Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who says he can't control himself (where are guys getting this from? )? He just wants to avoid false accusations. Men can't be too careful in the age of MeToo.
I'm just curious how it's completely acceptable to assume that the reporter has nothing but the worst intentions, rather than, you know, doing her job, and at the same time no matter what the R does, it's lily white, and there's zero chance the guy is just a fair bit of a douchecanoe.
Location: Close to Pittsburgh, but NOT Pittsburgh ('cause I don't pay CoP taxes)
252 posts, read 236,427 times
Reputation: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChemDawg
lol, it must be a ton of fun being terrified of women as much as you are
I couldn't live life that way, sorry, but you do you
Throw in terrorists, immigrants, and LGBTQ folks and it's a wonder these people can summon the courage to come out from underneath their blankets every morning.
His mistake was in not just saying "No." He doesn't owe her or anyone else an explanation.
I disagree. He is aspiring to public office, and with that comes an obligation to make yourself available to the press. If he just said "no" without explaining himself, it makes it seem as though he is restricting the press' access to him. I think it's good that he explained his reasoning, and good that he offered an accommodation (i.e. the reporter could bring someone else with her) so that she could have had her day with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Of course it's his fault. He's the one who made the rule. He's the one who's damaging the professional reputation of a reporter.
Exactly. It's insulting to a female reporter to have to "bring" anyone, assuming the female reporter can't handle the job. It's limiting the stories the female reporter can cover, and limiting how she does her job.
If he had this policy just for her, and allowed all other female reporters solo access to him, then I'd agree that he would be damaging her professional reputation. But his actions aren't about her, specifically; they're about avoiding a potential appearance of impropriety.
It also has nothing to do with the reporter's competence. I do agree that this could place limits on the stories that the female reporter can cover, and that's unfortunate. But having your name dragged through the mud due to some decades-old allegations of impropriety isn't too fortunate either. This man is smart to try to avoid it happening to him.
Foster is an absolutely BEAUTIFUL guy. That hair! That JAWLINE! That coloring... He's absolutely LUSCIOUS. Men like him, have been fending-off "interest" by people of both genders, since puberty, if not earlier. They've had innocuous situations turn "inappropriate", so many times, they know how to be careful - and know that they'd better be careful.
Foster cites Billy Graham's policy on being alone with women. Graham was astonishingly beautiful, himself (Graham was evil, personified - no-telling how many Gay people have died, because of his "teachings" - and I'm not a fan). Things are different, when you're gorgeous. People - all sorts of people - "offer themselves" to you, the second they get you alone. They make fools of themselves. They'll get you into trouble, if you let them. People who are nowhere near as hot as you are, go all delusional, and think that somehow they'll have a chance. And when you brush them off, they get mean.
My husband, when I met him, was pitiably hideous. But he transformed himself through diet, bodybuilding, and growing his hair out (and wearing the fine Italian clothes I went to extraordinary lengths to get for-cheap, with the few Dollars I had to spend). So, he knows how things are when you're not attractive, and he knows how things are when you're STUNNING.
Interspersed among all the women rubbing against my husband, like cats in heat, there's been - right there in Jackson, Mississippi, the attorney scion of a wealthy family of Bible-thumping Greek Evangelical Baptists (they own half of Rankin County, after reputedly arriving as 'Gold Coast' bootleggers), who grabbed DH's junk in the shower at the gym. There was the Holyroller preacher, who pretended to want to buy a couple of our apartment buildings, but who, instead, tried to get DH alone, so they could "share Jesus". That perilous real estate tour lasted for half the day, until the lady at "Penn's Fish House" openly denounced the preacher as a crook and a predator. But the thing with brushing-off men, is that they have less credibility, and fewer options for "expression", when they get mean, after being rejected. Against predatory women, an attractive man is more vulnerable.
That Reporter looks like she was pretty, until recently. Her career was going nowhere, because her looks were fading, and - let's face it - she didn't have much else going for her. She's certainly not pleasant to listen to. And there's definitely no "innate goodness" shining from within her.
And then this opportunity falls into her bony lap. Through much virtue-signaling, and expertly-wielded 'Victimhood Professionalism', aka, 'Grievance-mongering', she has managed to turn a tiny molehill into a mountain tall enough that, now she's standing on it, all may view her. They may view her, astraddle her moral high ground, clothed in righteousness. And to think: before this, nobody was paying her any attention, at all.
Why is it always the fundie Christians that are a bit fugly that think every woman on the planet wants to have sex with them?
Fundamentalist Christians may or may not think of themselves as being sexually irresistible. But it's pretty likely that they're familiar with this verse from the Bible:
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)
Sounds to me like they're trying to apply this verse to their own lives.
Still not fool-proof: the male reporter could side with the female reporter, then you’d have two against one. Better to wear a body camera full time.
I'm just curious how it's completely acceptable to assume that the reporter has nothing but the worst intentions, rather than, you know, doing her job, and at the same time no matter what the R does, it's lily white, and there's zero chance the guy is just a fair bit of a douchecanoe.
It's CNN. That's why.
Here's another CNN reporter just yesterday. This at the Whitehouse no less.
If he can't manage enough self-control when he is alone with a female, he shouldn't be running for office!!!
"f he can't manage enough self-control when he is alone with a female, he shouldn't be running for office!!!"
OR you can't trust females to NOT make FALSE allegations against you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)? He just wants to avoid false accusations. Men can't be too careful in the age of MeToo.
