Texsox Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 First Ryan. now maybe Kerry. Is the ex-spouse and kids entitled to privacy when a parent runs for office? In other words, was it fair to Ryan's ex-wife and kids and will it be fair to the first Mrs. Kerry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Pardon my lack of knowledge on divorce papers, but if they are public record, how is it that they need to be unsealed? As to the question...Yes and No. No because most of the time it is unproven accusations and Yes because I would like to know what this person is like (scrupulous/unscrupulous etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Unless there is an underlying public risk to not unsealing them (such as a child molester trying to be a principal etc) there should be a right to privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Pardon my lack of knowledge on divorce papers, but if they are public record, how is it that they need to be unsealed? As to the question...Yes and No. No because most of the time it is unproven accusations and Yes because I would like to know what this person is like (scrupulous/unscrupulous etc). The court will sometimes, if requested, seal the proceedings and testimony if, in the Judges opinion, the release would harm innocent people. In the Ryan case the wife did not want the world to know, especially her children. So basically, over the ex-wife's objection, her testimony was made public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 The court will sometimes, if requested, seal the proceedings and testimony if, in the Judges opinion, the release would harm innocent people. In the Ryan case the wife did not want the world to know, especially her children. So basically, over the ex-wife's objection, her testimony was made public. Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Yes because I would like to know what this person is like (scrupulous/unscrupulous etc). I hope you're not looking for that in divorce papers...Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I hope you're not looking for that in divorce papers...Seriously. To some degree yes. But mostly just to get an idea of how well the person can negotiate and handle a tough situation. Seeing how my FBIL and ex-FSIL handled their divorce (and custody arrangement), it does give a decent idea on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 By all means yes. Why not? Let's become a no-holds barred country. Terrorists can bomb the s*** out of us & hire Johnny Cocran to get them off. Let's legalize all drugs, prostitution, every form of sex immaginable. Let's remove God from everything in the public eye so we have no reminder of a conscience. Let's become the #1 nation in the world in sin, debauchery, & decadance. And best yet .. let's do it all under "rule of law". :fyou judges! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 every politicans life needs to be an open book..we have the right to what kind of people are serving us at the federal state and local levels...if you cant handle that then politics is not the line of work for you... funny thing about ryan...if he just came forward with what was in his past at the beginning of the primaries..admitting he screwed up and asking the people of illinois to forgive him , he's probably today in the process of a close fight with obama..but he didnt have the guts to do the right thing and he paid for it... when i heard what he was trying to keep a secret the first thing i thought of was the same thing i thought about clinton...if he'd hide something like this..taking his wife to a few sex clubs (or clinton's affairs) then what else is he hiding that could really make a difference in our lives ..plus for ryan , if he had anything else in his past that someone found out about they could use as blackmail to ensure his vote on issue concerning them...his credibility is shot... thats why every politican has to be willing to have their life , the good and the bad , out in the open for the public to see...cant have secrets in todays world..someone will find them out and use them to their advantage..and to the people being represented disadvantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Juggs, unsealing certain court records is different than your big jump to everything else you stated. First off, terrorists haven't bombed the s*** out of us. (assuming you mean a ton of times) and in the few instances they have, they have been convicted. See Ramzi Yousef, Tim McVeigh, etc. etc. Secondly, legalization of drugs. Throwing non-violent drug offenders in prison for incredibly long sentences is insane. 90% of people busted for drug possession are small time offenders with no intent to sell and have a personal amount. Before 9/11 Bush and Clinton had 2x the amount of FBI agents fighting the drug war rather than focusing on terrorism. The costs of housing non-violent offenders are astronomical. In certain states they are releasing violent murderers and rapists in order to make room for more drug war offenders. Also, gay sex is legal. Supreme Court ruled that. What I'm worried about is how the state of Texas, when they were legislating the anti-sodomy law, they were attempting to legalize beastiality. And prostitution is legal as well in certain states. Morality police didn't work in prohibition and it will not work in the drug war or sexuality. As long as somebody is not infinging on your rights and not harming another person, they should be free from government interference to do as they please. As for the references about God, most cultures before Christianity had law codes. The idea that Christianity was the first law code is preposterous. Also the fact that even George Washington stated in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1793 that the United States was not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. The US is not a theocracy, no matter how much the Christian Right tries to make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Clueless as usual. Ryan answered her allegations in the same court records. He was not going to call her a liar today because she holds the power over his custody rights today. So Ryan was basically crucified over allegations that were not made under the threat of perjury in the midst of a heated divorce battle. Whatever. If I think of it in the extreme sense that some of you do then the only people that will be fit for office will be people far more socially conservative than even myself. I guess that works in my favor then. Btw let's make sure than every minute of every day that Obama has lived is open to the public so we can see some dirt on him as well. Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past. What matters is whether they think it's a good thing or a bad thing now. What matters is their moral conscience today. A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence. :fyou Judges ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 So, Juggs...the Scaife subsidized Arkansas Project to dig up everything about Clinton i.e. Troopergate, Broadderick, etc. was wrong then too? Are you ready to admit that then if I am to take your statements for what they say? I think a person's background matters if they are a hypocrite like Newt Gingrich or Bob Barr etc. You know, saying they are for the sanctity of marriage and sex etc. yet doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 As long as somebody is not infinging on your rights and not harming another person, they should be free from government interference to do as they please. Pure libertarian bulls***. That's what that is. Completely unrealistic & ldealic bulls***. Every social order on the planet whether it be humans, animals, or insects has a governing principle. Those who have greater power & influence over others dictate the social order. So it comes down to whether that power should lie in the hands of the majority or the select few. I'm a firm believer in democracy so I choose the majority. What you let loose for one you let loose for all. The more you let loose the more you move from order to chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 So, Juggs...the Scaife subsidized Arkansas Project to dig up everything about Clinton i.e. Troopergate, Broadderick, etc. was wrong then too? Are you ready to admit that then if I am to take your statements for what they say? I think a person's background matters if they are a hypocrite like Newt Gingrich or Bob Barr etc. You know, saying they are for the sanctity of marriage and sex etc. yet doing the exact opposite behind closed doors. More typical libertarian bulls***. I argue from a general-macro view with basic general principles & since they have none they always reply with specific personally driven instances. In answer to your question READ EVERY WORD I WROTE IN THE POST ABOVE on the subject. My answer is pretty clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 She didn't desire to be in politics. Hell.. she's more famous than he, and IMO, has more to lose, and even the scum sucking media in Hollywood knew where to draw the line on privacy. Unless it's something criminal or something that effects his ability to serve, then let it be. Poor kid is going to get the s*** razzed out of him because of this. So much for thinking of the kids. Some of you parents think about that.. you want your kids to know the details of what you and your spouses do in the bedroom..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 More typical libertarian bulls***. I argue from a general-macro view with basic general principles & since they have none they always reply with specific personally driven instances. In answer to your question READ EVERY WORD I WROTE IN THE POST ABOVE on the subject. My answer is pretty clear. Now that is completely ignorant. What do you think "general princples" are made up of? Individual occurances and people govern the "macro" picture. Since we are in the mood for namecalling, that was the biggest load of self-serving, narrow minded, idealistic,bulls*** you have posted in a long time. Get your head out of the sandbox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Now that is completely ignorant. What do you think "general princples" are made up of? Individual occurances and people govern the "macro" picture. Since we are in the mood for namecalling, that was the biggest load of self-serving, narrow minded, idealistic,bulls*** you have posted in a long time. Get your head out of the sandbox. You're power & influence on this board prohibits me from responding because of the consequence of being banned. Since I care more about the SOX than this issue say what you will. I think this is safe: General principles do not arise from one personal event. It's foolish to think otherwise. They are formed by events that most effect the majority in a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 More typical libertarian bulls***. I argue from a general-macro view with basic general principles & since they have none they always reply with specific personally driven instances. In answer to your question READ EVERY WORD I WROTE IN THE POST ABOVE on the subject. My answer is pretty clear. You said that putting a person's personal life under a microscope was wrong. So, would you say that the GOP witch hunt of Clinton was wrong? (Witch hunt being Troopergate, Broadderick, etc. which have been discounted by many including former right wing writer David Brock who wrote a lot of the Troopergate and Arkansas Project stories) And hey, Juggs...America was never meant to be a democracy. Read the Federalist Papers. It clearly states that the goal of government is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." And calling the argument bulls*** instead of refuting the points. Nice job there. Methinks I've won this argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 You said that putting a person's personal life under a microscope was wrong. So, would you say that the GOP witch hunt of Clinton was wrong? (Witch hunt being Troopergate, Broadderick, etc. which have been discounted by many including former right wing writer David Brock who wrote a lot of the Troopergate and Arkansas Project stories) And hey, Juggs...America was never meant to be a democracy. Read the Federalist Papers. It clearly states that the goal of government is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." And calling the argument bulls*** instead of refuting the points. Nice job there. Methinks I've won this argument. Read what I said above. what you wrote is not what I said. Try using the quote function in it's entirety if this is difficult for you. If what you are saying is that America was not founded upon belief in democracy then you are wrong. I think it would do you good to expand your intelligence toward marco systems & macro viewpoints. The preamble might be a good place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence. Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue quoted below. If you're going quote me then do it honestly & use the quote function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Read what I said above. what you wrote is not what I said. Try using the quote function in it's entirety if this is difficult for you. If what you are saying is that America was not founded upon belief in democracy then you are wrong. I think it would do you good to expand your intelligence toward marco systems & macro viewpoints. The preamble might be a good place to start. The federalists clearly state numerous times in the Federalist Papers that the role of the government is to protect the minority from the majority. There is an emphasis on the protection of the individual rather than roughshod democratic rule. We do not have a democracy in the US, have not had a democracy in the US and will not have a democracy in the US in anywhere in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 You're power & influence on this board prohibits me from responding because of the consequence of being banned. Since I care more about the SOX than this issue say what you will. I think this is safe: General principles do not arise from one personal event. It's foolish to think otherwise. They are formed by events that most effect the majority in a democracy. Yeah since I ban people who disagree with me all of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I believe thats its noones business why they divorced unless they want to tell people why. Otherwise I think people should just mind their own friggin busniess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Hey Juggs, here's a quote from you on the 1st page: Common sense tells us that everyone has skeletons in the closet. I don't think that should keep them from public office & I don't think that should be made public unless an event has a clear & unequivocal impact on policy decisions one might make. In other words, I could give a crap what Jeri or Jack did or said in there past. So, how does the fact that Clinton got a BJ have an effect on his policy decisions? You yourself said that prior indescretions should not keep a person out of office unless it would have an effect on his policy decision making. So are you ready to admit that the GOP witch hunt was wrong yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I believe thats its noones business why they divorced unless they want to tell people why. Otherwise I think people should just mind their own friggin busniess. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.