestling contest, live and on camera, in defence of the ladies in question… well, the Riehl-world watchers aren’t capable of ‘second thoughts’ (since they have no first thoughts) but it might increase her poll ratings.

God he is a stupid fucker. What does “stretching the narrative on suffrage” even mean? Nothing. He’s just pissy because he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

The fuck?! What the hell is that thing next to Herman Munster?!

That one was just too easy.

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

IMHO Riehl is trying to make the point that there aren’t *that* many people still alive who were born before 1920 — so he’s suspicious that enough of them talk to Hillary Clinton, and then secondarily in this particular hopeful way, to lead her to describe having talked to “all these women.” That would explain why he’s juggling terms like “a few women” and “likely isn’t a single woman Hillary has encountered.” He’s less interested in “born” and “vote” than he is in “all.” But the way he builds the point, it seems like he really wanted to spring the gotcha by checking the age math, came up empty, and put together this point as a second bite at the apple.

So, is his problem that he can’t read, or that he can’t count?

Oh, that’s right: he’s a conservative. Those poor, poor people.
.

He can’t write, that much is certain. There’s something stilted and fucked up with his grammar, as if English wasn’t his first language. Fer example, this sentence: “But below the headlines rests the real challenge for a freedom loving democracy fighting terrorism, especially in the Internet age.” And “But I wouldn’t want to use eliminationist rhetoric, or anything. The Libs get a hard on every time someone on the Right, does.”

It’s as if, Dan, doesn’t know what, a comma, is actually supposed to do, in a sentence. And this low-wattage schlep gets to be on TV?

I’m beginning to think this guy might be another guy who blows every goat in sight, like Mickey Kaus.

although, frankly, you don’t have to “do any math” to figure out that 1912 comes before 1920

Yes, you do. You have to be able to figure out if the alligator wants to eat the 1912 or the 1920.

Ouch.

How long before CNN gives him his own show?

That is the most punchable face I have ever seen.

To be fair to Dan, English may have taken illegal steroids. The screening process for the participants in these person vs. language wrestling matches is still in its infancy.

On the other hand, why be fair to Dan?

I read that and was literally left speechless…nay, breathless. My dog (is well over 90 in dog-years) is smarter than Dan Riehl. Jeesusmarynjosef help us.

Dan Riehl still can’t read.

And we got pWn3d by his leet math skillz, or some such thing.

What the hell…not everyone had a successful elementary school experience, what, with all that arithmetic and stuff. I sure hope he went to private school. Otherwise, the taxpayers have been ripped off. Ripped off, I say! We demand our money back! Where’s Malkin when you need her? This is an outrage!

Don’t you all know that writing English good and being able to count right is all liberal elitist constructs?

I just heard that Dan blows dead goats. Do the math.

*sigh*

Am I the first one to notice this?

there likely isn’t a single woman Hillary has encountered while campaigning who was ever prevented from voting for her gender

“Voting for her gender’? As in, voting for a female? Golly, I’d say there likely isn’t a single American woman alive today who hasn’t been “prevented from voting for her gender” by way of having, umm, like, no women present on the ballot at some point in their voting experience.

As an aside, WTF does he think he’s proving by way of that rebuttal to this post? There really is no there there.

Hey, I was right at 23:52. I can divine the intent of teh Riehl!

I’d say I’d be happy to provide more Riehl-to-English translation services, but, then again, that would mean I’d have to read Dan Riehl.

anyone remember shirley chisholm?

This level of stupid no longer amuses me, but terrifies.
These people have guns, hatred, a lack of capacity to reason, and no impulse control. Plus, they’ve been conditioned over the last 15 years to think the likely next president is going to cut their tiny, vestigial, penises off.
Not good.

there likely isn’t a single woman … who was ever prevented from voting for her gender

If people are allowed to vote for their gender, then I vote to be neuter from now on.
[/grammar pedant]

It really is amazing how much right wing blogging is basically ” I don’t believe this”

Dan has zero information regarding HIlary Clinton’s encounters with old ladies on the campaign trail. ZERO. But hey, he hates Hilary, and needs to post something, and, sadly, “I don’t believe this” isn’t going to cut it. There are hamsters to feed after all. So he dresses it up in a bunch of repetitve – and poorly phrased – sentences, but at the end of the day, he isn’t contributing anything. He isn’t offering, literally, anything, except “I don’t believe this.”

thank you rightwing blogosphere.

IMHO Riehl is trying to make the point that there aren’t *that* many people still alive who were born before 1920

If he’s saying that, he’s dumber than I thought. Everyone alive today who’s older than 87 was born before women had the right to vote. Since seniors vote in larger numbers than the general population, it makes sense that Hillary would have gone to a few nursing homes while on the campaign trail, and there are a lot (not the majority, but still) of 87+-year-old people in nursing homes.

I sure hope he went to private school. Otherwise, the taxpayers have been ripped off.

Isn’t that what home-schooling is for? I mean, preserving the godly “innocence” of Riehls who might otherwise be driven to learn basic arithmetic, if only so they could participate in pickup basketball games? (Although IIRC Little Ricky Santorum managed to pyramid his offsprings’ homeschooling into large undeserved tax breaks as well.)

Hey, unfrozen caveman lawyer ‘was born’ in a time before math was important.

why are we surprised. The default setting for RW bloggers is a) stupid, b) dishonest and C) REALLY stupid. It’s not a bug, it’s a damn feature!

It really is amazing how much right wing blogging is basically ” I don’t believe this”

And, equally, how fucking trivial. So what’s his point? Stop the presses! Was it “large” numbers of elderly women, or “sort of large” or maybe “a little bit large” or maybe “some”? Oh, Hoh!! Gotcha, Hillary!!!

And, as Chemist points out, I’m sure candidates tend to visit a lot of elderly voters, seeing as how they…er…vote.

I am repeatedly told that people cannot drive when they are born, but then I go out my front door and see people driving all the time, and unless they want me to believe that they are able to drive before they are born, they must be lying.

Bullshit. I call serious, steamy chunky bullshit here.

Dan Rielh is a sales director for a tech company (according to his bio). So WTF is he getting face time on CNN for his wingnut bullshit? What super special background does this retarded sea slug have that a major news outlet allows him to bloviate on any topic whatsoever, much less politics, much less an attack on Hillary Clinton?

Liberal media my shiny pink ass.

What a Riehl dumbass.
ROFLMAO!

I thought he was saying that the “born before womens’ suffrage” thing doesn’t count because they were allowed the vote by the time they were old enough. Since they were not actually legally prevented from voting because of their gender, the whole “born before” thing is, y’know, bogus or something. Uh, HITLERY!

I think what he meant was, Since I don’t give a damn that women couldn’t vote until 1920, no one else could give a damn either and they’re lying if they say they do.

Or maybe just, I thought I backed over that old lady and her walker…wonder what that is stuck in my bumper?

As much as I hate to say this … I think Riehl is right in this instance and Sadly No is wrong. I think that a fair reading of his original post is that it is unlikely that a large number of elderly women (at least 87) are attending HRC’s campaign events. Sadly No doesn’t attack this premise, but rather states that Riehl is stupid because he didn’t comprehend HRC’s point (or something). I have never been to a campaign event, so I can’t judge Riehl’s premise (maybe scores of women in their late 80s attend HRC’s events), but Riehl’s premise, offered as an opinion, doesn’t seem beyond the pale.

Also, I would posit that he meant to say “ever prevented from voting because of her gender” rather than “ever prevented from voting for her gender”.

Longtime lurker, first time posting, so be gentle.

With Hillary’s unimpeachable track record regarding “Vast right wing conspiracies”, her claims of being named after Sir Edmund Hillary well before he made his famous treks and the like, well, her claims now certainly Must be true that she met “all those” women in their 90’s who are so hoping a fellow womyn will be President.. since these women themselves were never denied the right to vote. Sharp as marbles you are

Riehhly Smarter Dan: If there’s no women alive today who could not vote for President, why bother with a woman president ?

I think that a fair reading of his original post is that it is unlikely that a large number of elderly women (at least 87) are attending HRC’s campaign events. Sadly No doesn’t attack this premise, but rather states that Riehl is stupid because he didn’t comprehend HRC’s point (or something). I have never been to a campaign event, so I can’t judge Riehl’s premise (maybe scores of women in their late 80s attend HRC’s events) — JAFL
—

So what are you talking about ??? HRC has been to her candidate events. Dan Riehl has not. You haven’t. But you and Dan Riehl know much more about who has shown up to Hillary Clinton’s campaign events than she does.

Will you please start a blog !!???

This is exactly why homeschooling cannot substitute for riehl education. I mean real education.

“Sadly No doesn’t attack this premise, but rather states that Riehl is stupid because he didn’t comprehend HRC’s point.”
—
He didn’t. And neither do you, apparently.

HRC’s point is that she has met in the campaign women who, when they were born, were deprived of the right to vote. And these women have told HRC that for this specific reason they are very excited that they may actually see a woman elected president in 2008, ie. in their lifetimes.

Is that a very difficult concept to understand ?

it is unlikely that a large number of elderly women (at least 87) are attending HRC’s campaign events….I have never been to a campaign event, so I can’t judge Riehl’s premise (maybe scores of women in their late 80s attend HRC’s events),

Well, I appreciate that you disqualified yourself so soon after making your assertion, so we don’t have to do it for you.

You have never attended a campaign event. So – what expertise makes you assert that it’s unlikely a large number of elderly women attend?

Do you doubt that elderly women are politically active? Who staffs your polling place, if you don’t mind my asking? In my experience, voting in over 5 separate locations since I turned voting age, it’s generally elderly women.

What’s a “large number?” Frankly, if Hillary had even a dozen similar encounters with elderly ladies expressing the same sentiment for the amount of time since the campaign started, that would be a significant cultural point.

And, further, what is it that makes you knowledgeable about how elderly women view the progress women have made in the 20th century?

Let me tell you, you would seriously not want to come up against my mother in law with such unfounded presumptions. She’d kick your ass into next Sunday.

While this smackdown has been the usual fun, it’s all a bit much. Wingnut commentators play to a wingnut audience, i.e. lower-middle-class white males with diminishing income potential. Just saying “Hilary Clinton” causes them such intense gonadal shrinkage, from merely small to painfully tiny, and their resultant anger at “uppity women” does the rest. Wingnut guy jabberers from Limbaugh on down through Medved to this bozo just have to surround her name with some words, that’s all; whether those words make any sense to the rest of us so-called users of “english” means nothing.

But hey, it is fun. Especially when the target likes to pretend to having a brain and all.

HRC’s point is that she has met in the campaign women who, when they were born, were deprived of the right to vote.

Goat, will you accept my gentle suggestion for a rewrite, for clarity’s sake?

“HRC’s point is that she has met in the campaign women who remember at the time when they were born that all women wer deprived of the right to vote.”

curved and Dan are also not taking into account that just because women were given the right to vote in a particular year, it doesn’t mean that there wasn’t lingering opposition to women’s voting, that would surely have sent a message to young women – even younger than those who are 87 now – that they shouldn’t be voting, that they couldn’t vote, that their votes were less informed or less worthy than the votes of men.

Is it significant to women of that era that a woman is running for president now? Damn straight! It’s a pretty simply concept – and, also, quite a non-controversial and non-partisan one.

It’s just fucking idiots like Dan who nitpick for any detail to criticize Democrats, and especially Hillary, who would bother to dispute it.

This seems kind of obvious, and maybe that’s why no one has mentioned it: at of a random population of 1,000, how many will be women in their late 80’s or older? One? Two? Three? And in a nonrandom population, say campaign event attendees where presmably older people tend to be over-represented with respect to the general population, how many would there be? Four? Five? Six? More? And those of those campaign event attendees who donate time, manpower or money?

And how many 1,000’s of people has she done the meet & greet with? Twenty? Thirty? Forty?

I suspect that the question should be turned around: how probable would it be that Ms. Clinton would not meet any women, aged 88 or older who would make this observation?

I think you are brave just for turning CNN on. Also, a time waster beyond belief!!!

He didn’t. And neither do you, apparently.

HRC’s point is that she has met in the campaign women who, when they were born, were deprived of the right to vote. And these women have told HRC that for this specific reason they are very excited that they may actually see a woman elected president in 2008, ie. in their lifetimes.

Is that a very difficult concept to understand ?

Lafou, I’m afraid I’ve been thinking.
A dangerous pastime–
I know.

Why didn’t the women born before 1920 just look in their future history books which would tell them that they would be getting the vote in 1920, just like we know they did today?

Is Hillary trying to suggest that there is some difference between living at one time and knowing the future and living at another time and knowing the past? How could any smart women alive before 1920 not know that in 1920 women would get the vote?

In the same way black people born before 1965 should have easily known that their voting rights would be federally protected in 1965, because it is easy for me to look up in a history book that this is what happened and I see no reason that people in 1940 couldn’t look that up too.

Gosh!

This seems kind of obvious, and maybe that’s why no one has mentioned it: at of a random population of 1,000, how many will be women in their late 80’s or older?

Ten.
The 2000 census says that there are roughly three million women who are age 85+. The U.S. population is about 300 million. So, one out of every hundred people is a woman aged 85+.

Given the huge amount of events Hillary does and the fact that the elderly flock to political events, Hillary has met a lot of women over 87.

You’d think someone who’s frequently on CNN would bother to look this up, but that would require Riehl to be smarter than a bag of hammers.

Gawd help me for sticking up for a right winger but I really think Riehl has you on this one…sorry!!

Look what he says in the quote..

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

He says “the dates jibe but does..”

I think he is clearly acknowledging that elderly women in this position exist but questions the claim of large numbers of them talk to Hillary about this.

His attack on Hillary without any facts to back up his claim still suggest he is a piece of crap but I kind of have to go with him on this one point.

As an aside, WTF does he think he’s proving by way of that rebuttal to this post?

My guess? That he wangled a gig as “talking head” with CNN because he never did grasp the concept of res judicata.

If you were born in 1912 you’d be 21 (voting age) in 1933.

Just saying.

“Keepin’ it Riehl!” as Chris Rock says, “Yeah, Riehl dumb.”

The message I took from HRC’s very simple anecdote was that women were denied the right to vote not too long in the past. In fact, so recent that HRC has met women on the campaign trail who were born at a time when women in the U.S. were prohibited by law from voting.

What is astounding is why Riehl et al. even took time to mention this, let alone question it. Why? Besides showing an irrational dislike for HRC it shows an oddly flippant disdain for the very important and shameful fact that women in the U.S. were prohibited by law from voting for much of this country’s history. It’s just a profoundly childish and spiteful view of the world.

Dans Purty.

Paddy Mac’s comment, “Wingnut guy jabberers from Limbaugh on down through Medved to this bozo just have to surround her name with some words, that’s all” — is great.

It reminded me immediately of the famous Larsen cartoon…the one with the dog getting a lecture from a human. The bubble above the human’s head as all sorts of admonitory words; the one above the dog’s head has “Blah blah Spot blah blah blah blah Spot…,” (or something like that). Riehl’s audience, it seems, responds to “Blah blah blah Hillary blah blah blah…”

Of course, I wouldn’t want to insult dogs, who are generally caring, loving, sweet and generally wonderful, unlike Mr. Riehl and his putative audience.

Dan Riehl is a sales director for a tech company

Well, then. That explains a whole bunch right there.

Maybe someone suggested this upthread, but Dan’s commentary is as head-exploding as what passes for prose from Pammy the Atlas Shrew.

Lefty opinionators are so much better. They also don’t do inadvertent funny, as Dan does.

What is astounding is why Riehl et al. even took time to mention this, let alone question it. Why? Besides showing an irrational dislike for HRC it shows an oddly flippant disdain for the very important and shameful fact that women in the U.S. were prohibited by law from voting for much of this country’s history. It’s just a profoundly childish and spiteful view of the world – Politically Correct Goat

See, now you are attacking his premise. That I understand. My point was that Sadly No was stating he was stupid and couldn’t do the math. I disagreed with that assesment of his post. I never questioned HRC’s assertion. And I qualified myself by stating that I had never been to an event in hopes that it was clear that I wasn’t challenging her assertion (“maybe scores of women in their late 80s attend HRC’s events”). I’m not supporting Riehl … I just don’t think his statement is wrong for the reasons Sadly No pointed out.

As to g … I didn’t say it was my premise. In re-reading my post and in knowing what I meant, I’m not sure why you took offense. I was only attempting to state his meaning, not offer any implicit or tacit support. If in my attempt I was vague or unclear, I apologize for the confusion.

So Dan Riehl’s entire premise is that Hillary is a lying liar because she used the words “all these women in their nineties”? Hey, curvy, you’re a Riehlian, maybe you can tell me: How many is “all these”? How many women in their nineties would Hillary have to talk to at her campaign events before you and Dan would consider her comment to be believable?

Sorry … my beyond the pale statement. Forgot about that. Didn’t mean to imply that I support Riehl’s assertion. Rather, the argument that it is unlikely that a lot of elderly women attend HRC’s events is not something I read and think “obvious BS”.

My 83 year old mother can’t wait to vote for a woman. I am not a Hillary fan. On my last visit to Mom we talked about the coming election. She thinks it’s about time a woman was president and hoped she would have the opportunity for vote for Hillary. I’ve always thought Mom would be a CEO if she had been born 50 years later.

Wait…. see y’all are wrong. What Reihl meant to say was, if they’d been born in Wyoming they would have the vote. And since women in Wyoming had the vote there aren’t any women alive today who were born before women could vote (somewhere).

So Hillary is lying, Reihl is right and Gore didn’t invent the internets.

Nevermind what Riehl said, what the hell was his point?

Oh right – he didn’t have one.

PQuincy: It reminded me immediately of the famous Larsen cartoon…the one with the dog getting a lecture from a human. The bubble above the human’s head as all sorts of admonitory words; the one above the dog’s head has “Blah blah Spot blah blah blah blah Spot…,” (or something like that). Riehl’s audience, it seems, responds to “Blah blah blah Hillary blah blah blah…”

“Blah blah Ginger” is a sufficient trigger for this delightful cartoon.

Anybody else mutter “Midvale School for the gifted” when encountering a door that doesn’t swing the “right” way?

…or walk by a dryer and mutter “Oh please…oh please”

Since HRC is a Wellesley College alumna, I’m sure she’s very tied into the network–which would mean potentially a lot of elderly alumnae mobilized for her campaign. Even one gathering with older alumnae or a meeting with alumne in each city she visits would put her in contact with “all these women in their nineties”.

“John McCain may have hit upon a fun way to combat the idea that he’s too old at 71 — he’s bringing his mother Roberta McCain, a healthy 95-year old, out on the campaign trail.

“It’s a thrill for me to be invited to tag along,” said the elder McCain to a South Carolina retirement community, before her son gave a speech about the problems facing Social Security and Medicare.” – from 10/18/07 TPM Election Central

I don’t doubt that John McCain may have had a mother at SOME point in his life, but I have a hard time believing that an old person could have an OLDER person (his mother, no less!) out saying wurdz and, uh, doing teh math and…

Publius Servetus must have gone and read the thread over at Riehl’s, where one of his defenders leaped in and won the day by making a crack about Al Gore inventing the internet. The idea being that while we’re shaking our heads slowly, they’ll run up and kick us in the nuts, I guess.