Hosted on Fotki
Posted on 11/21/2017 9:08:04 AM PST by davikkm
Sunday night, I watched Ian Bremmer on Charlie Rose’s show discussing the goings-on around the world on his one-of-a-kind all-black background television set. Little did I know that that was likely Rose’s last show of his famed career.
There seems to be a new revelation each and every morning these days. A new grotesque story about a man with power and influence taking advantage of a vulnerable woman. After Harvey Weinstein’s story finally came to light and opened us up to the true underbelly of Hollywood’s predators, we have heard the unbelievably tragic and heartbreaking stories, then subsequent downfalls of Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Tambor, Mark Halperin, Sen. Al Franken, possible Sen. Roy Moore, Russell Simmons, Brett Ratner, New York Times columnist Glenn Thrush and now, the paragon of journalism and the one-on-one sober interview, Charlie Rose.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Rachel Maddow.
Quinn says: “If you want to know what the democrats are up to, look at what they are accusing the Republicans of.”
I agree with that; just trying to flirt or pick up a girl, or just being a chad is not a problem. Groping the bare buttocks, breasts, or genitals of your underlings IS a problem.
This is the tip of the iceberg!
Good one, I would like a possible Maddow added to the list.
Likewise for me. My name was plastered in many of the womens restrooms and I was nothing but a piece of meat to them.
I always treated them with respect but I may never have called them ever again.
As Bob Seger sang in “Night Moves”, “I used her and she used me, but neither one cared, we were getting our share”
So far it’s looking like only liberals and Democrats in which case the MSMLSD will say “Hey Lookit!! Squirrel”.
This thing has become a badge of honor. Who’d admit they didn’t?
rwood
If they will send me their addresses, I'll mail each of them one of my balls as penance.
Fall out from 8 years of the ‘Clinton soap opera’ in the WH ...along with his and Hillary’s monkeyshines ever since.
You cannot say this stuff was commonplace BEFORE Billy Goat went into office
I don’t care if they claim that they were only reaching for my wallet, I’ve been ‘groped’ by every damn politician in the District of Corruption at one time or another.
It's an anti-male campaign.
The headline should read:
“Is there anyone ON THE LEFT who has not sexually mistreated women?”
The problem with all of this ‘sexual mistreatment’ is that it’s all in the eyes of the beholder.
Hate to say but women are awfully fickle.
If some guy comes up and grabs me and it’s Harvey Weinstein I’ll object.
But Hugh Jackman? Yes, Please!
So it isn’t just the behavior at stake but who does it and is he cute.
Rather sexist and discriminatory, isn’t it?
My best advice to men at this point is just don’t assume that you have permission to hug or touch a woman.
My best advice to Congress is to make it legal for men to have workplaces that are men-only where men can have a safe space where they can work and not worry about current or convenient future accusations of misconduct against women.
Men clearly need a safe space.
the floodgates are open for blackmail too.
“Is there anyone ON THE LEFT who has not sexually mistreated women?”
___________________________________
Maybe, but most of them have become women themselves or drank the kool-aid and became queers. Ooops...IMO :)
Women? No.
It’s downright ridiculous to ascribe today’s PC “standard” of sexual conduct to 40 years ago, when innocent, yet potentially suggestive, conduct was par for a lot of people. For instance, you used to be able to compliment a co-worker, or even a subordinate, on her dress or hairstyle in the day, but now that is deemed almost a firing offense.
“I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. Something else is coming, a way the left is going to use this against the right, to try to oust Trump, something.”
~~~~~~~
This is the goal. Trump.
I forget who I heard quoted on the radio during my morning drive, but he was a democrat (I think it was bloomberg) and he basically said that if Bill Clinton did what he did then, now, he would be forced to resign. Then when asked why Bill isn’t more harshly treated about it now, he simply said something to the effect of “well that was then... this is now”.
They only want to, or need to, vilify Bill Clinton socially and say that a higher standard is now in effect politically and legally... and there is a very specific reason for it. They are betting on more information (whether legit or fabricated) coming down the pike on Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.