So long Bernie Sanders

[Uncensored2008]

That may be true --- but the present fossil came from Mother Jones magazine. Which kind of indicates its level of innocuousity, that is before the wags at MRC tried to frame it as bait for their gullibles.

Mother Jones, a far left rag that is notorious for their lack of integrity. And the Clinton Mob is known for having a "unique" relationship with the corrupt leftist press.

 

[Pogo]

That may be true --- but the present fossil came from Mother Jones magazine. Which kind of indicates its level of innocuousity, that is before the wags at MRC tried to frame it as bait for their gullibles.

Mother Jones, a far left rag that is notorious for their lack of integrity. And the Clinton Mob is known for having a "unique" relationship with the corrupt leftist press.

Think about that. I mean I know it's not your forte but think about it --- if MJ were going to take sides, which it might -- why would it side with a center-rightist over a leftist?

You should have actually read the MJ page.

 

[Kondor3]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

 

[Flash]

That idiot Sanders also defended the VA when the scandals were exposed last year.

He loves the idea of socialized medicine so much that he defend the government operated VA as a model for government supplied health care. He is even against the VA issuing vouchers for private care.

Check out this idiot's speech on the VA issue. It will make you puke as our veterans were dying.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

 

[Pogo]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

What I asked was HOW a hypothetical can be stretched into "I believe this about women".
Got no answer on that. Deflection no. 17 (unofficial count)

... and whether it can or not, how either makes a point in the present.
No answer there either, Deflection no. 18....

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

And -- what is it that "happened"?

 

[Borillar]

Sometimes they do in depth pieces that are really good. But, for those that are kicking up their little heels like they have something---they are going to be in for a rough ride.

This was released by the Clinton Crime Family - Sanders will be shredded.

Nah. Clinton isn't going to have the backlash from the right. She's going to have it from the left. If you think about it, all of these alleged scandals will have been taken apart by the right and they will be explained. She is having the right vet her. The right is not her problem.

I agree. The left does not want Hillary, they want a wingnut. Someone like Lizzie or Bernie or Che or Fidel.....

I don't know that wingnut is the right term. I, for one, would like to see more viable candidates on the Democratic side though. Hillary voted for the Iraq debacle and the Patriot Act. She's basically republican lite.

 

[Borillar]

It never ceases to amaze me when ....cough...."men" think they know what a woman thinks.

Seriously?!?

I find it positively predictable

You will never know what women think.

I dunno... They keep telling me what they think.

 

[Borillar]

Wow, now there's some impressive dirt digging. Someone had to actually scan microfiche to find that shit, now that's dedication.

True, going back 40+ years to find some obscure article shows some tremendous dedication to muckraking. In all fairness, both sides do this. I recall in the last Presidential cycle that Romney being a bully in school was brought up. I'm sure that everyone has said or done something stupid and regrettable at some point in their lives.

 

[Zander]

Sometimes they do in depth pieces that are really good. But, for those that are kicking up their little heels like they have something---they are going to be in for a rough ride.

This was released by the Clinton Crime Family - Sanders will be shredded.

Nah. Clinton isn't going to have the backlash from the right. She's going to have it from the left. If you think about it, all of these alleged scandals will have been taken apart by the right and they will be explained. She is having the right vet her. The right is not her problem.

I agree. The left does not want Hillary, they want a wingnut. Someone like Lizzie or Bernie or Che or Fidel.....

I don't know that wingnut is the right term. I, for one, would like to see more viable candidates on the Democratic side though. Hillary voted for the Iraq debacle and the Patriot Act. She's basically republican lite.

Well the three names most often are all wingnuts...

Liz Warren is a wingnut who hates capitalism and believes "you didn't build that"
Bernie Sanders is a wingnut. who advocates 90% tax rates
Martin O'Malley is a wingnut who taxed the rain!!

then there is Joe Biden - he is just a dull nut with less common sense than a first grader.

What about Schwietzer from Montana? He seemed fine, well, until he mentioned fags...then he disappeared.

Who else is there? Are there any viable Democrat candidates?

 

[Borillar]

Sometimes they do in depth pieces that are really good. But, for those that are kicking up their little heels like they have something---they are going to be in for a rough ride.

This was released by the Clinton Crime Family - Sanders will be shredded.

Nah. Clinton isn't going to have the backlash from the right. She's going to have it from the left. If you think about it, all of these alleged scandals will have been taken apart by the right and they will be explained. She is having the right vet her. The right is not her problem.

I agree. The left does not want Hillary, they want a wingnut. Someone like Lizzie or Bernie or Che or Fidel.....

I don't know that wingnut is the right term. I, for one, would like to see more viable candidates on the Democratic side though. Hillary voted for the Iraq debacle and the Patriot Act. She's basically republican lite.

Well the three names most often are all wingnuts...

Liz Warren is a wingnut who hates capitalism and believes "you didn't build that"
Bernie Sanders is a wingnut. who advocates 90% tax rates
Martin O'Malley is a wingnut who taxed the rain!!

then there is Joe Biden - he is just a dull nut with less common sense than a first grader.

What about Schwietzer from Montana? He seemed fine, well, until he mentioned fags...then he disappeared.

Who else is there? Are there any viable Democrat candidates?

I don't know. We'll probably be stuck with Hillary vs the survivor of the republican circular firing squad.

 

[Sidekick]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

What I asked was HOW a hypothetical can be stretched into "I believe this about women".
Got no answer on that. Deflection no. 17 (unofficial count)

... and whether it can or not, how either makes a point in the present.
No answer there either, Deflection no. 18....

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

And -- what is it that "happened"?

At Bernie's age and with Viagra, could still be happing right now, but not for more than four hours at a time. But, but, it was just satire from long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. These aren't the perverts you're looking for.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

And Dick Durbin is upset? oh, maybe its because he wanted in on the action?

 

[Borillar]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

What I asked was HOW a hypothetical can be stretched into "I believe this about women".
Got no answer on that. Deflection no. 17 (unofficial count)

... and whether it can or not, how either makes a point in the present.
No answer there either, Deflection no. 18....

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

And -- what is it that "happened"?

At Bernie's age and with Viagra, could still be happing right now, but not for more than four hours at a time. But, but, it was just satire from long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. These aren't the perverts you're looking for.

Maybe he can co-write a novel with Lynn Cheney.

 

[Kondor3]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

What I asked was HOW a hypothetical can be stretched into "I believe this about women".
Got no answer on that. Deflection no. 17 (unofficial count)

... and whether it can or not, how either makes a point in the present.
No answer there either, Deflection no. 18....

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

And -- what is it that "happened"?

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 7 ( "You won't answer my questions, so that gets the lowlife I'm defending off the hook." )

The bottom line, Pogo, is that he said (wrote) the words.

All attempts to serve-up context and qualifiers are a day late and a dollar short.

Human perception only stretches so far.

Go on record as serving-up such sentiments and you're damned forevermore, once it comes out.

None of this follow-up shit is going to make one good goddamn worth of difference.

Good grief, I tried to talk you down out of the trees on this one, but you weren't having it.

Pity.

You're defending the Indefensible... on behalf of someone who is now a Non-Starter.

It was over the minute those old sentiments went mainstream in the media.

Let it go, fer Crissakes.

 

[Kondor3]

Wow, now there's some impressive dirt digging. Someone had to actually scan microfiche to find that shit, now that's dedication.

True, going back 40+ years to find some obscure article shows some tremendous dedication to muckraking. In all fairness, both sides do this. I recall in the last Presidential cycle that Romney being a bully in school was brought up. I'm sure that everyone has said or done something stupid and regrettable at some point in their lives.

The point of the exercise is, that there was sensational-caliber muck to be raked-up in the first place.

And of sort that is certain to make vast numbers of women-folk uncomfortable with his candidacy.

Serve-up muck to be raked, and it comes back to haunt you.

Sometimes, it merely takes 40 years or so for the haunting to get underway.

The passage of time doesn't do much to ameliorate the stench of the muck, however.

Stick a fork in your boy Bernie... he's toast... before his campaign even gets going.

He is now officially a Non-Starter.

Buh-bye... buy bonds.

Next batter...

 

[Pogo]

...But do feel free to explain HOW this specific piece -- with its content as it actually exists -- makes any point relevant to 2015...

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 5 ( "It was hypothetical" )

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 6 ( "It was so long ago that it is no longer relevant" )

A Two-Fer !!!

===========================================

Love it... you can't make this shit up...

What I asked was HOW a hypothetical can be stretched into "I believe this about women".
Got no answer on that. Deflection no. 17 (unofficial count)

... and whether it can or not, how either makes a point in the present.
No answer there either, Deflection no. 18....

but come on, this happened a long time ago. just like with Bill Clinton.

And -- what is it that "happened"?

Major Excuse-Making Attempt No. 7 ( "You won't answer my questions, so that gets the lowlife I'm defending off the hook." )

Sure does.
I pose these pointed questions exactly because I already know going in that they have no answer.
That that answer is nonexistent is supposed to tell you something about the premise being questioned.

I can only lead the horse to water though.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, now there's some impressive dirt digging. Someone had to actually scan microfiche to find that shit, now that's dedication.

True, going back 40+ years to find some obscure article shows some tremendous dedication to muckraking. In all fairness, both sides do this. I recall in the last Presidential cycle that Romney being a bully in school was brought up. I'm sure that everyone has said or done something stupid and regrettable at some point in their lives.

The point of the exercise is, that there was sensational-caliber muck to be raked-up in the first place.

And of sort that is certain to make vast numbers of women-folk uncomfortable with his candidacy.

And why would it do that? Do you believe women are illiterate?
Aside from the OP I mean... I'm thinking more of women who aren't already preprogrammed partisan hacks.

Oh wait, I've already asked this question, got a pointed refusal to answer. I keep forgetting.

 

[Kondor3]

...And why would it do that?...

If you have to ask the question you will not understand the answer.

...Do you believe women are illiterate?...

Nope. They can read Sanders' gang-rape sentiments for themselves, and make up their own minds.

...I'm thinking more of women who aren't already preprogrammed partisan hacks...

What is a 'preprogrammed partisan hack' in this context? A female Republican, most likely, in your mind. I reject such labeling.

I also reject the idea that women who object to Sanders' sentiments are nothing more than preprogrammed partisan hacks.

...Oh wait, I've already asked this question, got a pointed refusal to answer. I keep forgetting.

Only because you keep asking silly follow-up questions which take us further and further away form the core discussion.

That being... Bernie Sanders serving-up 'women dream of gang-rape' sentiments... and the likely impact of such revelations on his candidacy.

 

[Pogo]

...And why would it do that?...

If you have to ask the question you will not understand the answer.

On the contrary, asking and examining the question is crucial to understanding the issue. Which is why you're digging yourself deeper here -- you haven't taken that step. The article is right there in an image; its meaning is clearly at considerable variance with what the OP, and the link it quoted, said it was.

Burying one's head in the sand won't change that.

...Do you believe women are illiterate?...

Nope. They can read Sanders' gang-rape sentiments for themselves, and make up their own minds.

...I'm thinking more of women who aren't already preprogrammed partisan hacks...

What is a 'preprogrammed partisan hack' in this context? A female Republican, most likely, in your mind. I reject such labeling.

Thanks for answering for me before I could. Sure saves time.

What I mean by PPH is one like the OP, so eager to put points up on her political scoreboard that she didn't bother to stop and vet her source to see if it held water, which in this case wouldn't have passed. When one is predisposed as such, side effects may include blindness.

Back to the top, absolutely women can read and make up their own minds. More to the point here --- so can we.

I also reject the idea that women who object to Sanders' sentiments are nothing more than preprogrammed partisan hacks.

On what basis would they "object" then?
Here again, I've posed this exact same question umpteen times, and gotten exactly zero answers. Which now leads us to...

...Oh wait, I've already asked this question, got a pointed refusal to answer. I keep forgetting.

Only because you keep asking silly follow-up questions which take us further and further away form the core discussion.

Actually it's the same question over and over and over and over. Either a direct answer or an admission that there is no answer would stop the madness.

That being... Bernie Sanders serving-up 'women dream of gang-rape' sentiments... and the likely impact of such revelations on his candidacy.

Except for the inconvenient basic fact -- that being, the above is not what he wrote.

Facts: USMB thead titles -- know the difference. Saves a lot of work.

Off to the latest edit:

Go on record as serving-up such sentiments and you're damned forevermore, once it comes out.

-- and what "such sentiments" would these be?