The Borg disrupts Illinois Senate race
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!
It doesn't get any better than this!
Comments
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
And my brother in law used to work with Ryan when he was an investment banker.
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.
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?
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!"
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?
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
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!
Originally posted by Outsider
I demand you state what number 3 is!
That is reserved for special committee members only
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.