Fly Forum
When Sex Toys Attack
Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:38
A woman who made news for attacking a police officer with a “clear, rigid feminine pleasure device” is claiming that she was acting in self-defense.
Carolee Bildsten was found by a police officer lying in the grass down the street from a Joe’s Crab Shack in Gurnee, Illinois last November. She told the officer that she had eaten at the restaurant but forgotten her wallet at home, and was heading back to get money to pay her tab.
The policeman drove Bildsten to her house in his squad car, and she went inside to grab her money. As TribLocal reported at the time, she told the officer her money was in her sock drawer, but opened the drawer and pulled out a sex toy instead. She “held it over her head and approached the officer in a threatening manner,” according to the police report.
Bildsten was charged with aggravated assault against an officer. But she told TribLocal a different story yesterday:
“I’m counting my cash to make sure I take out enough, and the officer walks into my bedroom and startles me,” Bildsten said, adding that she had recently read an article about a Gurnee police officer who was convicted of sexual assault, which made her nervous. “I don’t know, it was just this male police officer and me in the apartment, and he startled me,” she said.
Bildsten said she never attacked the officer with the sex toy. She just “instinctively raised it up in a defensive move.”
When asked why she chose the pleasure device to defend herself with, Bildsten said, “The only thing in my sock drawer besides my socks and my cash was a dildo.’
Ack ack
Gotta love those Club Kids…
The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed
- David Stockman
You can learn a lot from the folks who were in the thick of it.
FYI: The women with the nice rack is Jayne Mansfield; you are welcome for saving you the time spent googling it.
Challenge: post pics of actresses with the best rack from the 30′s to the 80′s
Quit your fancy smart talk. Obama is a Muslin socialist negra that is takin’ away my freedoms.
Mr. NDM,
The reason that the sitting president is relevant to the discussion of national debt is due to the fact that he proposes a budget and ultimately approves the budget returned by congress. The reason that you see a sharp increase during Reagan’s administration is due to his supply-side economic policies (i.e. voodoo economics) that included massive tax cuts (post ’82) coupled with his national defense policies that substantially increased the funding for the Department of Defense; thus, lower revenues coupled with higher expenses equals deficits and these were added to the overall debt. –Clinton had the benefit of not having to deal with the USSR (thus, lower DoD expenses), but he also enacted policies that resulted in reasonable tax increases and economic growth (resulting in higher revenues) and worked with the congress that demanded lower spending (decreased expenses) that had the effect of creating our first surplus. -Bush was bad…very bad.
The logic here is flawed. Lets start of with a bit of reason here:
Presidents do not appropriate, spend or otherwise fund programs with tax dollars. Congress does. This alone is the issue. Note the 1996-2000 spending (under a fiscally conservative Congress) shows a sharp decline in debt. Note what happens after 2006 (with a fiscally liberal Congress).
Again, the President doesn’t spend money. He is the chief law enforcement officer in the country, but why let the facts get in the way?
Interesting how the last two years with a House, Senate and Executive Branch have conveniently been left off of the chart. That, my friend is where the scary numbers come. Research that and get back to me.
Not to pass the blame. GW never met a spending bill he didnt like either. Sad state of affairs our country is in.
Enough of politics…. Where are the boobs?