|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:42 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Sir Paul has penned many a fine romantic love song. He must be reconsidering some of the lyrics in light of the extortion that he's about to pay out ---
All My Loving
Writer, lead vocal: Paul McCartney
"Close your eyes and I'll kiss you,
Tomorrow I'll miss you;
Remember I'll always be true.
And then while I'm away,
I'll write home ev'ry day,
And I'll send all my loving, err MONEY to you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 05:01 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
In nature, there is a creature that does little or nothing to remain alive. Instead, this creature sucks its sustenance from unwitting victims. This creature is called a leach. In the human species there are leaches too; they are commonly referred to as gold-diggers. These irresponsible and unproductive female members of society suck their sustenance out of male victims rendered defenseless by feminized systems of injustice. $1.9 million a week! Give me a break! I bet Paul wishes he had enacted that pre-prenuptial now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PPaul on 06:07 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
For those of you outside the UK, stand by for a chilling demonstration of just how cynically the UK divorce legislation allows a woman to strip a man of his assets. It doesn't matter if it is a private settlement or decided by the courts, the result will be the same: she will fleece him rotten.
Paul McCartney made his vast fortune out of his song-writing and performing talents exercised years before he ever met Heather Mills. But somehow she will be deemed to have made a vital contribution to his efforts and his fortune, and to have established a right to a big slice of it.
Poor old Paul is quoted as saying that there is not an ounce of truth in the suggestion that she married him for his money. It is going to be painful watching a decent man having his naive beliefs put through the shredder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:21 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I only lived in the U.K. for a year, decades ago.
It was all "mod" then. Girls were girls. Blokes were blokes. Ah, nostalgia.....
Well before the feminist virus invaded Brit culture.
But, can anyone explain how the U.K.'s divorce courts have become the legal equivalent of being "drawn and quartered" for any man?
Is the whole country full of smooth-speaking feminist sadists?
Or whispering masochistic nancy-boys?
What the hell is going on in the once-dominant male imperial nation on this planet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PPaul on 02:37 AM May 20th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
My God Roy, you are going back a long time.
Britain has certainly changed and the feminists and manginas are well in control now. How did it happen? The usual way. Feminists led the assault on men and weak male politicians, steeped in blind chivalry and incapable of believing anything bad about women, caved in to their every demand. They are still at it, including the judiciary and the police.
But there are signs of a fight back. Every high profile case like this one makes a few more men, and what decent women remain, sit up and take notice of the blatant injustice. The tide will turn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:51 PM May 20th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my sense of U.K. history does indeed go back a while.
My high school rock 'n roll band was named Agincourt.
For a reason...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 06:23 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Mills offered to sign a pre-nup, and McCartney refused! Wish he had that little piece of paper now
I have always considered Paul the dorkiest of the Fab 4 and now this proves it! Not too bright there Sir Paul!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 09:02 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I read somewhere that pre-nups are illegal or regularly ignored by English courts. I don't know if this is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PPaul on 02:43 AM May 20th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a legal expert Tumescent, but I am sure you are right. Pre-nups are not legally binding in the UK. High and mighty judges and lawyers reckon they know more about what is best for two people who may have been together for years, than those people do themselves, even when they wrote it down and signed it. So Sir Paul would have been doomed anyway. The day he married, his fate was sealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 07:57 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Poor old Paul is quoted as saying that there is not an ounce of truth in the suggestion that she married him for his money.
I am reminded of a recent observation by Fred Reed: "...women are realists pretending to be romantics, and men, romantics pretending to be realists." Exactly. Which is why, when it comes to the real Battle of the Sexes, we lose. They know what they want (even if they don't know they know it), and they will get it.
And now that they can get the financial security men can provide without the nuisance of having to deal with a man in the house, you can be sure they'll go for it. It's not even conscious, just natural law, like Nature abhorring a vacuum. Put a big "Sucker" sign on your forehead, and you're going to, well, get sucked.
Read Fred's column; excellent as usual. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better -- if ever. Or maybe they'll pull it off, and simply "evolve" men into the unchallenging, useful boy-toys that are the most the Matriarchy can allow, because they're all She can understand.
As Fred says, women don't understand men. They cannot; that's the point. And what they don't understand naturally makes them nervous. And since the prime female value is Security, if Woman is "on top" she simply won't -- can't -- allow men -- that is, fully developed males -- to exist. Like Fred says, "Modern marriage sounds like a sort of heterosexual lesbianism. The man should be as little like a man as possible while having complementary genitals."
Like me, Paul's too old to fit into this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 11:31 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing out Fred's column. It rocks. I will send it on to every man I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:59 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Fred had the sense to go live in Mexico with a real woman...
She taught him Spanish...
and a whole lot more!
He's been very philosophically satisfied since he bedded her....
Or, did she "bed" him?
Ah well...
It all proposes a happy ending.
For a truly great writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Modern marriage sounds like a sort of heterosexual lesbianism. The man should be as little like a man as possible while having complementary genitals."
That goes perfectly with the idea that a perfect divorce looks like a great marriage - minus the sex.
I'm so glad we've got both marriage and divorce all figured out now.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:56 PM May 18th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
So far all we have is speculation from the media. I will wait to make any real comments until I see how much she "actually gets". They seem to be doing what they need to do without the medias interference. I will wait before I condemn this Woman when I see how much she actually demands in the divorce. As far as Paul being "dorky" he is also the most productive out of the four; a life long pot smoker, until he married his soon to be ex, and a devoted family Man. So, I will leave my noose coiled, "and ready" until the so called jury is "out".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 09:21 AM May 19th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Five Children, a 29 year faithfull marriage to his wife Linda. A devoted Family Man. An enourmously talented Producer, Writer, and Entertainer. He married a Skank who had lived on the street. An attention whore jealous of his Fame. That he earned. She craves Media Attention. If Sir Paul and be screwed over this way, what makes you think any Man in the UK cannot be screwed over? They can.
Time to get real. Don't marry in the UK. Don't cohabitate in the UK. Don't shack up with Women there. Meet them on neutral grounds etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:36 PM May 19th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Davidadelong -- "As far as Paul being "dorky" he is also the most productive out of the four..."
What is your criteria?
Volume of bad songs released post-Beatles? No contest, Sir Paul wins hands down.
He has not written a truly great song since 1970.
His first solo album was his last great statement.
Even Ringo with his ominous "Octopus Garden" wrote a better song than the vacant "Band on the Run."
John Lennon was the Beatles.
(George, bless his reincarnated soul.... was in la-la land 24 x 7 ....)
The other three were John's back-up band.
Dispute it if you must...
A "Beatles Fans' War" on MANN might max out the web traffic hereabouts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:08 PM May 19th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Productive: ie. the most exposed the hardest working, most gigs, still doing concerts. I wasn't ever a "fan" even though I saw them on the Ed Sullivan show when they did that gig, I was young. John had the most potential but he got side tracked by Yoko. The only records that I bought was the double white album, they had some good stuff on those. This is of course a personal view, and everyone else is entitled to theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:30 PM May 19th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I never liked the Beatles, even though my rock 'n roll band in high school had to cover all their songs.
I was more into Free, Stones, Traffic, Cream, anything blues-based.
I always thought the Beatles were cute.
But two-part harmonies versus Muddy Water's 12-bar blues licks?
It's silly to even mention the Beatles as a major evolution of anything lasting culturally or musically.
Billy Idol has more cred.
And he's touring again, because he had the good sense to never be a "band."
Have you heard the rumour?
Paul is dead, again.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
dschmidt writes "Analysts believe former Beatle Paul McCartney