Comments Bloopers Open Thread

by

Because no day is complete without an open thread, and because I stumbled across one of those comments that you’d learn how to hack comments and delete if you could, I declare a contest for the funniest (or most embarrassing, although these are frequently interchangeable) comments blooper.  The comment in question contained this, to this post over at Steve Verdon’s blog:

[SNIP]

The GOP during Clinton’s term had recently been the subject of THE
principle case of partisan judicial obstructionism (in their opinion),
so bad that the guy’s name became a verb for the practice: ‘to BORK’ a
nominee.

[/SNIP]

The response to this was…predictably brutal.

I’d like to self-nominate for a horrible math error I made over at JaneGalt’s place, but I can’t find it anymore.  Feel free to expose either yourselves or others for fools here, or, yanno, talk about anything  you want.

17 thoughts on “Comments Bloopers Open Thread”

  1. Well, generally speaking, I’ve always thought Obsidian Wings should have a comments box for everyone else and a bloopers box for me.

  2. Unfortunately, Slart, there isn’t anything incorrect in that comment. Read carefully. “The GOP…had been the subject of…” Where is the factual error there?
    The response was predictably inane, as RR’s responses always are.

  4. You have to read the comment in context with the post. Verdon had stated that Democrats shouldn’t obstruct justices because one day they might have a presidency facing a revenge-minded GOP Congress. The commentator is stating that we had exactly that situation during Clinton’s term, following a period in which Dems deep-sixed Bork, an action about which Republicans were still vocally angry throughout the 90s. The larger point was that Clinton, like Bush Jr., still managed to get most of his nominees approved.
    What is not said in that comment is that Bork was nominated under Clinton.

  5. It didn’t have to be not said, apostropher. The amount of reading between the lines one has to do to get that comment in the same star cluster as making sense is staggering, I maintain.

  6. Verdon had stated that Democrats shouldn’t obstruct justices because one day they might have a presidency facing a revenge-minded GOP Congress.

    I did no such thing.
    As for the comment Slart noted, I still don’t see it making much sense. Bork was nominated in 1987. Clinton didn’t start nominating till 1993 at the earliest. Hence there was a 6 lag between Bork and Clintion’s first nominee. Adding 6 to 2008 would put it well into the presidential term after the next one.

  8. I did no such thing.
    Sigh. “Another thing to consider is that after 2008 the Democrats might very well find themselves in control of the Presidency…or more accurately that a Democrat is occupying the White House and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. I wonder how many judges such a President would see confirmed? My guess is not many at all.”
    How finely must we split this hair?

  9. Right, I said it was something to consider, not that the Democrats should stop…at least for that reason. I’m not asking to split any hairs, but that you at least represent what I worte accurately.

  11. This, on the other hand, is so funny that I cried.
    I think I did laugh until I cried when I saw that…perhaps the funniest thing ever on TV.

  13. This, on the other hand, is an utter lie.
    Does that ever end?
    My favorite part was the typo “I’ll be hosest with you”
    That sort of superlative effort is what makes Lapland so spectial.

  15. No comments bloopers, but at the local paper I used to work at, they had a letter memorializing a recently deceased woman. The headline was supposed to read “Harris was a great lady.”
    They left out the “d”.

Comments are closed.