American Women

Voyajer1,

I sympathise with the termination issue, I really do. I can't imagine how powerless and frustrated the man must feel. Unfortunately, there's only one baby and two people with a right to decide what to do about it. If the parties can't agree, [b]someone[/b] has to be the decider and as the baby is inside the woman's belly... Well, there's no winners in that situation. Definitely better to avoid it happening in the first place.

And this alimony/palimony rubbish? Un-fkn-believable! It's not a concept I'm overly familiar with and it's certainly not something I'd support. I believe that men should provide for the children they helped to create. I do NOT believe they should have to look after their childless ex-girlfriends! What's wrong with the poor girls? Might break a nail if they do a day's work? Sheesh.

Palimony is the new (Relatively speaking) phenomenon. My case occurred while divorcing my good ol' AW. I hope she choked on the dow I gave her. The problem now is that in a relationship, the male and female do not even have to cohabitate. Period. This is the new and improve realm that I am certain many here have discussed previously. It was here that I became aware of the new changes in the law, see for yourselves: [url]http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/new-jersey-high-court-palimony-without-cohabitation-ok/[/url]
This ruling has created such a barrier between the educated men and women (The uninformed, of course believes that the state of relationships are the same. It could be a costly mistake). The ruling, thought given in New Jersey, is one of those "Landmark" cases that now can be applied universally throughout the land until sanity prevails. It hasn't so far. That is why I will NEVER date an AW. You never know what you are going to get and it involves a tremendous amount of risk from the male. Even if you don't have much to loose, they can garnish your future earnings to satisfy said ruling. Fair? Just? Never.
[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]Voyajer1,

I sympathise with the termination issue, I really do. I can't imagine how powerless and frustrated the man must feel. Unfortunately, there's only one baby and two people with a right to decide what to do about it. If the parties can't agree, [b]someone[/b] has to be the decider and as the baby is inside the woman's belly... Well, there's no winners in that situation. Definitely better to avoid it happening in the first place.

And this alimony/palimony rubbish? Un-fkn-believable! It's not a concept I'm overly familiar with and it's certainly not something I'd support. I believe that men should provide for the children they helped to create. I do NOT believe they should have to look after their childless ex-girlfriends! What's wrong with the poor girls? Might break a nail if they do a day's work? Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Levi is doing the correct thing and getting sleazy. He's posing nude; writing "tell all" books; working the talk show circuit; etcetera.

He should follow the lead of that other "loser", K-Fed. They truly are not losers like you and I for they will reap the child support stream from custody at some point during the 18-sentence.

Oops, my fault. Posing nude is a negative character trait and grounds for the father not to gain custody. In contrast, posing nude as the mother, with default custody, is not enough of a character flaw to grant the father custody.

To win in the USA as a male in male-female relations requires the male not to "give a f*ck." Get as many girls pregnant as you can 'cause the expense / liability truly doesn't increase much after the first child. 17% of gross income for the first child; 3 - 5% for the second child; 2 - 3% for each additional. No more than 50% of gross can be garnished.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of men posing nude, how about newly Senator elect Scott Brown of Mass. posing for a magazine when he was a young model.

[QUOTE=Voyajer1]Palimony is the new (Relatively speaking) phenomenon. My case occurred while divorcing my good ol' AW. I hope she choked on the dow I gave her. The problem now is that in a relationship, the male and female do not even have to cohabitate. Period. This is the new and improve realm that I am certain many here have discussed previously. It was here that I became aware of the new changes in the law, see for yourselves: [url]http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/new-jersey-high-court-palimony-without-cohabitation-ok/[/url]

This ruling has created such a barrier between the educated men and women (The uninformed, of course believes that the state of relationships are the same. It could be a costly mistake). The ruling, thought given in New Jersey, is one of those "Landmark" cases that now can be applied universally throughout the land until sanity prevails. It hasn't so far. That is why I will NEVER date an AW. You never know what you are going to get and it involves a tremendous amount of risk from the male. Even if you don't have much to loose, they can garnish your future earnings to satisfy said ruling. Fair? Just? Never.[/QUOTE]This ruling is only valid for NEWJERSEY. Each state has their own divorce and Marriage laws. Thats why some states can legalize Gay marriage and other don't.

When Palimony began in or around 1976, it started as a "landmark" case in "California Only". Prior to that, there were many other cases preceding the "need" to re-interpret the law beginning all the way back in the 1930's. The effect was that Palimony evolved from prior law, with emphasis that its roots began in California. Fast forward to today. Is there any state today WITHOUT some sort of Palimony laws?
You have to understand the mechanism to establish and a change law has been around since the inception of the Sex Prison. This insidious and incendiary case, though right now binding so far only in New Jersey will soon be the Law of the land. It IS a "landmark" case; lawmakers, and the justice system love this drivel. It means billions of dollars in lawsuits and lawyer fees. A bonanza! Again, it IS based on prior law, otherwise it would have never taken place. Once it hits the Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 liberal justice majority, how do you think they are going to rule? Anyone willing to take a wager? It will be the law of the land soon, trust me. Common sense has long left the Sex Prison and if something drastic does not derail this train, I can guarantee it will be the law of the land as soon as it hits Washington DC.
[QUOTE=ThatGuy865]This ruling is only valid for NEWJERSEY. Each state has their own divorce and Marriage laws. Thats why some states can legalize Gay marriage and other don't.[/QUOTE]

Rubber Nursey:

You’re absolutely right. It’s best to avoid creating the problem in the first place. That means getting fixed, using a condom or having a good wank. Fucking bareback, shooting cream pies in a woman’s twinkie then fleeing the country to escape the financial and legal consequences is stupid. Eventually, the fugitive’s passport will expire and the embassy will not renew it until he pays the child support assessed against him. He will end up as an illegal immigrant in some part of the world’s anus. The momentary sensation of shooting semen out one’s dick is hardly worth a lifetime of living in shit.

A much more satisfying experience would be to go to the bank, withdraw several thousands of dollars of crisp $20 notes. Go home and make it rain currency all over the bed. Then strip butt ass naked, roll around in the money and have a good wank. It’s better than sex with a woman and it doesn’t cost a dime or have any unwanted consequences.

Smiply sign-away your "rights" as a father and that's it.

No cost!

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]If it happens, it is BOTH PARTIES' responsibility. You guys may get lumped with child support payments, but women get saddled with 18+ years of no dating, no social life, no career, etc, while also contributing the majority of their own income to the upkeep of their children. [/QUOTE]

Custody goes default to the female and therefore she should assume all of the risks and "punishments" thereof.

If instead, the court action was custody first, then child support would be different, but since the father has 0% voice and the mother is awarded the child by default she should assume the burden.

Do not make it appear as if the father had any voice in the entire matter. For the father to have a voice is for the father to be assessed and then bring legal action.

All of your nonsense about 18+, no social life, etcetera is empathy/

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]

And this alimony/palimony rubbish? Un-fkn-believable! It's not a concept I'm overly familiar with and it's certainly not something I'd support. I believe that men should provide for the children they helped to create. I do NOT believe they should have to look after their childless ex-girlfriends! What's wrong with the poor girls? Might break a nail if they do a day's work? Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

Alimony is support payments after a marriage contract entered into a divorce contract.

Alimony and palimony have 0 % to do with child custody; child support.

Divorce is a voluntary contract entered into by both parties.

Child custody and child support is a 1-way ticket on the caballo plan.

[QUOTE=Voyajer1]When Palimony began in or around 1976, it started as a "landmark" case in "California Only". Prior to that, there were many other cases preceding the "need" to re-interpret the law beginning all the way back in the 1930's. The effect was that Palimony evolved from prior law, with emphasis that its roots began in California. Fast forward to today. Is there any state today WITHOUT some sort of Palimony laws?
You have to understand the mechanism to establish and a change law has been around since the inception of the Sex Prison. This insidious and incendiary case, though right now binding so far only in New Jersey will soon be the Law of the land. It IS a "landmark" case; lawmakers, and the justice system love this drivel. It means billions of dollars in lawsuits and lawyer fees. A bonanza! Again, it IS based on prior law, otherwise it would have never taken place. Once it hits the Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 liberal justice majority, how do you think they are going to rule? Anyone willing to take a wager? It will be the law of the land soon, trust me. Common sense has long left the Sex Prison and if something drastic does not derail this train, I can guarantee it will be the law of the land as soon as it hits Washington DC.[/QUOTE]

Before you enter into palimony concerns, the government will assign you common-law marriage.

In some states, Texas, common law takes effect after 6-months.

In the Carolinas, common law marriage takes effect after 30-days of co-habitation.

Understand, the USA does everything they can in their power to ensure that you remain on USA soil and are a "indebted" servitude / employee / labourer.

The USA loves and needs a guaranteed labour force and placing the USA-citizen, male, in mandated servitude is how it is done.

[QUOTE=Voyajer1] Once it hits the Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 liberal justice majority, how do you think they are going to rule? Anyone willing to take a wager? It will be the law of the land soon, trust me. Common sense has long left the Sex Prison and if something drastic does not derail this train, I can guarantee it will be the law of the land as soon as it hits Washington DC.[/QUOTE]First off you are wrong again. The majority of the Court is Conservative. Bush assured that with the nomination of Scalia, you have (Scalia, thomas, Roberts, alito and kennedy) all are young (by supreme court judge standards)

And all are ultra conservative. As a matter of fact this court is considered one of the most conservative group since the 1950's.

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]A much more satisfying experience would be to go to the bank, withdraw several thousands of dollars of crisp $20 notes. Go home and make it rain currency all over the bed. Then strip butt ass naked, roll around in the money and have a good wank.[/QUOTE]
LOL! After some bad experiences with 'starfish', my mate used to say something similar about paid sex. "You might as well just park in a brothel carpark, have a wank in the car, then throw your wallet out the window as you drive away". :)

[QUOTE=Meat Loaf]The USA loves and needs a guaranteed labour force and placing the USA-citizen, male, in mandated servitude is how it is done.[/QUOTE]Please thats one of the funniest statements made on this board.

Alimony is only awarded in less than 15% of divorces, Palimony less than 5% ... So the majority of Divorces end with no payments to the Wife.

Termination of parental rights does [B]not[/B] end the obligation to pay child support unless the child is adopted.

[url]http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-176372919.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]Termination of parental rights does [B]not[/B] end the obligation to pay child support unless the child is adopted.

[url]http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-176372919.html[/url][/QUOTE]

That's true. The female must also accept the termination papers.

I knew one guy in the ARMY that would impregnate hoes, and then sign away his parental rights. And the girls liked a guy like that to boot. I find it funny and enjoyable how one "Jungle Fever" hoe got played like that and hopefully is having a hard time surviving in life and rearing the children. Why? She got what she deserved by f*cking a guy of such caliber, "Jungle Fever."