The Borg disrupts Illinois Senate race

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It looks like Jack Ryan is going to drop out of the Illinois senate race against Democrat Osama bin Laden, I mean Barrack Obama, because his divorce records from his ex-wife Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) said that he wanted to have sex with her in public in sex clubs with whips and cages!



It doesn't get any better than this!



«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    This is an outrage. Doesn't this man know that when you have sex in cages and in strange clubs, it is supposed to be with interns and aides?







    On a different note, I can't think of a man here who wouldn't mind tapping Jeri Ryan. I think he thought he was just "presenting" her to a new audience for viewing.



    Nick
  • Reply 2 of 23
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    My coworker was disappointed. He's absolutely anti-repub, but once the story broke a few days ago we was all about voting for him.



    And my brother in law used to work with Ryan when he was an investment banker.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    What's absurd about this whole case is not that people should question this man's judgement as a result of all the sexual allegations, but how the Tribune company and a local television station SUED to make his divorce records public. That's disgusting. It really is.



    The media has overstepped its bounds here completely as prior to the documents themselves, they had no evidence whatever that there was anything in them which indicated Ryan wasn't cut out for the job.



    That a news media company - just by virtue of its size and influence, not by virtue of a logical argument - can basically sue to make a person's private records public, is sickening in this context. It would be one thing if the man was wanted for some terrible crime or something, and the records could shed light on motive (for example), but this is just a smear campaign a la Ken Star.



    Makes me want to never read the Trib again. Assholes. By the way, I've planned on voting for Ryan's opponent all along, so that should give some idea of where I stand.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Questionnaire for possible public servants reveling their ability to make good judgements:



    45) You have fantasies about sex in public places and sm and are married to 7of9. One day you ask her if she wants to live out your fantasy and she refuses. Do you:



    a) Try again and again until she agrees?

    b) Leaves her for someone who does?

    c) Is satisfied with the fact you have a wife 95% of all men would kill for and never think about it again?
  • Reply 5 of 23
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    When I first read about this I thought "Uhg, Republican's wife, whips and chains, that's just nasty".



    When I realized it was that Jeri Ryan I thought, "Dear God, if I were married to her I'd have sex her at high noon in Times Square if I could talk her into it."



    And the whole time I'd be shouting "Yes, that's right, I'm having sex with 7 of 9, rip your eyes out in envy mortals!"
  • Reply 6 of 23
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    But I do agree with Moogs that making this public is bullshit.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    They are court record not "private" records.
  • Reply 8 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    BTW Obama was my state senator back when I lived in Chicago. He's a decent guy and would do a good job representing Illinois.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    The funny thing is that the Dems I know propably wouldn't get upset about thhis at all but the Repub I know would all get completely upset . . . and if it was a Dem the same would be true except many more Repubs would get upset





    anyway . . .



    according to the story it says multiple sex-clubs in multiple cities . . . which would imply that perhaps they actually carried through in at least one . . .

    several things come to mind:

    1 - Did any patrons have a video camera?

    2 - What took her so long to realize this guy is a loser?

    4 - In Prague, did they meet with agents of Saddam Hussain?
  • Reply 10 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    What's absurd about this whole case is not that people should question this man's judgement as a result of all the sexual allegations, but how the Tribune company and a local television station SUED to make his divorce records public. That's disgusting. It really is.



    The media has overstepped its bounds here completely as prior to the documents themselves, they had no evidence whatever that there was anything in them which indicated Ryan wasn't cut out for the job.



    That a news media company - just by virtue of its size and influence, not by virtue of a logical argument - can basically sue to make a person's private records public, is sickening in this context. It would be one thing if the man was wanted for some terrible crime or something, and the records could shed light on motive (for example), but this is just a smear campaign a la Ken Star.



    Makes me want to never read the Trib again. Assholes. By the way, I've planned on voting for Ryan's opponent all along, so that should give some idea of where I stand.




    I agree with this BTW
  • Reply 11 of 23
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    The funny thing is that the Dems I know propably wouldn't get upset about thhis at all but the Repub I know would all get completely upset . . . and if it was a Dem the same would be true except many more Repubs would get upset





    anyway . . .



    according to the story it says multiple sex-clubs in multiple cities . . . which would imply that perhaps they actually carried through in at least one . . .

    several things come to mind:

    1 - Did any patrons have a video camera?

    2 - What took her so long to realize this guy is a loser?

    4 - In Prague, did they meet with agents of Saddam Hussain?




    I demand you state what number 3 is!
  • Reply 12 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    I demand you state what number 3 is!



    That is reserved for special committee members only
  • Reply 13 of 23
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Moogs is right again.
  • Reply 14 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I remain unconvinced that court records are someone's "private" records.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    I remain unconvinced that court records are someone's "private" records.



    Maybe the better question is why private business has to go into a public record to dissolve a marriage. I can't think of a single person here who finds a husband or wife sharing sexual desires/fantasies with their spouse to be offensive. So why even entire it into the public record?



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Maybe the better question is why private business has to go into a public record to dissolve a marriage. I can't think of a single person here who finds a husband or wife sharing sexual desires/fantasies with their spouse to be offensive. So why even entire it into the public record?



    Nick




    I think you might be touching on an issue that resonates with the issue of Gay Marriage.



    Wouldn't it somehow have to do with the social nature of Marriage?



    just a thought . . .



    IMO, their personal sex life should be completely off limits with regards to politics . . .



    Sex life=nothing to do with politics

    Now everybody repeat after me:

    Sex life=nothing to do with politics



    He should stay in the race, if he wins and gets remmarried he could probably count on a very big audience.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Maybe the better question is why private business has to go into a public record to dissolve a marriage. I can't think of a single person here who finds a husband or wife sharing sexual desires/fantasies with their spouse to be offensive. So why even entire it into the public record?



    Nick




    It's part of the record because she wanted it part of the record. The record is public because the union is public. That's what a marriage is, a public union of two private people. If they didn't want a public union they shouldn't have gotten married.



    I agree with some of the sentiment here. The newspaper was probably just digging for any dirt, not political dirt, and that's pathetic. But I think the record is fair game.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    addabox is on the right track.



    Most men, if married to such a Borg hottie, would ask for sex everywhere.

    Hardly grounds for divorce because he's doing anything odd or abnormal.



    As for the media dirt-digging impulse being satisfied with divorce records... how gauche.

    Now, if they came up with a night-shot video of this in action... he'd not only be Senator Ryan, but get his own teevee show with Paris Hilton, who's exhibitionist by nature, and Jeri would get a lot more callbacks.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    It's part of the record because she wanted it part of the record. The record is public because the union is public. That's what a marriage is, a public union of two private people. If they didn't want a public union they shouldn't have gotten married.



    I agree with some of the sentiment here. The newspaper was probably just digging for any dirt, not political dirt, and that's pathetic. But I think the record is fair game.




    Well it appears that some have forgotten Mr. Kerry also was involved in a divorce after six years of seperation. He apparently was not too constrained in his "dating" by the fact that he was married.



    Well some parties have now begun suing to have Mr. Kerry's divorce papers made public as well. I wonder if these infidelities are alleged in said papers along with other items.



    I think in this, and all instances, certain things are best left private. No one should politically be affected by what a spouse alleges during a divorce proceeding.



    But it now appears we may watch your belief play out on the Democratic presidential nominee as well.



    Nick
  • Reply 20 of 23
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Well it appears that some have forgotten Mr. Kerry also was involved in a divorce after six years of seperation. He apparently was not too constrained in his "dating" by the fact that he was married.



    Well some parties have now begun suing to have Mr. Kerry's divorce papers made public as well. I wonder if these infidelities are alleged in said papers along with other items.



    I think in this, and all instances, certain things are best left private. No one should politically be affected by what a spouse alleges during a divorce proceeding.



    But it now appears we may watch your belief play out on the Democratic presidential nominee as well.



    Nick




    Personally I don't care. Release the papers.



    And I still agree with some of the sentiment here. The newspaper was probably just digging for any dirt, not political dirt, and that's pathetic.
Sign In or Register to comment.