If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Very much so. That was me until recently when I realized that by not partaking in the voting process, I was not being heard at all. By casting a vote against the status quo, I at least do not support the status quo. In my home state of Oklahoma, the incumbent politicians decide if Independent party candidates will be allowed on the presidential election ballot. (They, being democrat and republican typically do not). So when the only choice I had for president was McCain or Obama, I didn't vote for either of them, which was a "no" vote for the only two candidates allowed on the ballot. Very small, to be sure and I highly doubt anyone, anywhere noticed but at least I voiced my displeasure with the status quo. On state measures and elections, I pay close attention and if nothing else, vote against continuing the same old, same old. In one state race, there were three candidates: a dem, a rep and an independent who was a bit of a crackpot. Since the dem and rep candidate both represented the same old B.S., I voted for the crackpot because I figured, what the hell, he is unlikely to make things any worse than they already are. I also notify my representatives in city, county, state and federal government that I am tired of this game and want either a new game or new rules. Phil #3 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights by flexing our Second. But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines. Phil #3 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Phil" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message m... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Very much so. That was me until recently when I realized that by not partaking in the voting process, I was not being heard at all. By casting a vote against the status quo, I at least do not support the status quo. In my home state of Oklahoma, the incumbent politicians decide if Independent party candidates will be allowed on the presidential election ballot. (They, being democrat and republican typically do not). So when the only choice I had for president was McCain or Obama, I didn't vote for either of them, which was a "no" vote for the only two candidates allowed on the ballot. Very small, to be sure and I highly doubt anyone, anywhere noticed but at least I voiced my displeasure with the status quo. On state measures and elections, I pay close attention and if nothing else, vote against continuing the same old, same old. In one state race, there were three candidates: a dem, a rep and an independent who was a bit of a crackpot. Since the dem and rep candidate both represented the same old B.S., I voted for the crackpot because I figured, what the hell, he is unlikely to make things any worse than they already are. Not to mention, even if he was actually far worse than the other choices, you won't have to be concerned since he will not win anyways. A double edge sword. I also notify my representatives in city, county, state and federal government that I am tired of this game and want either a new game or new rules. Phil #3 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:34:05 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 On the assumption that your tongue is not in your cheek now, I'm with you. Ultimately, I think the solution is to privatize marriage, and make it a matter of individual premarital contracts between two competent adults. The government role should be confined to enforcing the terms of these contracts. The contracts should include detailed provisions about such matters as divorce, child custody, and spousal support. It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages, regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with predictable conditions. That's just it though. It's not regulating of marriage that's taking place, rather the regulation of men AFTER the woman files for divorce. Alas, we're a long way off privatizing marriage. However, if the homosexual rights movement continues to push for same-sex marriage, then I suspect some may begin to ask why the government is so involved in the business of regulating heterosexual relationships and families. The silver lining to same sex "marriage" is that when it comes time for divorce, at least there will no longer be gender discrimination. No doubt will drive the feminazi judges crazy. Let people "marry" whoever and whatever they want, but just insist that they must have detailed premarital contracts spelling out the obligations of each party! (When all this happens, I plan to marry my cat, with whom I have been living for many years. And I don't want to hear any felinophobic comments from anyone. ) I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each other and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil' homemade "dog"ument to prove it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:34:05 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 On the assumption that your tongue is not in your cheek now, I'm with you. Ultimately, I think the solution is to privatize marriage, and make it a matter of individual premarital contracts between two competent adults. The government role should be confined to enforcing the terms of these contracts. The contracts should include detailed provisions about such matters as divorce, child custody, and spousal support. It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages, regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with predictable conditions. That's just it though. It's not regulating of marriage that's taking place, rather the regulation of men AFTER the woman files for divorce. Alas, we're a long way off privatizing marriage. However, if the homosexual rights movement continues to push for same-sex marriage, then I suspect some may begin to ask why the government is so involved in the business of regulating heterosexual relationships and families. The silver lining to same sex "marriage" is that when it comes time for divorce, at least there will no longer be gender discrimination. No doubt will drive the feminazi judges crazy. Let people "marry" whoever and whatever they want, but just insist that they must have detailed premarital contracts spelling out the obligations of each party! (When all this happens, I plan to marry my cat, with whom I have been living for many years. And I don't want to hear any felinophobic comments from anyone. ) I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each other and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil' homemade "dog"ument to prove it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Phil" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message om... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights by flexing our Second. But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines. Phil #3 Well said. The BIGGEST political propoganda machines are the so-called news stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and my favorite, the Communist News Network (CNN). It is a rare moment indeed that they actually report events without injected emotions or opinions about it. Pretty scarry how so many people follow their lead. Well, society gets just what it orders. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
I'm going to top-post because the comments below are getting
lengthy. I agree with your comments, Phil, about the instilling of prejudice against men via the media. I stopped watching the TV sitcoms, and most other TV shows, quite some time back. However, when my daughter was living with me (and watching these shows) I was reminded of all the dreary, politically correct drek that they pump out. No wonder they're losing viewers at a great rate! However, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons for this situation. I don't think there's any big, organized government propaganda effort here. There's no U.S. equivalent of Goebbels. Instead, we have TV scriptwriters who -- in addition to lacking talent and creativity -- are intimidated by every special interest group that they think is out there. Why are women, homosexuals, Latinos, or blacks handled with kid gloves in TV shows -- and in the TV commercials? Because the writers and the directors know there will be a prompt and vociferous reaction from the relevant special interest group if they aren't. Conversely, why are husbands/fathers/men depicted as fools who need to be rescued by the heroic women with whom they are associated? Because there's no special interest group representing heterosexual men that will make a big stink about such a depiction. Several years ago a group called the National Council of Free Men was successful in protesting to Hallmark about some egregriously anti-male greeting cards that they were selling. However, I haven't heard of any similar successes recently. On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:16:48 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message om... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights by flexing our Second. But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines. Phil #3 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
... I'm going to top-post because the comments below are getting lengthy. I agree with your comments, Phil, about the instilling of prejudice against men via the media. I stopped watching the TV sitcoms, and most other TV shows, quite some time back. However, when my daughter was living with me (and watching these shows) I was reminded of all the dreary, politically correct drek that they pump out. No wonder they're losing viewers at a great rate! However, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons for this situation. I don't think there's any big, organized government propaganda effort here. There's no U.S. equivalent of Goebbels. Instead, we have TV scriptwriters who -- in addition to lacking talent and creativity -- are intimidated by every special interest group that they think is out there. Why are women, homosexuals, Latinos, or blacks handled with kid gloves in TV shows -- and in the TV commercials? Because the writers and the directors know there will be a prompt and vociferous reaction from the relevant special interest group if they aren't. Conversely, why are husbands/fathers/men depicted as fools who need to be rescued by the heroic women with whom they are associated? Because there's no special interest group representing heterosexual men that will make a big stink about such a depiction. Several years ago a group called the National Council of Free Men was successful in protesting to Hallmark about some egregriously anti-male greeting cards that they were selling. However, I haven't heard of any similar successes recently. I'm of a mind where I can agree, at least partially with the both of you. There may not be any obvious government intervention in the form of some agency or single political talking-head that's behind all of the anti-male/father garbage we're constantly seeing on the boob-tube. Though there are several highly organized groups out there that swing their political clubs at our elected officials and get their phony-baloney anti-father/men laws pushed through with relative ease. And that's because our elected officials are afraid of loosing their votes. In this case, women's votes. So they pander to these dirt-bags and get them to stand behind them come election time and keep their jobs, in turn these back-stabbing politicians hand these groups/people the keys to our lives. And the worst part about it - we do nothing to stop them! Oh, we bitch, moan and stomp our feet at it, but in the end, very little, if anything is accomplished. Men need to get organized. It's that simple. The next step is to find our own Teflon protected politician (or several of them) to run for office, put out family friendly bills and fight to have them passed. He must also work tirelessly to have the anti-family laws overturned. But we don't have one. And at this rate never will. They way I see it, we need someone who's got balls made of solid rock who can take a barrage of shots from the Left and come away pretty much unscathed. Some one with an impeccable back ground, of sterling character and unheard of experience. He's got to be a conservative, very family friendly, knows our plight because he's been there, has undeniable leadership qualities, isn't afraid to fight, isn't afraid to get dirty, wields the truth like a sword, and actually has a backbone. In a word, we need a divorced military man. It would be really great if such a person was interracially married with kids from both relationships.. He'd be the perfect candidate. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
Chris says below that "society gets just what it orders" in regard to the blatant political bias of news stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and CNN. I don't think this is correct. However, I do agree that most TV viewers in the U.S. show little awareness of the bias, in part because they have become conditioned to it over the years. The fact of the matter is that, as survey after survey has shown, the personal political views of reporters and editors who produce these programs are VERY different from those of the U.S. public at large. For more detailed information on these surveys, see http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx. Nearly all reporters and editors acknowledge, when questioned, that their own political views are very much at the liberal end of the spectrum. In the specific context of family issues, such as "child support," this liberal bias produces coverage that is reflexively skewed towards the feminist point of view. Fathers' Day is coming up soon, and I can pretty much guarantee that you'll be able to see the bias at work in the media coverage of the event. I predict much attention will be devoted to the terrible problem of American fathers walking away from their children. However, anyone familiar with the facts knows that most fatherless families have been created by mothers -- either by expelling their husbands from their families or by deciding to have children by men to whom they are not married. The media will agree that only in a minority of situations do American fathers have any major role in regard to their children. But they won't ask why this is so. On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:41 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Phil" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message . com... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights by flexing our Second. But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines. Phil #3 Well said. The BIGGEST political propoganda machines are the so-called news stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and my favorite, the Communist News Network (CNN). It is a rare moment indeed that they actually report events without injected emotions or opinions about it. Pretty scarry how so many people follow their lead. Well, society gets just what it orders. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Chris" wrote in I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each other and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil' homemade "dog"ument to prove it. Yes but the government will be too glad to seize your income if you have any puppies with your bitch! LOL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Worms are parasites that live in human intestines ... | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 25th 07 10:41 PM |
Children are useless parasites !!! | Sam Prune | Foster Parents | 5 | December 27th 05 12:50 AM |
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts... | Dusty | Child Support | 41 | December 14th 05 06:21 PM |
Kane has never claimed that CP isn't "legal." was Kane admits spanking legal. Just as I've written. | Kane | Spanking | 6 | September 4th 04 07:08 PM |
Family Continuity Programs, Inc. to turn over contract to Sarasota Family YMCA, Inc. | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 4th 04 08:07 PM |