I don't know if anyone outside of IL has heard of this, but what do y'all think about the Jack Ryan "scandal"?  Should these documents have been kept private or does the public have a right to know about his divorce?  Should this have an impact on whether or not people vote for him for governor?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/index.html

I've heard a lot about this on Fox News.  I think that was a private personal thing that no one should base thier vote on.  But either which way he was going to lose, he was down by 11 percentage points before this came into light.  If I was a democrat I would be disgusted by this and vote for him just to get back at my own party for being so petty.

I don't know if anyone outside of IL has heard of this, but what do y'all think about the Jack Ryan "scandal"?  Should these documents have been kept private or does the public have a right to know about his divorce?  Should this have an impact on whether or not people vote for him for governor?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/index.html


Jack Ryan, I thought he was the hero of the Tom Clancy novels?   :P

Actually, I have not paid much attention to these, and really don't give them much credence.

I am going short of calling them lies.  But remember, these are being slung about during a very heated divorce.  We all know what spouses (and girlfriends/boyfriends) will say during a breakup.  It is a time when emotions run VERY high, and each will try to deamonize the other.

To make it worse, it is about child custody.  Believe me when I say that some women will do almost ANYTHING to keep a father from seeing their children after a divorce.  My ex has repeatedly moved over the last 10 years, to keep me from seeing my son.  Even though she had no court order and no proof, she even convinced a Sheriff Deputy that she had a restraining order against me, and that I had abused my son (who at that time I had not seen in 2 years).  I finally had to take HER to court just to get limited visitation.  Then 1 year later she moved yet again, without telling me where she went.

Besides, after having somebody like Clinton, how can anybody on the other side say a word about what somebody else does in their private life?  Is funny how getting some in the Oval Office from an intern is "private", but this is not.  Add to this that a lot of the statements seem to have been retracted by Ms. Ryan herself, it seems more like emotion then fact.

Just my opinion, of course.  If true they this is tasteless, but not illegal.

He was a (supposed) patron of S&M clubs, right? (Sorry, I don't have time to read the link).  Hey, someone has to WHIP these politicians into shape.  There are a few I'd like to take a swipe at, myself.  ;D

Anyhow, this has no bearing as to how he'll do his job, so it's nobody's beezwax!!

And, you know, his ex-wife was a Borg and resistance is futile ;D
;D ;D

I've heard a lot about this on Fox News.  I think that was a private personal thing that no one should base thier vote on.  But either which way he was going to lose, he was down by 11 percentage points before this came into light.  If I was a democrat I would be disgusted by this and vote for him just to get back at my own party for being so petty.


All I would ask is, given the furor over Minica, isn't this something of a double standard?  I mean, if these allegations are true, and the guy is denying them, isn't that exactly what Bubba did?  If it wasn't "petty" for Rep's to do it to Bill, why is it "petty" for Dem's to do it when Rep transgressions are uncovered?  After all, character is always an issue, and I think should be.  Thats why Georgie's drinking, possible cocaine use, and shady business deals also should be an issue.

All I would ask is, given the furor over Minica, isn't this something of a double standard?  I mean, if these allegations are true, and the guy is denying them, isn't that exactly what Bubba did?  If it wasn't "petty" for Rep's to do it to Bill, why is it "petty" for Dem's to do it when Rep transgressions are uncovered?  After all, character is always an issue, and I think should be.  Thats why Georgie's drinking, possible cocaine use, and shady business deals also should be an issue.
Well, you're right with regard to republicans opening the door with the whole Bubba mess.  What's good for the goose... 

I don't necessarily equate a sex fetish with a substance abuse problem, however.  The latter would impair his judgement.  The former would be carrried out in privacy. (Except if he were a cross-dresser and wanted to deliver the state of the union in a pair of Jimmy Choo's.  ;D  It would make the darn thing more watchable.)

All I would ask is, given the furor over Minica, isn't this something of a double standard?  I mean, if these allegations are true, and the guy is denying them, isn't that exactly what Bubba did?  If it wasn't "petty" for Rep's to do it to Bill, why is it "petty" for Dem's to do it when Rep transgressions are uncovered?  After all, character is always an issue, and I think should be.  Thats why Georgie's drinking, possible cocaine use, and shady business deals also should be an issue.


HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!?  Clinton was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached becaused he LIED UNDER OATH, which is different from what this guy did, he did the adultery just like Clinton, but he never lied under oath which the average person would have gotten 5 years in jail for.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!?  Clinton was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached becaused he LIED UNDER OATH, which is different from what this guy did, he did the adultery just like Clinton, but he never lied under oath which the average person would have gotten 5 years in jail for.


He denied his X's allegations in a court of law, presumably under oath.  So if the allegations are true, that's EXACTLY what Bill did.  It was a divorce proceeding in a court of law.  He must have been under oath.  

All I would ask is, given the furor over Minica, isn't this something of a double standard?  I mean, if these allegations are true, and the guy is denying them, isn't that exactly what Bubba did?

No; the Republicans took issue with Clinton on three things:

1. His alleged sexual indiscretions (they made it an issue when he was first campaigning for office)
2. His sexual activity on the job in the Oval Office, dishonoring the office of the President
3. Lying under oath

The third one is the only thing for which he was impeached.

The best comparison would probably be the fact that Clinton's sexual forays were brought up during his campaign; however, these were accusations of adultery and/or sexual harassment. Cheating's not exactly the same as kinkiness, now, is it? And sexual harassment is a crime and an abuse of power - something about which people should be concerned when considering a candidate for such a high office.

Not that this on topic but its time for the stupid quote of the month:

''I do my own hair.  I washed it myself yesterday.'' -Teresa Heinz Kerry quoted in the New York Post.

Yeah, but he's standing behind a podium so noone would ever know ;)
In my vision, I can see a hint of tutu peeking through.  ;) 

No; the Republicans took issue with Clinton on three things:

1. His alleged sexual indiscretions (they made it an issue when he was first campaigning for office)
2. His sexual activity on the job in the Oval Office, dishonoring the office of the President
3. Lying under oath

The third one is the only thing for which he was impeached.

The best comparison would probably be the fact that Clinton's sexual forays were brought up during his campaign; however, these were accusations of adultery and/or sexual harassment. Cheating's not exactly the same as kinkiness, now, is it? And sexual harassment is a crime and an abuse of power - something about which people should be concerned when considering a candidate for such a high office.


3.  The allegations were made during a court proceeding, presumably Ryan was under oath when he denied them.  I agree that sexual harrasment is serious and should be prosecuted more forcefully than it is.  But if this guy was pressing his wife to engage in activities she found repugnant, isn't that also sexual harrasment?

Not that this on topic but its time for the stupid quote of the month:

''I do my own hair.  I washed it myself yesterday.'' -Teresa Heinz Kerry quoted in the New York Post.
Where were you going with this?

3.  The allegations were made during a court proceeding, presumably Ryan was under oath when he denied them.  I agree that sexual harrasment is serious and should be prosecuted more forcefully than it is.  But if this guy was pressing his wife to engage in activities she found repugnant, isn't that also sexual harrasment?


I'm not sure it meets the legal definition, and there's at least some scope for spouses to suggest (though not force) something uncomfortable where they wouldn't be able to do that with co-workers or subordinates.

All I would ask is, given the furor over Monica, isn't this something of a double standard?  


There is something slightly different here.  Bill was being sued over sexual harassment, and the Monica part came up because he comitted purjury.  It came about directly because of his conduct, and lying during an official investigation.

If the issue here was possbile purjury, I agree.  He would not be fit to hold public office.  But he is not under any kind of criminal or civil investigation, he is simply involved in a divorce/custody battle.  Is similar, but also VERY different circumstance.

3.  The allegations were made during a court proceeding, presumably Ryan was under oath when he denied them.  I agree that sexual harrasment is serious and should be prosecuted more forcefully than it is.  But if this guy was pressing his wife to engage in activities she found repugnant, isn't that also sexual harrasment?


Actually, there is no case here.  THe allegations were made by HIS WIFE.  Not by him.

Also, having been in family court, it is a much more casual environment then Criminal court, or even Civil court.  Because emotions are known to run high, purjery is almost never charged, UNLESS the purjury involves something that causes the arrest and/or conviction of the purjured individual.

For example, if a spouse was to charge the other of abuse, and criminal charges were files.  If it turns out later it was purjured testimony, they THEN might face charges.  Otherwise, it is just accepted as part of the process.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!? 
Six.

Clinton was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached becaused he LIED UNDER OATH, which is different from what this guy did, he did the adultery just like Clinton, but he never lied under oath which the average person would have gotten 5 years in jail for.

Where do you get the "average person" would get "5 years in jail" fact?  Yes, technically Bubba was impeached for lying under oath, but if he'd told the truth, Ken Starr and the goon squad would have continued their fishing expidition until they found something the could bring before the impeachment hearing---even if it took another 70, or 700, million dollars.
Don Carlos wrote:
3.  The allegations were made during a court proceeding, presumably Ryan was under oath when he denied them.  I agree that sexual harrasment is serious and should be prosecuted more forcefully than it is.  But if this guy was pressing his wife to engage in activities she found repugnant, isn't that also sexual harrasment?
If a lady accompanies a gentleman to a "sex club" and, asked only once, declines to participate in sexual activities, it cannot be construed as sexual harrassment.
If the gentleman and/or other club attendees continual cajole the lady, that might be sexual harrassment.
If the gentleman told the lady they were going to "Chuck -E-Cheese," and instead takes her to "Nero's Pleasure Palace," there may be a sexual harrassment case there.

GWBush wrote:
Not that this on topic but its time for the stupid quote of the month:

''I do my own hair.  I washed it myself yesterday.'' -Teresa Heinz Kerry quoted in the New York Post.
;D
"I tied my own shoes once, it was a highly overrated experience." -- King Jaffe Joffer
("Coming to America")

 
Six.

Where do you get the "average person" would get "5 years in jail" fact?  Yes, technically Bubba was impeached for lying under oath, but if he'd told the truth, Ken Starr and the goon squad would have continued their fishing expidition until they found something the could bring before the impeachment hearing---even if it took another 70, or 700, million dollars.
Don Carlos wrote:
If a lady accompanies a gentleman to a "sex club" and, asked only once, declines to participate in sexual activities, it cannot be construed as sexual harrassment.
If the gentleman and/or other club attendees continual cajole the lady, that might be sexual harrassment.
If the gentleman told the lady they were going to "Chuck -E-Cheese," and instead takes her to "Nero's Pleasure Palace," there may be a sexual harrassment case there.

GWBush wrote:

;D
"I tied my own shoes once, it was a highly overrated experience." -- King Jaffe Joffer
("Coming to America")



You're hilarious!!  ;D

No; the Republicans took issue with Clinton on three things:

1. His alleged sexual indiscretions (they made it an issue when he was first campaigning for office)
2. His sexual activity on the job in the Oval Office, dishonoring the office of the President
3. Lying under oath

The third one is the only thing for which he was impeached.

The best comparison would probably be the fact that Clinton's sexual forays were brought up during his campaign; however, these were accusations of adultery and/or sexual harassment. Cheating's not exactly the same as kinkiness, now, is it? And sexual harassment is a crime and an abuse of power - something about which people should be concerned when considering a candidate for such a high office.


Agian, Ryan denied these charges in a divorce proceeding, presumably under oath, did he not?  If so, and he is guilty, how is that different than Bubba's transgression?

Agiab, Ryan denied these charges in a divorce proceeding, presumably under oath, did he not?  If so, and he is guilty, how is that different than Bubba's transgression?


For one, most of the time these things are not handled in front of a judge, but by briefing papers that their laqyers drag with them.

For two, as I stated before, Purjury is almost UNHEARD of in Divorce proceedings.  This is because judges KNOW that emotions run high.  It is equally possible, is it not, that Mrs. Ryan is the one that lied.  What if she eventually admits that she exagerated things to try and gain custody?  Should SHE then be sent to jail, when in her own mind she was just trying to do what she thought was best for her son?

For one, I am sure these incidents have no direct bearing on the case, but are more "character statements".  And it is a divorce/custody case, not a lawsuit seeking damages for the incidents.  Overall, they actually have little to no bearing on what the outcome is/will be.

On the other hand, Clinton was being sued directly because of harassment.  He was questioned in direct relationship to these incidents.  The Prosecutors already KNEW about Monica, but he did not know that yet.  So when he lied in response to a question directly relating to the case at hand, that is purjery.  In fact, he denied any affair at all up and until the stained dress was produced.  I bet that he would still deny it to this day, if not for the dress.

On a side note:  If President Clinton was innocent of purjery, then why did Arkansas permanently revoke his license to practice law?

You are right, sexual harrassment applies to the workplace ONLY.  Now, if he held her down and MADE her do it, that could be deemed Sexual Assault.


I think that could be defines as RAPE, at least as I would define that term, assuming she said NO. 

I must admit that in terms of what consenting adults do, wherever they consent to do it, is none of my business, but NO ONE has the right to force another person into any activity (sexual or not) that they find repugnant.  I don't know the truth of the allegations, and since Ryan has dropped out, it no longer matters, but I must ask why we can't develope attitudes (mostly among men) that respect the right to say NO? 

Cat does, though not too often  ;)  Sorry, couldn't resist to a bit of levity, but NOT a light issue.

Hey, even GOD rested on the 7th day ;) ;D

ROFLMAO  Good 1 Cheer!!!

Hey, even GOD rested on the 7th day ;) ;D



What about the GODDESS?  ;)



Cat

What about the GODDESS?  ;)



Cat


Did she too rest on the 7th day?

But we are fooling around about a serious issue.  Evan if divorce court gives a bit of latitude to allegations and counter allegations, the rules of law still apply.  Lieing under oath is perjury, plain and simple.  Again, sounds like a double standard to me, especially when Republicans keep harping on "family values" and keep getting caught in their own piccadillos.  And where are the denunciations from you conservatives? 

Let me be clear, I don't condon these "transgresions" and see them as potentially dangerous - not to the soals of the transgressors, but to the national interest and the public trust.  Just like high powered college football teams throwing (you women will excuse the wording) bimbos at promising athletes to recruit them.  My point is that these activities are not based on party lines (unless you want to tell me that no self-respecting woman would want to sleep with (little) Dick Chaney or Richard Nixon (lol).

Did she too rest on the 7th day?


She rests anytime she feels like it.  ;)




But we are fooling around about a serious issue. 


Sometimes I think you have to.


Personally, I think it should be a matter between the two of them (and their lawyers)-not the entire country. If he did something illegal, then he should be punished under the law-and it doesn't matter if he is just a "regular guy", a member of Congress or the president. I feel that NO ONE is above the law!




Cat

I wouldn't classify what he did as "illegal"...the problem I have with this whole thing is that it was a court record that was sealed.  Now, because of the "media", it has been unsealed and there's a 9 year old boy who didn't need to know these things about his parents having them splashed across the news.





That's what I mean about it being between them (and their lawyers/judge etc.). The public does not need to know-nor does the 9 year old boy.



Cat