Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ryan drops out of Senate race in Illinois (Flashback: he would have beaten Hussein in 2004)
CNN ^ | June 25, 2004

Posted on 11/08/2011 5:56:10 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

21 posted on 11/08/2011 7:23:11 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

Was that whole Jack Ryan sex club business ever proven? It’s not unheard of to allege any manner of crap in the course of a divorce proceeding.

As to Ryan himself, I remember seeing him on TV before all that broke out and thinking “I don’t like this guy”. Still not sure what it was...something just seemed phony about him.


22 posted on 11/08/2011 7:29:35 PM PST by M1903A1 ("We shed all that is good and virtuous for that which is shoddy and sleazy... and call it progress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Did Ryan say that or did his wife?


23 posted on 11/08/2011 8:31:47 PM PST by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

This Cain hunt has obama’s mo on it.


24 posted on 11/08/2011 8:34:36 PM PST by lookout88 (.combat officer's dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

His wife did, but they both petitioned to have the particulars of their divorce kept secret. I believe her; she had nothing to gain from this information becoming public, and Jack Ryan didn’t deny the charges...


25 posted on 11/08/2011 8:48:51 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Right THAT is the way he wins. Keep in mind Obama did the same thing on his previous. He had his oppenent thrown off the ballot.


26 posted on 11/08/2011 9:23:34 PM PST by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Ryan should have hung in there, but he had too much self-respect
I'm sorry, but "self-respect" isn't the right term for someone who behaved the way Ryan did. He was a pervert, and he hoped to hide the fact from the voters.

The problem wasn't that the Dems dug up the information, but that Ryan did those things.

27 posted on 11/09/2011 2:34:31 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.
No, the problem is that idiots like you are willing to hold our candidates to a higher standard than the opposition candidates.

And whatever he did or wanted to do, it was with his wife.

You may not approve of it, but you ain't God, even though you think you are.

28 posted on 11/09/2011 5:51:24 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.<sup>®</sup>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
No, the problem is that idiots like you are willing to hold our candidates to a higher standard than the opposition candidates.

And whatever he did or wanted to do, it was with his wife.

You may not approve of it, but you ain't God, even though you think you are.

First of all, watch the "idiot" stuff. You could end up having your account disabled for posting abusive comments.

It's funny that you seem to think I objected to Ryan on religious reasons, since I'm not at all religious. The problem was that Ryan was behaving in a way that left him wide open to blackmail or extortion. Anyone who has those kinds of skeletons in their closets shouldn't run.

If Ryan had any "self respect", he wouldn't have put the Republican voters in the position of having to support someone who obviously can't get elected. If Ryan hadn't run, we might very well have had a good candidate who would have beaten Obama.

If you aren't willing to apply any standards to your candidates, you really should switch to the Democratic Party. I suspect you would fit in much better in the party of Bill Clinton.

29 posted on 11/09/2011 6:27:03 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.
First of all, watch the "idiot" stuff. You could end up having your account disabled for posting abusive comments.

You just proved your not only an idiot, but a whiner and a bully.

30 posted on 11/09/2011 6:31:16 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.<sup>®</sup>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
You just proved your not only an idiot, but a whiner and a bully.
Thanks for making my point that you would fit in better with Democrats. They like name calling.
31 posted on 11/09/2011 7:10:14 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.

With “conservatives” like you who abandon a candidate at the first sign of a state-controlled media smear, who needs “conservatives?”


32 posted on 11/09/2011 7:19:45 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.<sup>®</sup>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
With “conservatives” like you who abandon a candidate at the first sign of a state-controlled media smear, who needs “conservatives?”
It isn't a smear if it's true. Unfortunately, in Ryan's case it was true. At least Ryan never disputed the charges. Anyone who has such a skeleton in his closet shouldn't run for office. If they are willing to publicly present any embarrassing/illegal facts for the voters to consider, then I don't have a problem with them.

I'm supporting Cain, and I believe that he is being smeared. If it turns out that he has lied about any of this, then I will dump him immediately. We don't need liars as our candidates, nor people who are in a position to be blackmailed.

33 posted on 11/09/2011 7:31:51 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.

Why don’t you threaten me again, you little woos?


34 posted on 11/09/2011 7:34:32 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.<sup>®</sup>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Why don’t you threaten me again, you little woos?
Wow! You're a belligerent drunk, aren't you?

Maybe you should just go and sleep it off.

35 posted on 11/09/2011 8:15:45 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.
Maybe you should vote for Ubama, because state-controlled media is going to smear any actual conservative candidate, and you won't want to be associated with any candidate who has been smeared.

You've probably had a lot of experience being drunk, so I'll leave that commentary to you.

36 posted on 11/09/2011 8:27:44 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The enemy of my enemy is my candidate.<sup>®</sup>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Dengar01; BillyBoy; PhilCollins; GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; ...

They stink now all around.

What major paper has any credibility now? The WSJ a little bit?

It’s a good thing no one cares about newpapers anymore.

It was better in the olden days when the papers were openly partisan, some GOP, some dem. Now we have fake objectivity which usually favors the rats.

Similar to public employees. The spoils system was much better than the current situation with the unions.


37 posted on 11/11/2011 1:19:11 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson