Conservative Lawmaker Quits Congress ...

Conservative Lawmaker Quits Congress After Discussing Surrogacy With 2 Female Staffers

There are 39 comments on the CBS Local story from Dec 7, 2017, titled Conservative Lawmaker Quits Congress After Discussing Surrogacy With 2 Female Staffers. In it, CBS Local reports that:

Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona said Thursday he is resigning next month after revealing that he discussed surrogacy with two female staffers. The eight-term lawmaker, a staunch conservative and fierce opponent of abortion, said in a statement that he never physically intimidated, coerced or attempted to have any sexual contact with any member of his congressional staff.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS Local.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Watching The Snowflakes Rant”

Since: Feb 17

Location hidden

#1 Dec 8, 2017
Drain the swamp
American Independent

Coffeyville, KS

#2 Dec 8, 2017
I can't see how this is actually "sexual harassment" of any kind. As a surrogate you are simple carrying and giving birth to another couple's baby. He didn't ask them to assist in the conception of the child, merely just to carry and give birth. That's not harassing someone sexually! So basically women have decided that a man's career should be destroyed if they even make the feel "uncomfortable" about any conversation. That is already proving to be bad for women. Men will not want to work with them at all for fear of apparently even making them uncomfortable, which is something that is very different for each person but if all it takes is a couple women saying what you talked to them about makes the uncomfortable then you will have a hell of lot less men even wanting women around or wanting to have conversations with them at all. That will not go over well for women wanting to enter the work force, volunteer for anything where they may have to work with a woman, or wanting to hire them. If you have a man and a women with exact same credentials trying for a job and your a man which would you choose with the atmosphere today? I think we all know which one and why!
This will backfire on women the same as the "collusion" investigation will and is backfiring on the Dems.
Oy Vey

Beverly, MA

#3 Dec 8, 2017
American Independent wrote:
I can't see how this is actually "sexual harassment" of any kind. As a surrogate you are simple carrying and giving birth to another couple's baby. He didn't ask them to assist in the conception of the child, merely just to carry and give birth. That's not harassing someone sexually! So basically women have decided that a man's career should be destroyed if they even make the feel "uncomfortable" about any conversation. That is already proving to be bad for women. Men will not want to work with them at all for fear of apparently even making them uncomfortable, which is something that is very different for each person but if all it takes is a couple women saying what you talked to them about makes the uncomfortable then you will have a hell of lot less men even wanting women around or wanting to have conversations with them at all. That will not go over well for women wanting to enter the work force, volunteer for anything where they may have to work with a woman, or wanting to hire them. If you have a man and a women with exact same credentials trying for a job and your a man which would you choose with the atmosphere today? I think we all know which one and why!
This will backfire on women the same as the "collusion" investigation will and is backfiring on the Dems.
The fact that someone has to explain why the Senator’s behavior is wrong is very telling of how tone deaf folks are to appropriate behavior.

Surrogacy is not something to bring up with employees!

Was this the Senator’s awkward and ridiculous way of “flattering” female employees?

IF the senator and his wife were in need of a surrogate, there are proper places to go for help with fertility. Must I repeat again? Surrogacy shopping at the workplace is not appropriate!

His poor wife must be cringing nonstop. Hard to imagine she was asking him to find a surrogate for their baby at his office. She probably would have preferred that he not talk about thier fertility choices with anyone at work under any circumstances.

And IF the Senator and his wife were not in the need of a surrogate,

Then well, IF I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS WRONG ...

SIGH!
ron

United States

#4 Dec 8, 2017
Ligaya Fabian of 1631 El Camino Real #8 Tustin Ca 92780 submitted fake documents and paid money to obtain a driver’s license but the dmv found out and revoked the license. She jumpshipped her flight from Germany to Canada at lax to get here. She now has a green card.
Cordwainer Trout

Brooks, KY

#5 Dec 9, 2017
The idea of surrogacy is a discussion happening amongst very acquainted friends. This bandwagon nonsense from females show their true nature. No matter how much they project friendliness and closeness and invitation to sharing, they cannot be trusted for any solid character. They will turn on a dime for almost any reason. A pro-life position offered in any way to women likely guilty of killing their own babies is inviting their killer wrath.

"Their most trivial actions may mean volumes ... their most extraordinary conduct may depend upon a hairpin or a curling tongs." "Women are never to be entirely trusted - not the best of them." "The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning. I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance money." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle by his Sherlock Holmes.
youll shoot your eye out

Bloomingdale, IN

#6 Dec 9, 2017
American Independent wrote:
I can't see how this is actually "sexual harassment" of any kind. As a surrogate you are simple carrying and giving birth to another couple's baby. He didn't ask them to assist in the conception of the child, merely just to carry and give birth. That's not harassing someone sexually! So basically women have decided that a man's career should be destroyed if they even make the feel "uncomfortable" about any conversation. That is already proving to be bad for women. Men will not want to work with them at all for fear of apparently even making them uncomfortable, which is something that is very different for each person but if all it takes is a couple women saying what you talked to them about makes the uncomfortable then you will have a hell of lot less men even wanting women around or wanting to have conversations with them at all. That will not go over well for women wanting to enter the work force, volunteer for anything where they may have to work with a woman, or wanting to hire them. If you have a man and a women with exact same credentials trying for a job and your a man which would you choose with the atmosphere today? I think we all know which one and why!
This will backfire on women the same as the "collusion" investigation will and is backfiring on the Dems.
Goodness, we must all be comfortable, and protected from any feeling of being uncomfortable.

If a discussion of being a surrogate is enough to sink a Rep. or Senator, we are in a sad state of affairs as a nation.
anonymous

New York, NY

#7 Dec 9, 2017
American Independent wrote:
I can't see how this is actually "sexual harassment" of any kind. As a surrogate you are simple carrying and giving birth to another couple's baby. He didn't ask them to assist in the conception of the child, merely just to carry and give birth. That's not harassing someone sexually! So basically women have decided that a man's career should be destroyed if they even make the feel "uncomfortable" about any conversation. That is already proving to be bad for women. Men will not want to work with them at all for fear of apparently even making them uncomfortable, which is something that is very different for each person but if all it takes is a couple women saying what you talked to them about makes the uncomfortable then you will have a hell of lot less men even wanting women around or wanting to have conversations with them at all. That will not go over well for women wanting to enter the work force, volunteer for anything where they may have to work with a woman, or wanting to hire them. If you have a man and a women with exact same credentials trying for a job and your a man which would you choose with the atmosphere today? I think we all know which one and why!
This will backfire on women the same as the "collusion" investigation will and is backfiring on the Dems.
Doesn't matter. They were his staff and probably lived in fear of repercussions. That kind of thing should NEVER have been brought up.
Death on 2 Legs

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

#8 Dec 9, 2017
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
The idea of surrogacy is a discussion happening amongst very acquainted friends. This bandwagon nonsense from females show their true nature. No matter how much they project friendliness and closeness and invitation to sharing, they cannot be trusted for any solid character. They will turn on a dime for almost any reason. A pro-life position offered in any way to women likely guilty of killing their own babies is inviting their killer wrath.

"Their most trivial actions may mean volumes ... their most extraordinary conduct may depend upon a hairpin or a curling tongs." "Women are never to be entirely trusted - not the best of them." "The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning. I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance money." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle by his Sherlock Holmes.
So nothing but men for you from now on?

Discussing pregnancy surrogacy with co-workers is not something most people would do. Especially from a employer to employee situation. The congressman's judgment is way off on this and someone's whose judgment is that skewed probably not the best choice to represent American people of his district.

And certainly the best explanation of today's sexuality should come from a 19th century fictional gentleman detective who frequently used heroin, reciting a fictional account of the fictional actions of a fictional person in a novel of fiction....fish are stupid.

“Take Out the Orange Trash ”

Since: Dec 15

California

#9 Dec 9, 2017
Q.: What kind of depraved, creepazoid Conservative Evangelical Nutjob Christian keeps pestering his own employees to sleep with him for $5,000,000 so he can "spread his seed.?"

A.: A Republican male.

FACT: Peel back the mask or hood or make-up on ANY can of White Power Terrorist Group, and out scrambles a million Conservative Evangelical White Christian cockroaches.....the #1 MOST-deadly religious group of terrorists in America.

“Watching The Snowflakes Rant”

Since: Feb 17

Location hidden

#10 Dec 9, 2017
Fit2Serve wrote:
Q.: What kind of depraved, creepazoid Conservative Evangelical Nutjob Christian keeps pestering his own employees to sleep with him for $5,000,000 so he can "spread his seed.?"

A.: A Republican male.

FACT: Peel back the mask or hood or make-up on ANY can of White Power Terrorist Group, and out scrambles a million Conservative Evangelical White Christian cockroaches.....the #1 MOST-deadly religious group of terrorists in America.
Answer none, but then again you don't even understand the question your pea brain devised.
youll shoot your eye out

Bloomingdale, IN

#11 Dec 9, 2017
Fit2Serve wrote:
Q.: What kind of depraved, creepazoid Conservative Evangelical Nutjob Christian keeps pestering his own employees to sleep with him for $5,000,000 so he can "spread his seed.?"

A.: A Republican male.

FACT: Peel back the mask or hood or make-up on ANY can of White Power Terrorist Group, and out scrambles a million Conservative Evangelical White Christian cockroaches.....the #1 MOST-deadly religious group of terrorists in America.
Fool?

“Take Out the Orange Trash ”

Since: Dec 15

California

#13 Dec 10, 2017
CodeTalker wrote:
<quoted text>Answer none, but then again you don't even understand the question your pea brain devised.
A posting cockroach?

“Take Out the Orange Trash ”

Since: Dec 15

California

#14 Dec 10, 2017
youll shoot your eye out wrote:
<quoted text>

Fool?
A fool? Yes, only a fool would dispute the fact that all White Power groups, all Green Plastic Militia Groups, all Sovereign Citizen Groups, all Posse Comitatus Groups, all Klan groups, all Alt-Right maggot groups, etc., etc. are overpopulated with disappointed, fetid little underachieving White boys....and usually they belong to a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Nutjob religious cult.
That circled red cross on a Klan robe is there for a reason.

Truism: Calling me names or shooting the messenger because this simple unassailable truth is so frustrating to accept isn't going to change the underlining facts.

P.S. Mom and Dad should have explained this concept to you.

“Watching The Snowflakes Rant”

Since: Feb 17

Location hidden

#15 Dec 10, 2017
Fit2Serve wrote:
<quoted text>

A posting cockroach?
Yep, I knew it, you proved my point.
American Independent

Coffeyville, KS

#16 Dec 10, 2017
Fit2Serve wrote:
<quoted text>

A fool? Yes, only a fool would dispute the fact that all White Power groups, all Green Plastic Militia Groups, all Sovereign Citizen Groups, all Posse Comitatus Groups, all Klan groups, all Alt-Right maggot groups, etc., etc. are overpopulated with disappointed, fetid little underachieving White boys....and usually they belong to a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Nutjob religious cult.
That circled red cross on a Klan robe is there for a reason.

Truism: Calling me names or shooting the messenger because this simple unassailable truth is so frustrating to accept isn't going to change the underlining facts.

P.S. Mom and Dad should have explained this concept to you.
So you figured out that all White Power groups are full of white boys and it took you an entire paragraph full of rambling bs to reach that conclusion. Wow, how impressive!
You are correct in your assertions and I will not argue those facts but no matter how much you wish to criticize white pride organizations you still must admit they most certainly have never been infiltrated and ran by someone in the very race they protest against because they couldn't tell it wasn't one of their "own"!!! AWWW gawd that HAD TO hurt!

p.s. white people are not black people and mom and dad should have explained that to you!!!
Truism: OUCH!!!
Death on 2 Legs

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

#17 Dec 10, 2017
American Independent wrote:
I can't see how this is actually "sexual harassment" of any kind. As a surrogate you are simple carrying and giving birth to another couple's baby. He didn't ask them to assist in the conception of the child, merely just to carry and give birth. That's not harassing someone sexually! So basically women have decided that a man's career should be destroyed if they even make the feel "uncomfortable" about any conversation. That is already proving to be bad for women. Men will not want to work with them at all for fear of apparently even making them uncomfortable, which is something that is very different for each person but if all it takes is a couple women saying what you talked to them about makes the uncomfortable then you will have a hell of lot less men even wanting women around or wanting to have conversations with them at all. That will not go over well for women wanting to enter the work force, volunteer for anything where they may have to work with a woman, or wanting to hire them. If you have a man and a women with exact same credentials trying for a job and your a man which would you choose with the atmosphere today? I think we all know which one and why!
This will backfire on women the same as the "collusion" investigation will and is backfiring on the Dems.
MALE BOSS: So if you're not to busy this afternoon I'd like to discuss something with you. Please come by my office around 4.
Ok, so now that you're here, I'd like to discuss a personal matter with you. My wife and I are incapable of bearing children. And we were wondering if you would be interested carrying a child for us. So what do you think?
FEMALE EMPLOYEE: What? You want me to carry you and your wife's child? Why me? I don't want to be pregnant. Why would you ask me that? Are you under a psychiatrist's care right now?
MALE BOSS: No no I'm not crazy, we're just looking into all our options. My wife really likes you and you were our first choice for this. I would think you would be honored to carry our child.
FEMALE EMPLOYEE: Really? Well I'm not. And I'm just a little uncomfortable talking to you about this. I am not interested in carrying you and your wife's child, or anybody's child for that matter.
MALE BOSS: I really wish you would reconsider, there will be monetary compensation, and if you decline I'll have to question your loyalty, which could result in your termination.
......and scene.......

You're right.
Perfectly normal employer/employee conversation.
Retribution

Hockessin, DE

#18 Dec 10, 2017
This thread is to funny.

Unbelievable.

There is a ton of work among the posters on this thread for a Human Resource manager.

Quite evident some of you aren't employable and you're a company liability if you are emmployed.
youll shoot your eye out

Bloomingdale, IN

#19 Dec 10, 2017
Fit2Serve wrote:
<quoted text>

A fool? Yes, only a fool would dispute the fact that all White Power groups, all Green Plastic Militia Groups, all Sovereign Citizen Groups, all Posse Comitatus Groups, all Klan groups, all Alt-Right maggot groups, etc., etc. are overpopulated with disappointed, fetid little underachieving White boys....and usually they belong to a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Nutjob religious cult.
That circled red cross on a Klan robe is there for a reason.

Truism: Calling me names or shooting the messenger because this simple unassailable truth is so frustrating to accept isn't going to change the underlining facts.

P.S. Mom and Dad should have explained this concept to you.
When mommy and daddy are dead communication ceases
I believe your reasoning to be simplistic, and incorrectly slanted.
Death on 2 Legs

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

#20 Dec 10, 2017
youll shoot your eye out wrote:
<quoted text>

When mommy and daddy are dead communication ceases
I believe your reasoning to be simplistic, and incorrectly slanted.
Pardon me for barging in on your conversation, but....
What would you consider correctly slanted?
youll shoot your eye out

Bloomingdale, IN

#21 Dec 10, 2017
Death on 2 Legs wrote:
<quoted text>

Pardon me for barging in on your conversation, but....
What would you consider correctly slanted?
Uphill, rather than downhill?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Robert Aderholt Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Most Alabama Republicans say they are voting fo... (Dec '17) Dec '17 Thank you so much... 61
News US Senate confirms Sessions for attorney general (Feb '17) Feb '17 Captain Yesterday 41
News GOP makes final push for school lunch waiver (Dec '14) Feb '17 Texxy the Selfie Cat 23
News Senate confirms Jeff Sessions for attorney general (Feb '17) Feb '17 USA Today 1
News Tariffs aimed at helping Alabama company (Mar '11) Dec '16 Geezer files 3
News Sessions' selection caps bizarre year for Alaba... (Nov '16) Nov '16 Go Blue Forever 4
News USDA rules would increase food stamp access to ... (Feb '16) Feb '16 RustyS 1