So, can someone point me to the medical journal/study

[boston bean]

that stated 40 years ago that a female orgasm prevents cervical cancer?

I've seen it being said that he was referencing a journal/medical study, but I would like to see for myself, who wrote this crap and why Bernie Sanders believed it.

This is on par with the cure for female hysteria. BUNK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/female-hysteria_n_4298060.html

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Yeah, this meme got old

after the first 10 seconds it was originally posted. Not much impact after the 45th time.

[NCTraveler]

3. Might help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

[Le Taz Hot]

89. So, you got nothin'.

Got it.

[Aerows]

97. I can't say that

regularly having orgasms makes me healthier, but they sure make me happier

[Le Taz Hot]

104. I've been trying to stay out of these threads

(OK, except for this one) as my natural smart-assitude is going to get my butt booted if I'm not careful. I mean, the jokes just tell themselves, don't they? LOL!

[NCTraveler]

108. I would look at that and thank the person for helping me out.

I would say assistance with vocabulary is worth more than nothing. It's an area I am always looking to improve. It was nothing more. Just a little help. Sorry it was taken the way it was.

[Doctor_J]

83. We should just post Hillary's "Marriage Is A Sacred Bond Between A Man And A Woman" video

10 times a day for a month. I guess that's what passes for discussion here. Luckily we have her support for the Iraq War, support for TPP (we think - she has magically dodged that so far), passage of NAFTA, support for the Bush education scheme, enormous fees for telling the perpetrators of the Great Recession what they want to hear, support for fracking, support for Keystone XL, the "end of welfare as we know it", support for the bankruptcy reform, race baiting in the 2008 primaries, disdain for single payer healthcare, and so on... We don't have to recycle as often as the Hillarians.

[kath]

96. Sounds like a plan.

Yeah, the length of the recycle cycle would be a lot longer, since there is just soooooo much.

What's sauce for the goose... (Or however that goes)

[Damansarajaya]

99. TOUCHE! nt

[arcane1]

102. But Sanders wrote a weird article in the 60's, so it's even.

[BainsBane]

130. Already done all of that

repeatedly. You'll have to find new material.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Said BB without a trace of irony in a thread reposting a Sanders meme from the previous day.

[NCTraveler]

2. I don't have access to the MRA database of "Scientific Research." nt.

[boston bean]

4. Me neither..

Now that was funny! Thanks for the laugh!

[raging moderate]

5. I think you have to have lived through that time.

A fever suddenly swept through the young people during the late sixties and early seventies. One of our favorite songs began, "When the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then Peace will guide the Planets, and Love will steer the Stars!" We would stand and sway together and just hope for a better world. My son-in-law once asked me, "Wasn't The Age of Aquarius a song about drugs?" He was incredulous when I said, "No." We were high on something else, on a hope against hope for a better world. There was a feverish desire to break out of the old ideas that had brought racism and empire and oppression, and all kinds of wild ideas were accepted for serious discussion.

[boston bean]

6. and??? That has what to do with orgasms and their effect on cervical cancer?

Sounds like quackery to me.

[raging moderate]

10. Sorry, I can't recall exactly which study said this.

I just remember that there was a serious discussion. Ms. Magazine had some articles like this. There was a sense that women had been kept in a state of unnatural repression for so long that our bodies were no longer functioning properly, that we needed to liberate ourselves to fight disease and oppression. There was a sentiment that sexual liberation would hold the key to health and happiness and democracy, all around the world, with special emphasis on orgasmic women because we had been oppressed so long.

[boston bean]

12. And that has nothing to do with cervical cancer.

[ieoeja]

80. "sexual liberation would hold the key to health" has nothing to do with cervical cancer because...?

[Sunlei]

68. think those were the times they had ciggies' designed/marketed for liberated woman. 'cancer sticks'

[Warren Stupidity]

7. sure.

Here's the journal's website. http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/pages/default.aspx
That took about 3 minutes, so I'm guessing you didn't even try and that your op is just follow on from previous flamebait bullshit.

[boston bean]

9. Is that the actual study? That is what I am looking for.

But thanks for the link, even though it not helpful.

If you really want to help me out, find me the exact article Bernie was referencing.

Thanks in advance!

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Good luck in your search.

Most publications don't have their articles online going back that far. I suppose it is possible that Sanders just made it up too, after all the journalism standards at counter culture newspapers were essentially non-existent. From the NYT's article - which you did read, right? - it seems that this was just one line in an article about a lot of other 60's era woo. In context not remarkable, but for somebody determined to blow things up in an anachronistic furry, well, have at it.

[Damansarajaya]

100. Because if there is a study, you'll have a new found respect for Bernie? nt

[boston bean]

101. I respect Bernie. nt

[Damansarajaya]

103. One source linked it Psychosomatic Medical Journal,

but I couldn't find it when I searched there. It may be the archives don't go back to the 70's.

What he actually wrote was apparently this: QUOTE “Sexual adjustment seemed to be very poor in those with cancer of the cervix,” quoting a study in a journal called Psychosomatic Medicine. UNQUOTE

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-once-blamed-cervical-cancer-on-a-lack-of-orgasms/

[Capt. Obvious]

42. She's just asking questions

What's wring with that?

[Warren Stupidity]

48. series?

[Capt. Obvious]

49. no'rly

[Aerows]

95. It's hugh n/t

[frylock]

70. Ah. I see you took a lesson from my hide yesterday..

well played.

[Gore1FL]

73. Jury Results

On Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

sure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=443931

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"so I'm guessing you didn't even try and that your op is just follow on from previous flamebait bullshit."

Rude personal attack. If you can't refrain from personal attacks, you should hide the thread or just move on. Disrupting threads with personal attacks makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:45 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Amazing. Either some people are extremely touchy (not like pedophile priests, but thin skinned) or someone does not know what the alert system is supposed to be.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a personal attack. And, alerting for stupid reasons is what makes DU sick.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He answered the question, and pointed out the obvious. Not hide worthy. Sorry.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. wow, this is one touchy forum. Reminds of back in 2008 when we

were having the primary wars. Oh wait.....

You know that alert would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it is fabulously easy to alert and getting a tiny number of hides gets one evicted for up to 90 days. Stupid imbalance if you ask me, but nobody did.

[artislife]

8. You are very good at staying on message

That has been a helpful strategy learned from the republicans.

[restorefreedom]

13. the publication it was in

may be defunct after all these years and might be near impossible to find. i checked pubmed and there was nothing.

but recent medical evidence suggests that more frequent orgasm protects men against prostate cancer.

my guess about the long ago theory is it was based on some freudian psychosomatic "hysteria" bullshit.

and in the 70's, people were probably trying to find lots of "benefits" to having sex. you know, the sexual revolution and all....

[MannyGoldstein]

14. I'm told it's this one

I'm told it's this one, but don't have an account to fully read it:

Life Stress and Cancer of the Cervix.

This is interesting, apparently orgasms reduce cervical infections:

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/6033/20131206/masturbation-cystitis-diabetes-prostate-cancer-study.htm

Since infection is known to be a cause of cervical cancer... interesting.

[boston bean]

15. 1954?? wow!

What year did Bernie pen his Vermont Freeman article?

[merrily]

17. So, when the existence of a study is proven, that's not enough either. We merely pivot.

[boston bean]

18. Well, is it really a pivot?

I saw a brief synopsis. I didn't get to read the entire thing. And I aint paying for that bunk.

And I'm being told that it was a sixties way of thinking, dude, pass me the joint, love peace and Frisbees.

I wasn't aware 1954 fit into that category.

[merrily]

19. Yep, it is. Your original point was the existence of the study.

And I'm being told that it was a sixties way of thinking, dude, pass me the joint, love peace and Frisbees

Yeah, one reply on this thread said that. And?

I wasn't aware 1954 fit into that category.

Gee, why would anyone in the 1960s still believe a study from 1954? Please.

[boston bean]

21. No, it wasn't regarding the existence of the study. I saw there was one.

from the Psychosomatic whatever.

I wanted to read it.

I'm sure many folks didn't believe (even back in the 50's, never mind the 60's) that women with cervical cancer were maladjusted sexually, due to societies oppressive attitudes towards women and sex.

However, Bernie did.

[merrily]

23. You realldfy want to read it? You can, if you make some effort. A good librarian can probably get

you at least a Xerox. But, I don't think you really want to read it anyway. I think you want to find ways to use it as a club against Bernie, no matter how unimportant and outdated this issue is.

I'm sure many folks didn't believe (even back in the 50's, never mind the 60's) that women with cervical cancer were maladjusted sexually, due to societies oppressive attitudes towards women and sex.

How the hell are you sure? Prove it. And also prove that whether people in the 1950s and 1960d believed is is relevant to anything today.

[boston bean]

24. You prove that it was first.

After all, it is you making the first claim.

Why, because Bernie wrote a weird article about it?

That means it was the thinking of the time?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. LOL!

it's so critically important that you need to write a silly and hateful post, but not worth actually researching, huh?

[boston bean]

28. Umm, I asked for the article. I got a pay wall.

What more do you want?

You want me to pay for the tripe?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. LOL! nt

[Autumn]

37. You get what you pay for. You want to read it pay for it.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. It's posted for free, see #36.

I'm sure bb will issue an apology shortly.

[Autumn]

45. Blue is such a nice color manny

[kenfrequed]

75. Uhm...

Despite the fact this study being discredited, it was a study. Almost ALL academic journals have pay-walls these days, ironically enough this is particularly the case with older studies which should be more available but are not.


By the way, I am supporting a candidate for president, not attorney general and I generally don't take misapprehensions of people in their 20's as absolute evidence of poor decision making. After all, he could have voted to give the authority to go to war against a country that did not possess weapons of mass destruction to a complete moron.

Oh wait, that is what I elect a president or senator for.

[boston bean]

77. You just vote for the ones who fund it, eh? nt

[kenfrequed]

81. Fund what???

Oh and here is a pretty decent article written about paywalls in scientific literature and studies. It has been a problem for awhile.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/apr/29/paywalls-open-access-button-scientific-research



Honestly, you seem to be engaged in nothing but posting prepackaged spin.

[boston bean]

98. WARS, kenfrequed. You have no issue with voting for those who fund WARS.

[Aerows]

105. "Voting for those who fund WARS"

My memory must be failing me, because I remember some IWR funding being voted on...

This whole thread is like the black hole of "I don't remember" and reconstruction of a past that never happened.

Support your candidate for the primary, sure, but don't assert things that are clear and obvious piles of horse shit as though they are the truth. That helps no one.

[boston bean]

110. I suggest you read this article:

September 2001. After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. In October 2002, after two years of war on the people of Afghanistan and a series of lies and misinformation, Congress and the White House (with help from Great Britain and a couple other governments) ignored the United Nations and world opinion and invaded Iraq. While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. The other piece of legislation passed that long ago September was the PATRIOT Act. Like the vote that sent troops to Afghanistan, that legislation changed the US forever. To his credit, Sanders voted against the original PATRIOT Act legislation and attempted to curtail its effect in subsequent votes. However, in 2006, he voted Yea on legislation that made the remaining fourteen provisions of the Patriot Act permanent and extended the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009. In a similar vein, Sanders voted against the original legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, but by 2006 he had joined the majority of Congress in passing continued funding of that agency.

In 2008, Sanders was elected to the Senate. This transition gave Bernie a salary increase with potentially even less power than that he had in the House. His voting record changed little: voting for some war authorization funds while opposing others; funding intelligence operations while voting to remove immunity for communications companies involved in government surveillance; supporting contraception funding and funding for children’s health insurance programs; and opposing John Brennan’s appointment to head the CIA while supporting Chuck Hagel’s appointment as Secretary of Defense. He continued authorizing grants and laons to Israel, even after Israel bombed Gaza, attacked the Mavi Marmara and supported illegal settlements in the West Bank. Most recently, Sanders joined ninety-seven other Senators and approved a $1 billion aid package to the coup government in Ukraine, a package that (when combined with International Monetary Fund loans) will most certainly further impoverish Ukrainian working people.

Lots more for you to read about Bernie and his positions:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/bernie-sanders-cannot-save-us/

[arcane1]

106. Keep flinging shit. Someday, some of it might stick.

However unlikely that may be.

[kenfrequed]

109. Yeah...

Ok.

I can see what you are doing here and it is wrong. Do you hear me?

What you are doing is wrong.

Sanders has about the best possible record in the Senate of voting against war. His record is only matched by the former great Senator of my home state of Minnesota. Senator Paul Wellstone.

Did Bernie vote to fund a weapons system. Yes.

But voting for a weapons system is not the same as voting for a war. Your implication to the contrary is garbage.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

Are you just trying to "win"? Do you even honestly care about any of the issues you are debating or is this just an exercise in spinning for your favorite candidate? Do you morally justify your positions by convincing yourself Hillary is the only one that can possibly win?

If this is the case I can almost understand why you might be doing this. It would still be ineffably wrong but I could see how someone could come to the conclusion that the ends justify the means.

Bernie Sanders is an honest man who has been right on the issues for decades. He has talked policy ever since he started this race.

I think it is sad and I feel sorry for you that you would stoop to this kind of behavior.

I will not be responding to any more of your threads and I will encourage my fellow Sandernistas to do likewise if they ask my opinion on the matter.

[Aerows]

113. Knocked it

out of the park, my friend!

[cyberswede]

36. Here's the complete article

https://filetea.me/t1sOK8j38pQQAyrlzhqZ7LlVA

I grabbed it off Ovid and posted it to a share site, so the PDF can be downloaded.

This looks like the relevant part (though the whole article is short and gives a more complete picture of the study).

Sexual Adjustment
Sexual adjustment seemed to be very poor in those with cancer of the cervix. Patients with cancer of the cervix were found to have a lower incidence of orgasm during sexual intercourse than patients in the control group (critical ratio 3.09). Dislike for sexual intercourse, amounting to actual aversion for the act, occurred far more frequently in the patients with cancer of the cervix than in patients with cancer at other sites (critical ratio 3.45)- The incidence of cancer of the cervix has been reported to be infrequent in virgins. In the present group of patients the difference was not statistically significant.

Ovid link, for those with access.

Obviously, this article doesn't say that orgasms prevent cervical cancer, but it's plausible that a non-scientific person might confuse correlation with causation and reach a faulty conclusion.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. And there it is.

Q.E.D.

Thanks!

[boston bean]

47. Niether of those links are working. nt

one requires a pw. the other is a page, with no content.

[cyberswede]

52. Try this

https://infotomb.com/w2l70

I've never tried to share an uploaded file before.

(the Ovid link only works for this with Ovid access, which I indicated; I thought others might be able to read it, as I was).

[boston bean]

53. that link worked, but I can't read the words written..

they are very blurry and unreadable.

[Capt. Obvious]

60. Checkmate!

[boston bean]

61. could you read it?

[cyberswede]

123. There should be a download button at the top of the page

The image on the page is a thumbnail, I think.

[Gore1FL]

72. Check your downloads for a pdf

For me 00006842-195407000-00002.pdf was downloaded after a short wait on the https://filetea.me/t1sOK8j38pQQAyrlzhqZ7LlVA link which will show as a blank page despite the file download.

If it doesn't work try it in another browser.

[restorefreedom]

57. seriously?

there was a time when it was thought that many of women's physical illnesses came about because they were sexually oppressed, repressed, didn't have enough sex, didn't have enough orgasms, needed to get laid, were just hysterical women etc. I can't believe this even surprises you. Even today medicine still favors male study subjects.

hard to believe this is a DU discussion. I think I'm going to move on to other topics but nice chatting with you all.

[boston bean]

65. Yeah, there was that time when this world was more overtly misogynistic

in the medical world.

I would think someone in the 1960's when feminism was on the front page, would not have been espousing these old tropes. Yet there were.

Bernie felt that women were all those things women were experience could possibly be solved with a good lay, orgasm, etc as you say in the late 60's.

Based on some pseudoscience from 1954.

You figure he would have been a little more enlightened, no?

[arcane1]

82. You say you didn't read the study or article, but you know what he "felt "?

[boston bean]

86. Well, I did read Bernies article. It was a fucking hoot.

It was juvenile and poorly written, and I got to say, a bit misogynistic to have been written in the middle of the great feminist movement of the late 60's and early 70's.

[Aerows]

90. "I don't read the articles"

"I just automatically know that I disagree with whatever they are about."

[restorefreedom]

121. i would also think people would be enlightened

about racial issues, and yet here we are reliving some facets of the 1960s, and not necessarily the good facets. I do think medicine is still geared towards men, but it has gotten considerably better in the western countries. As for Bernie, I don't know what would have prompted anybody to make any of the comments they made in the 60s or 70s about sexuality. Everything was up in the air, many people were trying to still oppress women sexually, and some were trying to defend them. I think trying to get the context looking back from 2015 is going to be nearly impossible.

[Vattel]

138. You can't resist lying, can you?

"Bernie felt that women were all those things women were experience could possibly be solved with a good lay, orgasm, etc as you say in the late 60's."

But in his article, Bernie didn't say that all those things women were experiencing could possibly be solved with a good lay, orgasm, etc.

[arcane1]

78. You're trying too hard.

Seriously.

And it's backfiring.

[boston bean]

79. Believe me, I'm not trying at all. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. Her goal post has a V-8.

[kath]

119. They don't just pivot, but also twist, turn, double back, loop around, etc. The phrase that comes to

Mind so often when reading their posts is this


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File retzel_Logic_album.jpg

[merrily]

16. Thank you for finally settling this not pressing non issue from over 40 years ago.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Just doing my part to decrease morbidity and mortality

Unfortunately, some people want to increase 'em. And scream a lot about nothing.

[merrily]

34. Clearly, you are a selfless poster.

Selfishly, I'm all for more women's orgasms, whether or not they decrease cervical cancer. If they do, so much the better. If they don't, I'm for them anyway.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. I note that there are *two* genders

And you chose to limit your encouragement to only one gender's possibly-cancer-reducing behavior.

[merrily]

44. LIES! ALL lie!111!!!! I limited nothing.

I mentioned the ONLY gender that is relevant to this thread and was silent as to the rest.

Now, how hot do you like your cup of STFU? Or do you like it on the rocks during summer?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

132. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl in 1964. Should we dredge that up, too?

I think that's completely irrelevant, and so is Bernie's decades-old unscientific essay. I care a lot more about what they've been doing lately.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Boston bean you really don't like Bernie!

[boston bean]

22. I like Bernie. I think that writing was a bit off the wall.

But he may have been focused a bit to much on womens bits and womens rape fantasies.

Is his early thinking not even a bit interesting to you. If not, then one shouldn't posts about his marches in the 60's either.

[merrily]

27. With all due repect, whether or not you like Bernie is wholly irrelevant.

s his early thinking not even a bit interesting to you. If not, then one shouldn't posts about his marches in the 60's either.

If I am not interested in a medical study from 1954 that you raised, then "one" should not post about marches in the 1960s?
Wow, what a total nonsequitur. Makes absolutely no sense ieither.

[boston bean]

29. Not true, it is wholly relevant. As the post I was responding to

said "you really don't like Bernie", for asking about something that happened 40 years ago.

Well, the marches happened then too.

[merrily]

31. No, it's irrelevant. Trust me.

[boston bean]

32. I should trust you, that it is irrelevant. OK?

[morningfog]

50. What a load of shit.

[seaglass]

33. BB the link below is to the article Sanders wrote, I mostly skimmed it but I believe he

documented his sources.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2157403-sanders-cancer.html

[stevenleser]

58. Fascinating. nt

[boston bean]

76. my eyes are bleeding.....

[Aerows]

39. Since no one can point to any study

or, in fact, any statement that anyone said this, I'll say ... Uh, WTF?

Are you trying to *help* Hillary Clinton's* campaign, or *hurt* it?

Because this baffling post tells me you are trying to make her supporters look like lunatics.

Damn, way to derail.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Shhh...

Why are you ruining this?

[boston bean]

41. I'm derailing my own thread.. OK.

I'm not trying to help or hurt anyone!

[merrily]

46. Even if Bernie were running for Surgeon General, what he wrote in the 60s based on his

research would not be especially relevant today. As it is, this could not be more silly.

My sister has been a freelance writer. She writes what she's told or what she thinks she can sell.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq, equal marriage, fracking, Keystone, TPP, very relevant today to someone seeking to be Chief Executive of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

But, sure, let's perseverate over things Bernie wrote over 40 years ago because we think it's a chink in Bernie's being on the right side of history.

Ask potential voters if they give a shit what Bernie wrote about cancer 40 years ago to try to feed his family.

Silly season at DU indeed.

[Aerows]

118. I continue to be astounded

by the molehills that are made Mt. Everest.

Those that do so should be careful - many, many people have scaled Mt. Everest, but very few get out of Bullshit Mountain. (Tip of the hat to Jon Stewart)

[stevenleser]

62. Looks like Seaglass did, just above. nt

[djean111]

51. Looks like today is "try and link Bernie to ladies' bits" day!

Bwahahaha! Of course, it is just done to stir the nest. But I do enjoy the rejoinders, it is fun.

[restorefreedom]

59. bernie is getting a lot more support from women

than the hrc people "planned on."

gotta try something to sour them, and quick!

[Warren Stupidity]

54. kicked for op total fail on exhibit.

this is now officially a Great Thread!

Thanks for the fun!

[BooScout]

55. why this is relevant...

It's relevant because it's background like this on Bernie that the Right will have a field day with when the time is right.

Hillary Clinton has stood up to the every single thing the national press has thrown at her for decades. Bernie has never had to defend himself and his record like she has to. A National level....He's never even come close to the scrutiny. If you think it's outrageous that Democrats and liberals are raising these issues in a so called friendly setting on a Democratic mb, imagine what the GOP will do with it?

[boston bean]

56. and I was just told by a bernie support how this thread is an exhibit of a fail.

They just can't take it that someone would question ANYTHING about Sanders.

I asked what his middle name was... holy hell!

[Gore1FL]

125. If the best anyone can muster is a 40 year old article they didn't research,

then Bernie should win easily.

[djean111]

64. Oh, like the Clintons don't have a ton of very messy baggage.

And, yeah, it is the Clintons that will be perceived as running, not just Hillary.

It doesn't matter how WE handle the bullshit about Bernie, either. All that matters is what the voters think. I just think it is tacky. Doesn't change my support.

And you have no idea how BERNIE will handle this sort of flung poo.

[boston bean]

66. We read about it every day from the left (suprisingly) and the right...

Every single freaking day.

I think the person you responded acknowledged that.

[djean111]

67. I believe this silly stuff is brought up just for sport. Shrug.

[BainsBane]

74. That's politics

and this is amateur hour compared to the GOP. You have got to know that.

[djean111]

84. Sure! And we don't bring up Bill's peccadillos or "being shot at". The GOP will do that.

I just find it hard to believe that ya'll are just trying to toughen us up. But whatever. What is important is how Bernie reacts to flung poo, not how we react. IMO some are just enjoying the reaction. And obviously, it could not possibly be meant to try and siphon off Bernie's supporters. Or meant to somehow, weirdly, cause Bernie's supporters to slink away, muttering oh, I need to support someone else, because of that bullshit. Just flung poo, as differentiated from unhappiness with past policy deeds that may have affected people. :=)

[stevenleser]

94. Sure "you" have. I have seen references like those several times. Apparently there is nothing out of

bounds when criticizing Hillary is concerned.

The "you" is in quotes because it refers to Bernie supporters.

[BainsBane]

112. I think people are trying to give you a bit of your own medicine

Because the amount of shit raining down on Clinton is enough to qualify as a category 5 hurricane.
I can't help notice that you all seem to feel Sanders and yourselves better than the rest of us, who should be expected to take made up accusation, one after the other, for years on end, while you object to an inquiry into something the man actually wrote.

I myself don't care about this because it was so long ago. I do care about how he speaks about abortion rights today, however. That was posted about in HOF, and received similar responses. Clearly we are not supposed to discuss anything related to Sanders positions, public statements, or anything other than his inherent superiority and how his supporters are the only people in the country who are not the enemy.

[Gore1FL]

126. It was an amateurish assault to be sure n/t

[frylock]

71. The right is going to use women's health issues against Sanders?

[Aerows]

111. I'm stunned by

the mud that gets thrown around.

You could plant a garden in this and grow vegetables and something useful, but instead, it is wasted on wrestling in it.

[arcane1]

107. So the OP is playing the role of republican by making up shit to smear a Dem candidate

That's helpful how, exactly? What "issue" is being raised here?

[artislife]

134. It kind of sounds like

Lets us beat you down, because the others are going to beat you down harder.

My question is are they trying to toughen us up or are they hoping to get in first lest they don't get a chance later.

[BooScout]

135. Making up shit?

You do realize he actually wrote the offending comment?

The issue is Bernie's record. Do keep up.

[arcane1]

136. The "offense" is the made-up part.

Everyone knows that.

[frazzled]

116. I think it's (semi) relevant in a related way

This is not about changing or evolving on policy positions. Everybody does that. These early writings (and they're not the musings of a youth--he was in his thirties) could be used to question character and judgment, not positions. Orgone boxes and belief in an orgasm-cancer relationship were not even close to being mainstream ideas in the early 70s. The ideas of Wilhelm Reich (which date back to the 1930s) were pretty fringe back then, resuscitated for purposes of satire. We probably all remember the orgone box in Woody Allen's Sleeper, but fewer probably remember the Reichian satire in Dušan Makavejev's WR: Mysteries of the Organism. (I remember it well!) For Sanders to have taken any of this seriously at that time suggests someone a little too serious and a little too gullible.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it would be accurate or fair. I'm saying it could be used to raise questions about judgment. So all the attempts to draw parallels to other politicians changing positions over the years are not the point. The point is, enough of us boomers were around in the early 1970s to remember some of these wacky ideas, and some may remember that while they laughed at them, Bernie was taking them seriously. And they may wonder.

[Sunlei]

63. 40 years ago?!! it was all that clean living & easy marijuana that prevented the cancers

[Comrade Grumpy]

69. How fricking juvenile. I hope you're proud of yourself.

[Doctor_J]

85. That one surrender its pride long ago

Cartoonish liberal.

[Doctor_J]

87. So Clinton is allowed to disavow her IWR vote from 2001, and her 2004 "No gay marriage"

proclamation, but Sanders' 40-year-old belief in a scientific journal is a deal-breaker?

Some cars on the HRC 16 train seem to be coming off the track.

[boston bean]

88. Has anyone stopped you from speaking about the IWR or anything else?

[Gore1FL]

127. No one has stopped you from speaking about a 40-year-old article either. n/t

[ieoeja]

91. I am more interested in learning how Bernie plans to find "common ground" on abortion with the GOP.

[stevenleser]

92. Bernie supporters have no chance of surviving a general election if they go into Chernobyl mode over

something so tame as this.

Every thing that Bernie ever wrote or said would be unearthed by GOP opposition research.

If it could be construed as nutty that's how it will be presented, times a million.

And the rules of this primary contest have been clear from the beginning. Every bit of nonsense that could be drudged up about Hillary has been fair game.

After all of that, you can't now whine that what boston bean is talking about here is out of bounds. Those of you doing so better hope Bernie somehow doesnt pull the nomination out because you have no chance of dealing with what would come next.

[Stardust]

114. Bernie supporters don't have to "survive a general election," only Bernie himself does. We expect

nitpicking from the GOPers, not from fellow Dems. This whole brouhaha about an article from so long ago is simply silly. Is that all you've got?

[stevenleser]

115. Oh yes they do. But thanks for confirming you agree that they can't. nt

[Aerows]

120. I'm in it

So that he wins it.

Keep poking your fellow Dems, telling them they are delusional, that progressives are not able to get elected.

Keep it up.

It makes us all the more fierce.

[frylock]

122. "Every bit of nonsense that could be drudged up about Hillary has been fair game."

I'd love to see some examples that would compare to this OP.

[Gore1FL]

129. Tame is this is the point. It's a make-believe crisis.

I'm mostly laughing at the OP and the weak defenses that follow.

Wake me up when there is something current and relevant to be concerned about.

[arcane1]

137. Indeed, "relevant" being a key word here. And a lonely one.

"Citing a journal in the 60's" isn't exactly relevant to anything, despite the transparent attempts to paint him as some sort of evil misogynist like some Karl Rove understudy.

And it definitely has no similarity whatsoever to voting for a war.

A toast to hoping we get to talk about policy again!

[beam me up scottie]

124. skinner: "We Hillary supporters need to be better than everyone else."

The best way to support Hillary is by staying positive. Provide fact-based arguments without pointing fingers at our opponents or questioning their motives. If you choose to criticize Bernie Sanders (and I'll be honest -- I'm not sure it's necessary or productive to do so given Hillary's large lead and the need to woo Bernie supporters later) then avoid divisive rhetoric or insults -- just keep it factual.

Way to raise the bar for your candidate, BB.



Every FoxNews style attack like this helps Bernie and hurts Hillary, so please keep it up, I beg you.

[Scootaloo]

128. Hi Boston Bean. This topic has already been covered

See here

Thank you for the time and effort to bring this meme to us, but I'm afraid you were beaten to the post by question everything yesterday.

Good luck on your next one! Maybe you can find a picture of bernie sanders petting a pit bull or something.