McCain shows ignorance regarding birth control »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 1 month, 3 weeks ago240 Comments Report this Story
This video of John McCain is truly incredible. The simple answer should have been that insurance companies should, indeed, cover birth control pills. But McCain was incoherent. This is not the first time McCain has shown profound ignorance on birth control and sexuality. Here's the Straight-Talk Express at work:
Read Full Story at dangerousintersection.org
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 240
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 month, 3 weeks ago
The problem is that he is trying to hold onto the radical right, which wants to outlaw all effective birth control. See also, here, regarding the political positions on birth control pushed by those bastions of misinformation, "Pregnancy Resource Centers," which dot the land, often well-funded by tax dollars. The Republicans are controlled by those who believe that they should control when and how you feel sexual pleasure.
Also check out McCain's ignorance on the relationship between condom use and HIV:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/03/16/joh...
As you can see, then, even when you set aside the issue of abortion, Republicans are further determined to tell you if, when and how to get pregnant. How can they not see that this should be a decision left to individuals? The answer is that Republicans are pandering to the radical "religious" Right.
Reply-
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
"Republicans are pandering to the radical 'religious' Right."
And Karl Rove is at the helm, to incite hysteria at election-time for greatest effect at energizing the indoctrinated--a proven formula. Will they buy it yet a 3rd time?!
Reply -
0%
Teech1 month, 3 weeks ago
McSenile obviously needs more lessons from George Bush's speech coach.
This poor old fool has difficulty finding his way to the bathroom, and once he does, he can't remember what he is supposed to be doing there!
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 month, 3 weeks ago
You're right Teech. McCain is a senile old politician that keeps getting his facts confused and the "liberal" media is giving him a pass. None of his guffaws have been mentioned by the main stream media but Obama and Hillary is constantly being reported for things that aren't even fact. Brit Hume keeps reporting that Obama is a Muslim which he isn't. FOX stands for
Full
Of
eXcrement.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 3 weeks ago
Jonny Jutebox (changes his tune every 2 minutes) Senile Viagra Senator from Alkida..er...I mean Arizons...thought the question was about how much Viagra he had to take to service his stepford blonde second, the one after he threw his cancerous first mother of his children under the double talk express.
I don't blame him from having a super senior moment, he's a super senior. The airforce wouldn't let him fly a fighter, or fly IN a fighter, it would cause a stroke. But, he's just fit as a fiddle to be the leader of the free world, commander of the largest war machine ever created to protect the intrests of the largest corporations ever like Enron and Walmart.
Bob Dole broke the ice, after he retires after he loses in a landslide to a brilliant man in his prime of life, he can get all the viagra commercials. Infact, how about this ticket..........McSenile and Dole, VP. How about THAT viagra commercial.
Reply -
-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
While you watch it with your a-hole open (since you prefer insults to intelligent responses).
Reply -
0%
lfergie8121 month, 3 weeks ago
Sorry. I only can take a little shot now and then but it must be your main source of entertainment since you took offense to my comment. You're right about one thing though, the best way to keep from getting sh!t on is to listen with your mouth open. You must stay well covered all the time. ROFLMAO
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago
Uh huh...
The media is keeping the black man down....
Already coming up with a crutch to lean on if he looses?
Gonna blame "cigar chompin crackers" if he looses?
The media has been all over Obama since day one, too bad your racist goggles prevent you from seeing it.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 month, 3 weeks ago
Hey its SPinner, man reading your posts is like reading the GOPs talkingpoints except you dont bother to read them too well yourself. But the post Im replyinbg to is pretty much your standard fare, foaming at the mouth, spitting on the keyboard and not making any points. ROFLMAO, and you wonder why people laugh.
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago
I think anyone with non partisan glasses on would think you are the one apt to be spitting at the keyboard, not me. I may be a smarta$$, but I never lose my cool.....unlike the liberal extremists I usually spar with.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago
Ah yes, today's dose of age discrimination by the usual crowd of Libscapes supposedly "enlightened" left wing extremists.
What's next, he's too white?
You clowns re-define the meaning of the word HYPOCRISY!!
Reply-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
It's not discrimination. The facts speak for themselves. Unfortunately, John McCain is senile, which makes him unfit to serve as POTUS.
NoSpin to put on that, Dave.
Reply-
0%
NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago
"it's not discrimination. The facts speak for themselves. Unfortunately, John Mc Cain is senile, which makes him unfit to serve as POTUS."
A) your wrong, it is age discrimination. We ALL get confused at times...or are YOU perfect?
B) I would rather a POTUS that gets confused once in a while, but has good people around him to make sure that's not an issue than an empty vessel of a person like Obama who stands for NOTHING but his own MASSIVE EGO.
Mc Cain stands for SOMETHING (if you like it or not), its AMAZING Obama can keep ANYTHING straight he changes is opinions so often to serve his political needs from group to group. He is a COMPLETE FRAUD. Now THATS a reason not to be POTUS!
Reply-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
Well Dave, I am a senior, and I am not running for POTUS, nor would I, given the gravity of the position because I know and accept that my senior moments are coming more and more often these days. I am a realist, and I would much rather accept the fact that I am no longer in my prime and, though still quite intelligent, I am NOT qualified to handle a position of that level of importance and responsibility because I simply am too forgetful and too darn tired! There comes a time when you have to be realistic and practical, and consider things other than your own ego. The safety and well being of every person in the country should be of primary importance and take precedence over any ambitiions I may have. I have already said that by age 70, or sooner if it seems reasonable, I will stop driving because I know my reflexes will not be what they once were, and I do not want to inadvertently endanger others on the road for the sake of my own convenience.
Obama is a fraud? Prove it!
Reply-
-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
If that is your basis, then McCain is, once again, blown completely out of the water as he has done so many, many, many times more often than Obama! You know as well as I do, that given the complexities of this modern world, candidates are bound to change their minds from time to time on some of the issues, and by far, Obama has been more consistent in his stances than John McCain has EVER been. You really shouldn't go there!
Reply-
-
0%
lfergie8121 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah. If you get you news from FOX (Full Of eXcrement) you probably wouldn't. ROFLMAO They can't even report a story right without bias. They're not a news station, they're an opinion station and it's all bias towards the Republican view point.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ReasonableMind1 month, 3 weeks ago
"I would rather a POTUS that gets confused once in a while, but has good people around him to make sure that's not an issue than an empty vessel of a person like Obama who stands for NOTHING but his own MASSIVE EGO."
Really? You want a president that can be confused at a question on birth control? Or even at all? Seriously? Sure, I love old people too, but it doesn't mean they should be President of the United States! I'm not saying Obama should either. That's not what this is about, but think before making stupid comments like that. Others should be able to just make a decision when he gets confused? Really? Why not just vote for that person and not McCain? I wouldn't want him behind a wheel of a car let alone as my President.
Reply -
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
It's entirely possible that the conditions for his primary win included not giving his own opinion on anything. He is to toe the line and act under the advice of his handlers, and they are to prep him thoroughly. I guess they didn't see this coming.
Reply -
0%
NoSpinDave1 month, 3 weeks ago
"The boob was asked for his opinion, and replied that he was not well-enough informed to respond!!! He doesn't know his OWN OPINION? He can't just say he doesn't HAVE one? Does he KNOW if he has one??? Gimme a break!"
Funny, if he is such a "Boob" as you say, then why won't your hero BHO debate him in a town hall format? Huh? I mean, if he is such a boob then it should be a walkover by the "great orator"...aka, the HUGE FRAUD!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 month, 3 weeks ago
RickyDawkins
"condom use and HIV"
This story give the condoms an 80% prevention rating. I say things like that and all the liberals start saying it isn't so. What that means is if a person has sex with an HIV person 5 times it is very likely they will get the disease. What good protection you safe sex fools promote. That is worse than the consumer reports normal use statistics for condoms. Of course it leaves out that some STD's go right through a condom so they are no protection at all for those diseases.
Good subject to bring up Rickey. How bad condoms are. Think about the statistics you are promoting.
Reply
-
0%
Charlson1 month, 3 weeks ago
He'll have to talk to Bush & his campaign handlers to get the right position on that issue and any other.
Reply -
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.98 Replies
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
"The simple answer should have been that insurance companies should, indeed, cover birth control pills."
I disagree. Why should birth control be covered under health insurance? Insurance is for unexpected expenses. Birth control is regular system maintenance.
Saying that health insurance companies should cover birth control is like saying that auto insurance should cover gas, oil changes, and worn tires.
Reply-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.66 Replies
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Why? So that people can have unprotected sex on the taxpayers dollar?
I can understand if it is prescribed to alleviate severe cramps or acne, but if it's just for birth control, why should an insurance company be on the hook when it's caused by the insured INTENTIONALLY engaging in the behaviour that requires it.
Insurance: (first 2 results from dictionary.com)
1.the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against LOSS OR HARM arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment PROPORTIONATE TO THE RISK involved.
2.coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for LOSS that occurs under the terms of the contract.
Insurance is for loss or harm, or risk. There is no "risk" of someone requiring birth control. There is no "loss or harm" involved. How can this possibly fall under the umbrella of insurance?
Reply-
0%
smithichie1 month, 3 weeks ago
Uh, how about the risk of becoming pregnant? How about the loss of income or personal freedoms from becoming pregnant? There is also the possiblity of personal harm due to pregnancy.
And just how does Viagra meet your definitions of what insurance companies should be covering?
Reply-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
All of those things are not involved with covering the cost of birth control. The risk is "the risk of needing birth control". Insurance companies don't pay for your seat belts, you do in the price of the car. They just pay for the injuries, the loss of income, the damage if you do get into an accident. The seat-belt is additional insurance protecting you from death.
Reply -
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
As for Viagra, I mentioned it in another post (not sure why you're asking me about it since I never brought it up and it doesn't seem relevant to the birth control question), but here is how it meets my definition.
If I have a normally functioning penis and buy an insurance policy, then (and only then) if at some time in the future my penis ceases to work normally due to some injury or psychological trauma - treatment via Viagra may be required to restore me to full sexual health.
If I'm already having trouble downstairs, no insurance companies should be required to sell me coverage that includes Viagra and take a guaranteed loss because of it.
Reply-
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Hey, I was only answering the question asked "How does Viagra meet my definition." She didn't ask IF viagra met my definition of what should be covered, and by and large it doesn't! But I stuck to the question asked (because I'm not a politician) and gave a possible reason that would fit my definition of what should be covered. My definition is "medically necessary procedures." That's it. Viagra and birth control do not generally fit that bill, but in extreme circumstances either could do so.
Reply
-
-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
The question posed to McCain involved the fact that insurance covers Viagra. That's why it's relevant.
If you are correct that Viagra helps restore men to "full sexual health," then birth control helps restore women to full sexual health as well--they can avoid being traumatized by fear of pregnancy, which for some women can cause injury or death.
Regardless, if you're worried about your tax dollars, it's going to cost a whole lot more of your money for society to pick up the tab of an unwanted birth that some women cannot afford than it does to pay for birth control.
And tax dollars don't pay for insurance anyway, unless we're talking about public insurance such as Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP. The question posed to McCain did not speak of public insurance.
Reply -
0%
Edvbq11 month, 3 weeks ago
Altho Viagra was covered as a prescription under a lot of insurances originally, a lot do NOT cover it at all any more for the simple reason that it is not a medically needed med in most cases. In many cases it is not covered because of the same reason as a lot don't cover birth control, it's not a medically NECESSARY medicine. Try looking up insurance companies covered drug lists, in most cases it is NOT listed.
Reply
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
"Since you are a man, thank God you are not making those decisions on what can be covered for a woman."
There seems to be a little misunderstanding, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be covered, I'm arguing that it shouldn't HAVE to be covered. If you can convince your insurance company to cover it, I'm all for it! I don't think that government has a right to step in and tell them that they have to, unless it is medically necessary. And for "birth control", the pill is NOT medically necessary -- though it helps a whole lot and is a good thing!
Reply-
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
lol... OBviously. :)
I'm sorry, name-calling because I disagree with you?
My wife is on the pill, and we pay for it ourselves. It's a small price to pay considering the alternatives.
But really, thank you for the laugh. Man, that was a doozy. Every time I think that propellerites couldn't get more juvenile, they renew my faith.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
newbie04201 month, 3 weeks ago
"or the excessive bleeding that some women experience, that I experience."
That explains SOOOOOO much tessy, no wonder you're always so angry and bitter.
If you're paying for your own insurnace get them to cover it, a couple girls I work with have, they have the same problem as you, they're just not nearly as b1tchy tho.
Should insurance companies have to pay for condoms for men?
Reply-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
"Should insurance companies have to pay for condoms for men?"
Imo, no, because many men are too irresponsible and selfish to use them anyway. Otherwise, I think it would be great both for prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but moreso for protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
Reply -
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
It might make more sense for them to do so. Condoms can cover diseases which would then require treatment that would be covered. Someone mentioned that the pill prevents pregnancy and the associated costs of child-rearing. But the child wouldn't be claimable (though the birth might be), and would actually be an EXTRA source of income for the insurance company because it would require its own policy (or an upgrade to a family plan).
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
I really do have to say that that is a very foolish and shortsighted comment! The desire for sex is one of the strongest urges human beings have, and it is unrealistic and unnatural to expect them to abstain, regardless of the risks. Furthermore, anyone who does not want to be deprived of a pleasurable sexual experience should have to be, just because they cannot afford to pay for birth control.
Reply-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Birth control is a technological invention, it's not a basic human right! Wow... there are alternatives. For millenia, people have been controlling (with varying degrees of success) their reproductive frequency. The rhythm method, some herbal solutions and improvised barriers have been used.
Reply-
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Masturbate then; it's the only "safe" sex option. Fulfills the need for gratification AND safety. Doesn't require pills.
Reply
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Why should I only be having sex to procreate Tessy? Because I'm a Roman Catholic? I don't preach that part of dogma, and I became a Roman Catholic before I was old enough to understand what it meant.
I have no problem with birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, sex for fun (by adults who are old enough to understand the responsibility), nor abortion (though I think, like any surgical procedure, it shouldn't be taken lightly). I believe that all Christian churches are basically the same, so I don't understand the RC view that they are God's Chosen Church.
I enjoy the song "Every Sperm is Sacred" and its associate sketch, but I don't take them to heart.
I hope you realize that the twisting of words that you are currently doing is exactly why "Straight talk" by McCain OR Obama, can be a bad political move and get candidates in trouble. You have your version of "what they should have said" but then it would have been twisted by both sides to be no-win.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
lynnemarie0151 month, 3 weeks ago
UH!! How about if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex!! Sex outside of marriage is wrong anyways. There are consequences for doing things the wrong way... and if you don't want to have a baby then you shouldn't be fooling around. It is as simple as that. You people think you should be able to do whatever you want and not have an consequences. LOSS OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That's your own fault... Wake up!!! Babies are wonderful blessings in life. But honestly if you aren't ready to have a child then you aren't ready to have sex either. DUH
Reply-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
sumptuousdigs1 month, 3 weeks ago
lynnemarie015...WOW! My perfect creator created the perfect joke, when he made me able to procreate, before I was able to raise a child. That said, I suspect you follow the teachings of a sage and wonderful teacher, that was conceived outside the bounds of the traditional marriage. Certainly by all the contemporary accounts of the times, THE WRONG WAY.
It strikes me that many so called Christians would have turned their backs on a young bastard, and lined up to stone his mother if they went back, and merged their convictions with the contemporary methods of that time. You're compassion wouldn't fill a thimble, it would be too brimming with self righteousness to let any kindness in.
Reply
-
-
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
How about to prevent unwanted babies from being born into the world to be abandoned or killed shortly after arrival, or placed in a system that doesn't work and that drains the pocketbooks of every hard working citizen?
Babies can't take care of themselves, and most people unlucky enough to be raped or irresponsible enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, do not want and will not accept the responsibility. This is one reason we have so many young people in the world today who do not know who their parents are and have been so mistreated... in this life that they have no respect for theirs...OR yours.
Reply-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Okay, you raise a valid argument for the government to provide birth control free of charge. Not for insurance companies, who are not in business to babysit (so to speak) the country.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Right! It's separate insurance, should be purchased separately. Or, be provided as part of Health CARE.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of birth control. In fact, I think it should be covered by my Health CARE (I'm Canadian).
But the need for birth control is not an insurable risk. No one would under-write it because it's just not good business. If the plan that covers birth control were cheaper than the one without it, everyone would take it to save money... and the insurance company would lose money. To be in the insurance companies best interests, they have to charge MORE than the value of the birth control to cover the additional overhead of claims and checks. So why would anyone buy that coverage?
Insurance companies aren't charities. You can't expect them to be. Until you get a charity in charge of Health care, expect to pay for extras and pre-existing conditions.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago
Health insurance in the U.S. (where McCain is running for president, and where we don't have publicly funded health) helps to pay for health CARE.
Reply -
0%
jeffery11 month, 3 weeks ago
willotica,
Health insurance is NOT insurance, it is actually a way to spread the cost risk across a large population so that when one inevitably needs health care it doesn't cost any one person as much as it would have had they not been part of the risk pool.
Your logic is the reason that health insurance companies should be mandted to be non-profit. They profit by limiting access health care rather than providing quality health care. Make them non-profit and you remove the incentive to keep people from getting the treatment they need, and no longer reject people with pre-existing conditions, but still maintain a watchdog to health care cost excess.
Everyone needs health care because we are biological machines. Birth control is part of health care for a number of reasons, including preventing overpopulation at the highest level.
Reply -
0%
cushi1 month, 3 weeks ago
I respectfully, just look at what is happening among the younger generations today. I don't think paying for birth control costs nearly as much as so many wasted young lives, especially when they have the potential and usually do, wind up increasing in numbers because they are so desperate to be loved by someone, anyone. They have NO quality of life. Many of them are here, and that's all. Lots of them wish they weren't. Too many wind up used up, washed up, drugged up, fed up, suicidal or homicidal (sometimes both). There is no higher cost than that, imho, and those unwanted babies are paying it.
Reply -
0%
Tangent0011 month, 3 weeks ago
"To be in the insurance companies best interests, they have to charge MORE than the value of the birth control to cover the additional overhead of claims and checks."
Not necessarily. Insurance companies negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for pretty hefty discounts. Your prescription may have a retail cost of $50, but more than likely your insurance company is paying $30. In this case, a $40 premium saves the patient $10 and makes $10 for the insurance company.
Reply
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
0%
toph19731 month, 3 weeks ago
Wait though, birth control has many health benefits. It helps protect against:
cancer of the ovaries and womb
pelvic inflammatory disease
osteoporosis
I work in insurance and loss mitigation factors in on the insurability of an individual. What steps can the insured take to lessen the chance of a major loss? Can we pay $600 a year to prevent something that may cost us millions in the future.
So yes, all birth control should be covered by insurance.
Reply-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
But if it's a mitigator, then maybe it should be a REQUIREMENT of insurance... i.e. unless you're taking it, we won't insure you!
Birth control also has side-effects. It increases the chance of blood-clots and strokes, as well as breast cancer(?).
I can't remember all of them, but I know that is why birth control was removed from production for a while, and why in today's version, it is only 1/10th the potency of the original pill.
Reply-
0%
TGrass30011 month, 3 weeks ago
Viagra also has side effects. Remember the issue of this thread is one is covered by private insurers and one is not, so if you are pointing out the side effects of one let's look at the side effects of the other.
Amongst sildenafil's (Generic name for Viagra) rare but serious adverse effects are: priapism, severe hypotension, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, stroke and increased intraocular pressure (can lead to blindness).
Common side effects include sneezing, headache, flushing, dyspepsia, palpitations and photophobia.
These symptoms seem pretty bad to me, but private insurers cover the pills so I guess that means they aren't so bad?
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
nostalgia1 month, 3 weeks ago
Get your facts straight:
In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group
A 2003 analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found an increased risk of cervical cancer with longer use of OCs.
Women who used OCs for longer periods of time were found to be at increased risk for liver cancer.
Reply -
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.16 Replies
-
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.15 Replies
-
0%
joey-evans1 month, 3 weeks ago
Ranchy,
Do you wait until your girlfriend says Moooo? L.O.L.
Hey! To each their own Ranchy...ENJOY!
JOEY EVANS
Reply-
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.13 Replies
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
-
-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
did you read the comment - I reported scrim's "partial birth abortion" comment. It was reprehensible.
Ranch's comment about people paying to ensure that you don't reproduce isn't really very nice, but it doesn't cross the line (in my opinion) that you do when accuse him of diddling his cows. (Because best iality is censored for some reason. JAMES!!!! can you quit censoring valid words?)
Reply-
TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
Hey, there's are TOUs for the site. You violated them. You (and scrim) violated them in such a way that made my propeller use less enjoyable. I reported the violation.
Ranchhand probably violated them in such a way as to make your propeller use less enjoyable. You should report him.
Now, I could just block the lot of you, but I really don't want to do that, because though you sometimes get out of control and become abusive, you also sometimes have valid things to say that make me think. So I read your comments, and then you waste my time with the name-calling back and forth.
Did ranchhand make it personal? Yes, but only after your post making it ALL ABOUT YOU. He just didn't change the topic back. There's a whole country out there that is NOT you, and solutions need to work for everyone (or at least a majority).
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
joey-evans1 month, 3 weeks ago
Woooah, Willie!
Where in my post does it refer to anyone diddlin' his actual cows? I have no prior knowledge whatsoever to Ranchy's ummm preferences.
I could have been referring to his choice of women as cows, NOT the actual animals!! It is telling which way you chose to think of things.
Yet, it is good to know how you THINK of certain things of that nature. I believe you protest abit too loudly Willie. Is there anything else you would like to explain to the class?
JOEY EVANS
Reply-
0%
willottica1 month, 3 weeks ago
lol, in context of T's remarks it certainly looks like that's what you're doing. I think that calling his girlfriend a cow would also be an unnecessary personal attack, since I don't think you know his girlfriend. Referring to women as cows is rather sexist, and I assumed that wasn't what you were after? Was I wrong?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
