Sexist, Racist, anti-Gay, Bush and Cheney go away!

[Hi, Neighbor!]

Anti-gay I can see, as Bush is against gay marriage. What about sexist and racist? I am whole-heartedly against that man, but a few pro-Bush roommates of mine said he definately wasn't racist or sexist. Can anyone please give me some examples of his racist or sexist beliefs/acts?

[Hi, Neighbor!]

I should clarify. The title of the OP was a chant at an anti-Bush rally during the inauguration parade. My roommates' comments were made as they were chanting it.

[Hi, Neighbor!]

Originally Posted by Hi, Neighbor!

My roommates' comments were made as they were chanting it.

Oops...meant to say my roommates' comments were made as the crowd at the rally were chanting it.

That should be the last 'edit.'

[Ringo]

I suspect this'll migrate to GD at some point, and I doubt it's worth responding to. But what the heck.

Dub has, as did his recent Democratic challenger John Kerry, proclaimed himself against granting the status of marriage to homosexual unions. That, in itself, does not make one anti-gay, IMHO, although I doubt the President looks at all favorably upon gay lifestyles.

I've never seen a thing to suggest that George W. Bush is at all sexist or racist. The only relevant material that comes to mind on a quick reflection is that he's just nominated the very capable Condoleeza Rice to be our first black female Secretary of State.

[roger thornhill]

Plus Condi (doesn't she have two zees, incidentally?) is single, has never married, and hangs out on weekends with Laura.

So, draw your own conclusions.

[zev_steinhardt]

Is it possible that they are exaggerating their opposition to Bush's policies and beliefs?:

Pro-life = sexist
Against Affirmative Action = racist

Zev Steinhardt

[tomndebb]

OK. It seems that what we have here, for a General Question is a simple request for actions or statements by President George W. Bush that other people have used as examples of purported racism or sexism.

What we do not have, is an open invitation to debate whether President Bush is or is not racist or sexist.

If someone has a citation for an actual claim that President Bush behaved or spoke in a sexist or racist way, that would be an acceptable response.

Unfortunately, I cannot conceive of such responses not being immediately challenged on various grounds (accuracy, spin, philosophical differences) and a debate erupting.

So we're going to eliminate the suspense of finding out how long this thread can survive in GQ by sending it directly to GD.
(FWIW, I believe that there is a GQ question present; I simply do not believe that this crowd could answer it in GQ.)

[ /Moderator Mode ]

[zev_steinhardt]

tom~,

FTR, I was not stating that Bush was sexist or racist (heck, I voted for him). I was trying to answer the OP as to why the crowd would believe that he was racist and sexist.

Zev Steinhardt

[tomndebb]

zev you gave a decent GQ answer. I just don't believe that we would get the same sort of response bt everyone else.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Ringo

IDub has, as did his recent Democratic challenger John Kerry, proclaimed himself against granting the status of marriage to homosexual unions. That, in itself, does not make one anti-gay, IMHO, although I doubt the President looks at all favorably upon gay lifestyles.

So what exactly would it take for you to consider Bush anti-gay? Denying a group of people the same rights everyone else enjoys would sure lead me to believe he's "anti-" that group of people. And, since you brought up the subject, the same goes for Kerry.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Plus Condi (doesn't she have two zees, incidentally?)

Yes, her name is Condoleezza.
According to wikipedia,: Her name is a variation on the Italian musical term "con dolcezza" which is a direction to play "with sweetness".

[caballo_loco]

There are certainly people who see racist overtones to the "War on Terror" or the war in Iraq (though I think religion rather than "race" is the issue). Not that I back this myself - but some people see war itself as racism.

[cmkeller]

That chant goes back at least a dozen years. I recall hearing it applied to Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, an anti-abortion Democrat.

Don't read too much into it. They're just hauling out their list of standard "conservative insults" and it hardly matters to them whether or not they're all accurately applied to the specific target du jour.

[Ringo]

Well, panache, I'd have to wonder what "anti-gay" means to any particular person. Surely, advocating prescribing criminal sanctions against homosexual activity could be considered anti-gay, at least by most people.

But does proscribing the sanction of marriage rights - an historically long recognized heterosexual union - while acknowledging the legal sanction of homosexual civil unions, constitute being anti-gay? To some, I'm sure it does, but to others that's a reasonable stance to take.

Personally, while I self-identify as politically conservative and tend to vote for Republicans (although not 100% of the time), gay marriage is fine with me. This issue, as well as others, such as abortion, will likely never drive my vote.

It all eventually devolves into where gay people fit into a predominantly heterosexual society. I don't believe in persecuting gays.

But integrating gay life into society without perceived persecutions draws many issues into focus. One issue that comes up regularly is parenting and/or adoption.

The argument about the existence of homosexuality is often, IME, wrongly phrased as being that of a biological/genetic predisposition versus a "choice" that some individuals make. That argument completely ignores developmental issues.

We readily recognize that developmental issues are a factor in someone's tendency towards being a loving, giving or sociopathic individual. The seemingly interminable irony of the abused child growing up to be a child abuser persists.

So, is parenting by homosexuals likely to produce more homosexual adults? If so, do we, as a society, think that is a good thing or a bad thing?

[kung fu lola]

Nope, and nope.

Although those are admittedly biased sources (don't have a lot of time at the mo), they are not creating their own data; they are citing independent studies such as this one:

Only one study has traced children of lesbians and gay men from when they were young to adulthood. In this study, no differences were found in the proportion of each group that reported experiencing same-sex attractions. Children of lesbians were more likely to have considered the possibility of having a same-sex relationship and were more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience. (See Golombok).

You can also look here for an article by an organization that is not affiliated to any gay cause (that I know of).

Aside from all this, what does it matter if a child grows up to be gay? If a young adult is motivated, intelligent, and hardworking, how does it matter who they love?

Back on topic, I agree with zev. It's shorthand, like all chants are.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Is it possible that they are exaggerating their opposition to Bush's policies and beliefs?:

Pro-life = sexist
Against Affirmative Action = racist

Zev Steinhardt

And those are exaggerations why?

[Ringo]

C'mon Brain Glutton! Huh?

[Little Nemo]

I don't have a lot of good things to say about George Bush. But I will say this - I don't think the man is sexist or racist. He may be narrow-minded on ideological issues but there's no signs he judges people based on their gender or race. But I also think Bush's lack of these vices does lead to one problem. George Bush seems to lack an interest in differing viewpoints. I think his own personal lack of sexism or racism might lead him to assume everybody else feels the same way and these problems don't exist.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by Hi, Neighbor!

Anti-gay I can see, as Bush is against gay marriage. What about sexist and racist? I am whole-heartedly against that man, but a few pro-Bush roommates of mine said he definately wasn't racist or sexist. Can anyone please give me some examples of his racist or sexist beliefs/acts?

I don't even wanna count how many pointless times the tirades against President Bush have been made, but this is getting really tiresome.

[DanBlather]

Cheney voted against MLK day when he was in congress. Also, is the "very capable" Condoleeza that was referred to related to the person who is nominated for Sec of State?

[roger thornhill]

Voting against Martin Luther King Day is hardly indicative of racism (it's Cheney's anyway). You can hardly name a day for every famous person. And going against the flow when the cause is so "noble" might be interpreted as suggesting a certain courage.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And those are exaggerations why?

Do you really believe that every person who maintains the position that a fetus is life (or potential life and therefore ought not to be destroyed) is sexist?

Do you really believe that every person who maintains the position that people should be hired/promoted solely on the basis of merit and not race is racist?

Zev Steinhardt

[Siege]

Actually, the way I've heard the chant is "Racist, sexist, anti-gay! All you bigots go away!" I've heard it and read it in media coverage of various protests. I don't remember the exact context, but I've a vague notion that it may have been used at pro-choice rallies and directed at the religious right.

I won't deal with the charge of racism much; I don't have the skill to do so. I do know it's been pointed out that "the most segregated hour of the week is 10:00 am Sunday morning" which was used to draw attention that people of different races have historically worshipped at different churches. The Bible was also used to justify opposition to interracial marriages, just as it's being used to justify opposition to homosexual marriages.

The charge of sexism is something I can understand a bit more. In addition to opposition to abortion, sometimes even when the life of the mother is in danger, many conservative Christians, including my own bishop, oppose the ordination of women. There are also churches which believe women should be subordinate to men and which do make it clear that's what they believe. Being a feminist myself, I do hold the belief that if one does not support full equality for women as a whole, then yes, one is sexist. I am planning on starting a Pit or GD thread on this topic one of these days.

As for "anti-gay", if that's not covered, I suspect it will be!

I don't think the Bush administration or Bush himself is racist or sexist. I do think he has little or no understanding of what it is to be working class or poor, but that's a different chant. I'm also remembering that I've seen enough political threads that maybe I shouldn't have stuck my nose in this one!

CJ

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Do you really believe that every person who maintains the position that a fetus is life (or potential life and therefore ought not to be destroyed) is sexist?

Certainly. Don't you?

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Do you really believe that every person who maintains the position that people should be hired/promoted solely on the basis of merit and not race is racist?

Not at all. I oppose race-based affirmative action myself. (See my many, many posts on Michael Lind's proposal for replacing race-based affirmative action with color-blind class-based affirmative action.) But it is a safe way to bet. Most white people who oppose affirmative action are racists if you scratch them.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Certainly. Don't you?

Are you pulling my leg and I'm being too dense to notice it, or do you really believe that a person's belief that a fetus/child before birth is considered life and ought not to be terminated willy-nilly makes a person sexist? Because if it's the latter, you condemned a large group of people (myself included) as sexist when, to tell the truth, that is not the case at all.

Zev Steinhardt

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Are you pulling my leg and I'm being too dense to notice it, or do you really believe that a person's belief that a fetus/child before birth is considered life and ought not to be terminated willy-nilly makes a person sexist? Because if it's the latter, you condemned a large group of people (myself included) as sexist when, to tell the truth, that is not the case at all.

Zev Steinhardt

My contention is that believing that the fetus' life, whatever value it may have, is more important than the woman's right to control her own body does, willy-nilly, make you sexist. You might treat women with respect otherwise, but this is a dealbreaker.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

My contention is that believing that the fetus' life, whatever value it may have, is more important than the woman's right to control her own body does, willy-nilly, make you sexist.

(At the risk of speaking for someone else) No, it does not make him sexist. He'd still feel the same way if men could be pregnant.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

My contention is that believing that the fetus' life, whatever value it may have, is more important than the woman's right to control her own body does, willy-nilly, make you sexist. You might treat women with respect otherwise, but this is a dealbreaker.

Well, if I were to hold the same position for men (assuming, for the moment, that men could become pregnant), then it's not a sexist position anymore.

In any event, I suppose it boils down to how far do we recognize "rights" of unborn children and do we actually grant absolute control of a person's body to themselves.

There's been one scenario that I've used before (and will use now) to test the "absolute control of one's body" aspect of this question. The scenario is:

I presume that you would allow a person to commit suicide (assuming competency, of course) under the "right to control one's own body" argument. But what if we were dealing with cojoined twins. Would you allow one to commit suicide, even though it would cause the death of the other (in essence making it a murder-suicide)? If you say yes, that you would allow it, then we simply have to agree to disagree.

If you say no, OTOH, then you would agree that a person does not always have complete control over their own body when another person is dependant on for life. Of course, then we're still stuck with the question of whether or not a fetus/unborn child should have the "rights" that we grant to human beings (which is a large part of the abortion debate to begin with).

And to return to the issue of sexism, let me add this: I have religious beliefs that tell me that a person's body is not thier own. It's on loan from God and must be treated with respect and not mutilated/tattooed, etc. One item in particular is castration - it's against Jewish law for a man to be castrated (which, like abortion, only applies to one gender). Considering that I don't believe that either men or women have complete control over thier bodies, does that still make me sexist for my belief, or am I now anti-male as well as anti-female?

Zev Steinhardt

[Shodan]

I think cmkeller and others are correct. "Racist" has morphed into a generic term of abuse meaning "anyone on the Right who I don't like". BrainGlutton appears to be attempting the same process on the term "sexist".

Like most political chants, it is simply duckspeak from the bellyfeelers.

Regards,
Shodan

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by Ringo

Well, panache, I'd have to wonder what "anti-gay" means to any particular person. Surely, advocating prescribing criminal sanctions against homosexual activity could be considered anti-gay, at least by most people.

Bush refuses to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As governor of Texas, Bush refused to adopt a state administration non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation. George W. Bush opposes gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. Bush also has stated that he would not appoint anyone as a Joint Chief of Staff who openly advocated allowing gays and lesbians in the armed forces.

[Cornelius Tuggerson]

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Do you really believe that every person who maintains the position that a fetus is life (or potential life and therefore ought not to be destroyed) is sexist?

In the immortal words of George Carlin -
"They are not pro-life... They are anti-woman!"

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

My contention is that believing that the fetus' life, whatever value it may have, is more important than the woman's right to control her own body does, willy-nilly, make you sexist. You might treat women with respect otherwise, but this is a dealbreaker.

I am as staunchly pro-choice as they come, absolutely firmly, 100% on your side of the fence on that issue, and even I am having difficulty believing you're serious about this.

If a person legitimately, honestly believes a fetus is a human being, advocating its rights as a person would seem to me to be a reasonable position irrespective of the fact that only women get pregnant.

It is certainly possible that SOME people are pro-choice because they just don't like women. It is my direct experience, however, that most people who are anti-abortion are anti-abortion because they think fetuses are human beings whose lives should be preserved at all costs. I simply do not believe that a definition of "sexism" that essentially means "women can do whatever they want, including murdering people" is a reasonable definition, but that's literally what you're saying.

[manhattan]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

I don't even wanna count how many pointless times the tirades against President Bush have been made, but this is getting really tiresome.

I could be wrong, but I read the OP as having been proffered in good faith with an open mind -- that he's no Bush supporter but that he's willing to be persuaded that his roommates' proposition that Bush is not sexist or racist is correct.

To respond to the OP, Hi, you have to understand that loony left protestors are very, very stupid -- equally as stupid as loony right protestors. That's how they fall in with North-Korean-funded Trotskyites in the first place. They have an extremely limited vocabulary of chants which they have to recycle constantly as they have more protests than they have issues or people to protest against. They've got "Two, four, six, eight, something something rhymes with ate!", there's "What do we want? Something! When do we want it? Now!" , there's the one you heard and there's "The people, united, will never be defeated!" (which is especially amusing immediately following an electoral loss, but I digress). That's pretty much it. So they have to recycle.

That level of stupidity doesn't allow them to understand such nuances (heh) as the fact that the President's position on gay marriage is identical to Barbara Boxer's and that they disagree only whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to codify their shared view or that he is the first president in the nation's history to choose any non-whites for any of the "big four" cabinet positions (and he's done it three times for two of the positions). Just as you see in this thread, where some people are trying to understand that some people can reasonably hold the view that a human life is created at inception rather than at birth but can't get over the hump that for a person with such a view there is no functional difference between abortion and infanticide.

[furt]

This is a standard leftist chant.

In the 1990s Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago was in the forefront of the Operation Rescue anti-abortion movement. While undeniably conservative, the church is also a model of integration: their black and white co-pastors give workshops on racial reconciliation, books have been written about them, etc.

Anyway, at one point there was a rally outside on a night that they were having an anti-abortion prayer vigil, and all night the chant was "racist, sexist, anti-gay" etc. I think Nazi was in there somewhere. The (almost all-white) protestors continued shouting "racist," even when buses with all-black gospel choirs started rolling in.

[catsix]

I don't think he's sexist for speaking the pro-life party line, and I don't think I've seen any cites that said he only nominated pro-life judges to the bench either. Even if he did, it's not sexist to believe that abortion is wrong if you believe that a fetus is a human being.

He'd be sexist if he thought that women shouldn't have the choice to abort because they are women, but their gender doesn't have anything to do with his belief that fetuses are real people.

As for racist, well, I am also opposed to race-based affirmative action especially when it comes to quotas or 'point systems' that give someone additional points based on their race. I believe all people should have an equal opportunity to apply for any job they want, and that the position should be awared on the basis of merit and ability.

Being opposed to Affirmative Action doesn't make one a racist, nor does being opposed to abortion make one a sexist. I'd need to see evidence of specific things he did that would make me believe those two.

As for anti-gay, well, he does oppose much in the way of protecting the same rights for gay people as exist for heterosexual people, and I believe that is wrong of him. What I don't know is whether he does it out of hatred for gays, or even a desire to keep gays 'down'. I wish he would change his position on that, though.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by manhattan

That level of stupidity doesn't allow them to understand such nuances (heh) as the fact that the President's position on gay marriage is identical to Barbara Boxer's and that they disagree only whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to codify their shared view or that he is the first president in the nation's history to choose any non-whites for any of the "big four" cabinet positions (and he's done it three times for two of the positions). Just as you see in this thread, where some people are trying to understand that some people can reasonably hold the view that a human life is created at inception rather than at birth but can't get over the hump that for a person with such a view there is no functional difference between abortion and infanticide.

What does Barbara Boxer have to do with whether or not Bush is sexist, racist, or anti-gay? Also, just cause Bush nominated non-whites for cabinet positions doesn't mean he isn't racist. I don't get the impression that he is, but his nominations mean nothing in that regard.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by faldureon

In the immortal words of George Carlin -
"They are not pro-life... They are anti-woman!"

It's funny . . . I honestly have been thinking of starting an IMHO or Cafe Society thread along the lines of "Isn't George Carlin one of the least funny or insightful jackasses around?"

Is the Carlin quote offered as probative of something having to do with political reality?

I'm holding out until I hear what Gallagher has to say on the issue.

And by the way . . . why do we drive on the parkway but park on the driveway?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by manhattan

To respond to the OP, Hi, you have to understand that loony left protestors are very, very stupid -- equally as stupid as loony right protestors.

You also have to understand that not all the protestors joining in that chant fall under the heading of "loony left." Some did, no doubt, but some might have been ordinary disappointed Democrats.

Originally Posted by manhattan

They have an extremely limited vocabulary of chants which they have to recycle constantly as they have more protests than they have issues or people to protest against. They've got "Two, four, six, eight, something something rhymes with ate!", there's "What do we want? Something! When do we want it? Now!" , there's the one you heard and there's "The people, united, will never be defeated!" (which is especially amusing immediately following an electoral loss, but I digress). That's pretty much it. So they have to recycle.

The public protest chant is, of course, a very constrained form -- it has to be short, repetitive, punchy, and rythmic (in 4-4 march time, usually). You pretty much have to recycle whatever you've found that works.

Originally Posted by manhattan

That level of stupidity doesn't allow them to understand such nuances (heh) . . .

How do you know they don't understand nuances? The problem is that it is practically impossible to express nuances in a chant -- or in any other form of slogan or sound bite, or on a bumper sticker.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Ringo

. . . .although I doubt the President looks at all favorably upon gay lifestyles.

I don't know about that. His daughters hang out with the fashion crowd and he seems to have no problem with that. There was a newspaper story (sorry, can't find a cite at the moment) in which he and Laura were described as having a number of homosexual friends and GWB was mentioned as having warmly embraced/complimented some ex-classmate who showed up at a reunion after a sex-change operation. And Northeast Establishment Episcopaleans (which is how GWB was raised) have a long history of not being much bothered by homosexuality (perhaps because their single-sex prep schools, like English public schools, tend to encourage a bit of "youthful experimentation?").

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

My contention is that believing that the fetus' life, whatever value it may have, is more important than the woman's right to control her own body does, willy-nilly, make you sexist. You might treat women with respect otherwise, but this is a dealbreaker.

You understand that about half of all fetuses are female, correct? I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate. I'm merely pointing out that your syllogism that translates pro-life into anti-female is a little silly. If Bush were to say that he believes fetuses are human beings with the right to live, but only if the fetus is male, then you'd have a point.

[Hi, Neighbor!]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

You understand that about half of all fetuses are female, correct? I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate. I'm merely pointing out that your syllogism that translates pro-life into anti-female is a little silly. If Bush were to say that he believes fetuses are human beings with the right to live, but only if the fetus is male, then you'd have a point.

I don't believe BrainGlutton's remark had anything to do with the sex of the fetus. His comment about pro-life = sexist is because supporting the pro-life view takes away a woman's right to decide what shall happen in and to her body.

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by manhattan

they disagree only whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to codify their shared view

That's a pretty damn big difference.

Boxer and Bush's positions on gay rights are NOT equal. Boxer is a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discimination Act. Bush opposes it. Boxer is a co-sponsor of Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. Bush opposes. Shall I go on?

[TeaElle]

Originally Posted by furt

This is a standard leftist chant.

Agreed. Many years ago, I had the misfortune of selecting a hairstylist whose salon was in the same building as an abortion clinic. Pro-life activists would come out every Saturday to pray (mainly the rosary) and hand out literature, and pro-choice counterprotestors would line the opposite side of the street to yell at them. And even though the pro-life group was mixed race, mostly women, mostly Catholic and pro-life activities have nothing to do with sexual orientation, the chant was "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, born-again bigots go away."

My response was "2, 4, 6, 8, originality would be really super great!"

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Hi, Neighbor!

I should clarify. The title of the OP was a chant at an anti-Bush rally during the inauguration parade. My roommates' comments were made as they were chanting it.

Cudos to the group for using the term "anti-gay" instead of "homophobic". Though chosen for the ryme, the word homophobic implies that someones opinion is a disorder.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But it is a safe way to bet. Most white people who oppose affirmative action are racists if you scratch them.

I'm a Hispanic person that opposes affirmative action. What do you get when you scratch me?

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm a Hispanic person that opposes affirmative action. What do you get when you scratch me?

capsium burns?

[gobear]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm a Hispanic person that opposes affirmative action. What do you get when you scratch me?

A lighter version of Clarence Thomas?

OK, that was mean, but BrainGlutton is right--a large proportion of white folks who oppose affirmative action do so not from ideology but from distaste at people of color getting a fair shot at good jobs and education. I have never heard or read commentary from white conservatives decrying legacy preference that favors white elites at private universities or or the informal system of connections that governs hiring at the upper tier of law firms and investment houses that also favors the white upper-class. But let one black guy get a leg up in the system, and the op-ed pages of the WSJ and Washington Times are crammed with oh-so-pious editorials in favor of color-blind hiring.

Hypocrites.

That's not to say there's not racism in the ranks of the left, either. The spate of left-of-center articles and op-ed pieces calling Condi Rice an "Aunt Jemima" as detailed in Colbert King's piece in the Post yesterday is repulsive.

There are good, sound arguments for the eradication of AA, but color me skeptical that Trent Lott, Tom DeLay,and their cohorts are motivated by the spirit of racial egalitarianism in their opposition to AA.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by TeaElle

My response was "2, 4, 6, 8, originality would be really super great!"

When come back, bring scansion.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm a Hispanic person that opposes affirmative action. What do you get when you scratch me?

Fun!

[TeaElle]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

When come back, bring scansion.

I know, but I was peeved. I'm generally pro-life and all of the rosary ladies would weep and wail at me going in and shove literature at me, presuming that I was going to get an abortion when I was really going for a wash and set. I'd think that they'd eventually figure out that there were other businesses in the building and not every female was there to get her uterus sucked out. And since they saw me every week (to the point that I knew some of their names from hearing them talk to one another) I eventually got more than offended at what kind of a slut they must've thought I was.