Rant and Rave Think Tank 2

[Nostalgic]

Getting hurt and killed is different. I would obviously be more devastated over the loss of my loved one if they got killed while someone else killed themselves but how could I blame that persons family and sue them. They did not make him jump in front of the train.

Back to alianation of affection
I would surely put blame on my husband and the other woman but taking her to court for it is just weird, I don't see the logic in it at all.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

My understanding is that the estate of the man that commited suicide would be the target of the suit to cover losses of the other parties loss. Sure the family of the suicide guy might take a financial loss. But those things happen. I would feel bad for that family as well but once again people need to consider their actions and if they harm someone else they should expect that they or their estate may have to pay damages.

For me personally I am more sickened by people that do thing that are wrong and think ohh well thats life too bad soo sad. I think we all need to be more aware of our actions and consequences and quit leaving our own personal responsibility for someone else to deal with.

[Brake4Wind]

Back to alianation of affection
I would surely put blame on my husband and the other woman but taking her to court for it is just weird, I don't see the logic in it at all.

Hmm.. Hot topic there. I can see why most states would abolish alienation as a cause of action. From the court's point of view, it easily turns into chaos (too emotional/ indefinable). Not that I wouldn't have a low opinion of the 'other' man/woman but as a judge, I think I would have to concentrate on the spouse breaking the marriage contract: Otherwise, there are too many variables to sort out- too hard to prove cause/ effect and thereby establish real 3rd party (monetary) damages. There would be much debate about the relationship between husband and wife; their own irreconcilable differences (add more chaos to the mix). The infidelity may be part of it but I agree it is on the cheating spouse- *I'd suspect* if not that one (paramour) then another because it's what he/ she wanted to do (selfish disregard for others). Things I might consider as 3rd party damages are:
- Damage to a business- not just "being there" (as paramour) but active participation that shows good cause to award damages.
- Gifts given to the lover- taken from community property that the other spouse should rightfully recover. This may fold into the first- damage to a business/ cause of financial difficulties. My first inclination would be to deduct this from the division of assets but both 'infidel' (lol) and paramour could be held jointly and severally liable. Similar to receiving stolen goods- knowing or not, it doesn't belong to them. I also might be inclined to add a penalty (to the cheating spouse) for wrongful diversion of assets.

I suspect these examples may come under a separate cause of action (not just alienation). Where allowed, an alienation suit can also be brought against others interfering with a marriage such as family, a therapist or the clergy. Jim Jones for example. He abused "faith" to get people to donate their property (to him/ his 'church') and, to disassociate themselves from family/ spouses. At his 'cool-aid' finale, he was already a dead man walking- having killed a Senator and his entourage; just a shame he was able to take thousands down with him.

If it were my husband, I wouldn't care much about who he was cheating with- I'd just flat-out not want the bum around. Just my opinion but I'd blame him totally.

You are right Tsetse, I would then be a 'party' to a failed marriage (no-one is perfect) but, he better not get some crazy notion that we can still be friends.

BTW- (small correction)- Since 1935 all but these 7 states have abolished Alienation as a cause of action. I'm not sure when it was enacted but it comes from older English laws of equity. I can imagine why this may have been more useful in the past: Before community property laws, the husband controlled income/ property/ assets; women had few property rights. Still, one's reputation, a man's "word" (dependability), a woman's/ wife's chastity... all had different socio-economic impacts based on the morals/ attitudes of that time. I think it would have been shameful (the man a loser) if he couldn't support his wife/ family (who would trust him for a good 'position'?). Likewise a 'home-wrecker' would be snubbed as 'unchaste' (affecting the prestige of a man who marries her too). Social shaming would then be a far more serious weapon (or defense) and have more meaning than today. (I'm thinking maybe the Victorian age) My guess is that older laws were largely replaced with the new- alimony, child support, equitable division of property...

Breach of Promise was another cause of action in the past- reneging on a promise of marriage. Pregnancy without marriage would have been the worst but, it even extended to a woman being shamed for going off with a 'supposed' fiancé without a chaperone. Being shamed could ruin her chances of finding a 'suitable' husband with severe economic consequences, thus she was 'damaged' by the breach. Or, maybe I watch too many Turner Classic Movies.

[Nostalgic]

What would I do with the estate of the man that killed himself? It won't bring my loved one back nor would it help the other family. It would just be a costly stressful, sad, depressing law suit that would cause me more pain to me and the other family than it's worth.
Why would I want do that to myself and them?

I agree, people should be more aware of their actions and consequences but I'm not going to sue the other woman because she lusted after my husband and he fell into her arms. What will it bring me but more pain going to court discussing the affair in detail and for what? Money? I don't care enough for money to put myself through that.

Edit:: just saw post above
@ wind, I don't get suing the therapist either. the person is paying them for advice and help, if they think it's better the husband or wife leaves then that's their advice they are paid to give.

[Bubbydoll]

Here is a Question for the Think Tanker's off of Pk's question.

If you were a time traveler and could go back in time any year, doesn't matter and kill an evil person, would you and who would you kill? And would you worry about a Butterfly effect happening or not?
I would go and kill Bin Laden and all his team who were planning 9/11.
You?

Yipes, I missed lots of going ons in here, will try to muddle through most of it, not really in the best mind set to focus on deep issues tho. I can see how so many would choose Hitler he was a great evil and certainly deserved to be killed, imo. I think I would seriously worry about the Butterfly effect, I would run scenarios over and over and prolly never take the chance, I certainly could not and would not murder a baby, no matter what type of monster that baby grew into. And I would never kill an innocent person for the sins of another, like his mom or dad. I think I would go with your choice actually Jeff. I would chose to kill Bin Laden and Company. I am shocked not to see anyone especially Americans say Lee Harvey Oswald, thought he would be a prime subject for this sort of thing. Although I am not sure it was him who killed Kennedy that day, he might have been a fall guy for it.

[Bubbydoll]

Here's a little twist on Jeff's question- How evil are YOU?

This comes from an experiment duplicated from a psychiatrist's test from the 1950's (The Discovery Channel, I think).
The last experiment had a much smaller sample of a dozen or so (the first was large- 1,000 or more).

In the experiment there were 2 main actors- one a doctor, older, distinguished, very officious. His experiment was to test if people learned faster by causing pain for a wrong answer- all wrong answers meant getting an electrical shock and, it increased in intensity. The second actor was the person receiving the electric shock but, the study group didn't know this, nor did they know what was involved before volunteering but, also told that they could stop at any time.

A 'random' selection was made to choose which person (actor or study participant) would receive or administer the shock. It was rigged so the actor always received the shock and the actor always noted concern about a mild heart ailment (he actually had no shock but acted as if he did and could only be heard, not seen).

Only one woman in the study group refused to participate, considered it immoral and could not be persuaded. As the study progressed, the actor kept getting the wrong answers and the level of shock was increased- at first mild (hmm) then (OUCH!) then (that really hurt!) until the actor shrieked and began to refer to his heart ailment, expressing fear. People turned to the doctor who insisted they must continue- it only hurts but won't kill him. At that point, only one other refused to continue; all others shocked him until the doctor told them to stop (the actor screaming). At the end of the experiment the study group was told the truth. The guy that stopped said he was an attorney and knew he couldn't be forced to continue. When asked who was at fault, the doctor who encouraged them or the individual who continued, only one took personal responsibility- all others blamed the doctor- just following HIS instructions.

In the original ('50's) experiment- the psychiatrist concluded that the Nazis would have no problem finding people to operate their death camps in any average American city. A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions. In the '50's experiment it was over 70%- when the memory of the Holocaust was fresh. "Never again"? Is anyone so sure?

I do not think I am evil, I do not enjoy the pain of others even when they rightfully deserve the pain coming their way, I prefer to let the universe sort people out, I strongly believe in karma and if you harm another it will be turned back onto you. I don't think I would stand around watching someone be shocked repeatedly, even if faking pain, if a good enough actor no one watching would be able to tell it was not a real pain they were having. I cannot even look in the direction of a car accident if I pass one, I can not bear to see anything like that. No one "must " continue, they should think for themselves and not be told what they should think or do, have and exercise their own free will in that moment. If you feel something is not right, speak up. Because gawd knows so many sit back and let things happen, even to their own kids and neighbors and co workers and people die because of it, it is so easy to gather strength and do what is right, I never understood why so many do not have that within themselves. I think it was the fault of all who gladly participated without stopping it or questioning it, passing the blame doesn't change the truth.

[Bubbydoll]

My next contributing question (not one of my "random" ones):

What do you all think about alienation-of-affections lawsuits?...

I, personally, think they're stupid, and borne out of bloodthirst and greed. They're just an excuse for the wife (or husband) to be unnecessarily vindictive. Plus the wrong person gets blamed. Although there haven't been many of these in the news, it seems to me like they've become some kind of fad--since Cynthia Shackleford won a ridiculous amount of money she knew damn well she'd never see, AOA lawsuits have become like some kind of fashion statement. (See why I said earlier in this thread, "don't get me started"? )

Most people I share my opinion with disagree--"you're not married so you don't know what you'd do" (which I hate!). They think it's fair. Of course, I live in a Bible-belt state, so it doesn't surprise me--Kentuckians are all about their "family values." I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

I am sort of the same mind set as Krsty is on this, maybe not as passionate, bless her. But I have never cheated on a person I claimed to love and would expect if a man or woman goes that step further to marry one they love... you make vows and are expected to honor those vows, or why get married? Marriage is not an easy thing for most, ups and downs and temptations, but you have to respect your partner you wedded and do not act on those lustful temptations, no one makes you cheat, you give in because you want it, you crave it, you are weak and selfish and that is your choice .... I think this should be set in pre nups too, so if there is infidelity you have it already legally written what you want if it happens. I think the woman the husband cheats with or the man the wife cheats with should be held partially responsible if they knew the other person was indeed married, with a family, and still continued. They would continue because they don't care, they are getting what they want and all needs filled like the cheating spouse is so it is all good to go for them. I think it would be good that people were made to feel what it is like to lose in those situations, even with the embarrassment of a name in the paper or being dragged into court for some damages, regardless of actually having to pay out anything, just to be there is enough. It is all a matter of people's characters to me. But my thoughts go to the ones who knew the man or woman was indeed wedded, not the ones who are duped and did not know the truth, they are a victim to that cheater like the spouse is.

I personally would never bring a lawsuit like that against someone I was married to... if they cheated, I would want to be done with them, not continue in court over that sort of thing, get them out of my sight as fast as I could and someone else can deal with their BS. I think lawyers prolly push wives to do this and some prolly would rather not go forth, and others most likely want blood, I can understand that too, a lot of pain when someone you loves betrays you. So I guess I can see both sides. Might think on it some more, today is not best day to wrap my head around stuff. I am a romantic, and would hate to ever be stuck in any sort of situation like this.

[SamZee]

Do we all know what "negligence" means in the context of the legal system? When a judge denies a plaintiff's claim or a defendant's counterclaim because he or she finds the situation reasonably preventable, they'll use that term. So if a person sustains the same damages over and over, the arbitrator may find the person "negligent" in the eyes of the law and deny their claim. To me, these cases should not be exempt from this. If you're in a relationship with someone who doesn't treat you the way you deserve to be treated for such a long period of time, then your suffering is your fault. Doesn't matter what issues you have, you allowed the problem to continue and grow. These people know that monetary compensation won't heal them emotionally and fill the void in their life. No. You see this all the time even on the real courtroom shows. People suing their exes in court not because of property damages they've sustained but because they just can't let go. They can't let go of the pain they've endured and the fact that they've been so emotionally wronged by another person. I feel really bad for them but so often that's the case. Maybe if you're claim is for therapy expenses -- maybe -- depending on the case. But not for zillion dollars. There's a reason these cases aren't more common and that's because they're an abuse of the system.

[Nostalgic]

I agree with Samzee it's an abuse of the system.

It can be difficult to leave assholes but it's your choice to stay. I stayed with one way to long and only fault myself.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@brake4wind,
A lot of what you posted is where I was going to go next. No one can seem to get beyond suing for emotional reasons or seperate why anyone would sue the other woman keeping it seperate from the acts of the husband.

@all, This was a fun debate and I thank Isis for bringing it up.

@samz WTF? Who said anything about multiple actions? What are you getting at? The only thing that was clear about your post was that you think AOA suits are using the system. Aren't all law suits using the system? Where do you get the basis for your post? Is it abuse of a set of laws to use those very same laws to recover damages that you are entitled to be reimbursed for? No. it's abuse of the law to lie about any losses you might have taken in a certain instance to gain something that you would not have otherwise been entitled to had you not lied. It is not abuse of the system or the laws to recover monetary damages for a legitimate loss that you have received due to the negligent actions of another person. It is true that some people actually file numerous complaints yearly or over a number of years to basically get something for nothing. Those kind of people make me sick too. I had a neighbor like that a few years back. All she wanted was a free ride from a lot of people. Sadly she got it much of the time. That is not what I'm defending here.

@Nos,
We still agree that we don't see eye to eye on this. I will almost always defend a persons legal right to recoup real losses.

@No one has yet answered how the other woman should right the wrong she caused. To me if you exclude her as needing to be responsible for her actions you are condoning her actions.

[Brake4Wind]

Edit:: just saw post above @ wind, I don't get suing the therapist either. the person is paying them for advice and help, if they think it's better the husband or wife leaves then that's their advice they are paid to give.

I knows what you mean nos.
Others can be sued for alienation if they advocate divorce/ separation (for example) but I can see this going all over the place. (Like a suit against a mean, meddling mother-in-law?) I'd hate to be one of the jurors- I might feel like I'm the one being punished. Imagine going into deliberation- there would be very different attitudes and sentiments to sort out with 12 other jurors- and agreeing to a price on damages? O.o.
The only reason I can think of for suing a therapist is if for ethical violations or mal-practice. I actually did meet a couple this happened to; the doctor had some success with his book (forget what) but came highly recommended. The couple went to him for marriage counseling and he tried to seduce the wife (unsuccessfully)- they described how sleazy the guy really is- seems like they refused to pay him too. Later that doctor was sued all over the place! By clients and by his staff who said that he was prescribing pills (for his staff?) and got them addicted- used the addiction to extract unpaid overtime- seduced some. Ugh! Surely he lost his license and if half of what was reported is true, he should have gone to jail. Of course that's much more than Alienation of Affection.

Krsty- I'm not sure but I think suing to recover something like a gift (from community property) or interfering with business could be a different cause of Action- not 'A of A' (that wouldn't be allowed in California). Other people can interfere with business or, gifts can be given to family (to hide assets for one). Still, it may dove tail with the acts of the husband- he allowed it or transferred funds.

@No one has yet answered how the other woman should right the wrong she caused. To me if you exclude her as needing to be responsible for her actions you are condoning her actions.

Not that we condone her actions; the problem is that you must prove actual damages (documented) to win most court cases. That is difficult if it is all emotional distress. Even though this is granted, it usually is attached to something else- Doctor bills in a car accident for example

if they cheated, I would want to be done with them, not continue in court over that sort of thing, get them out of my sight as fast as I could and someone else can deal with their BS.

Hey Bubbydoll.
HAHA! I have that same (personal) reaction! A pre-nup addressing infidelity is a good idea! There are likely other things going wrong in the marriage but infidelity is probably the last straw that puts most in divorce court.

That's an interesting point on negligence Sam. I can definitely see how people have trouble letting go of the pain. Paying for therapy would be fair. Actually, I think that it is common for the courts to insist on therapy- at least when children are involved.

[Brake4Wind]

No one "must " continue, they should think for themselves and not be told what they should think or do, have and exercise their own free will in that moment. If you feel something is not right, speak up. Because gawd knows so many sit back and let things happen, even to their own kids and neighbors and co workers and people die because of it, it is so easy to gather strength and do what is right, I never understood why so many do not have that within themselves. I think it was the fault of all who gladly participated without stopping it or questioning it, passing the blame doesn't change the truth.

Good points Bubby! It's what the (real) doctor was trying to show us all. The people in the experiment were from all classes, age, race, education... The only one that wouldn't push the shock button even once was a stay at home mom; white, middle-class, late 20's as a guess. The only one who took personal responsibility (admitting he should have made better decisions and for himself) was a middle-aged black man and a janitor. The attorney (white/ 40ish) who stopped in the middle was rather vain, thought he was smart- NOT- he was concerned about himself (getting sued). Everyone else blamed the doctor, "he told me to"- Like small children.

[Brake4Wind]

I can see how so many would choose Hitler he was a great evil and certainly deserved to be killed, imo. I think I would seriously worry about the Butterfly effect, I would run scenarios over and over and prolly never take the chance, I certainly could not and would not murder a baby, no matter what type of monster that baby grew into. And I would never kill an innocent person for the sins of another, like his mom or dad.

I agree with this too. How could anyone kill a child or an innocent person? I think I'd do the same later too- tempted maybe but I'd be thinking how many ways I might make things worse- playing God? That could be disastrous.

I am shocked not to see anyone especially Americans say Lee Harvey Oswald, thought he would be a prime subject for this sort of thing. Although I am not sure it was him who killed Kennedy that day, he might have been a fall guy for it.

Interesting you point out Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby did shoot him (how he got so close is suspicious) and, many Americans think it was a conspiracy. I saw the percentage once- don't recall exactly but something like 2/3rds think it was a conspiracy and cover-up. The CIA and possibly J. Edgar Hoover/ the FBI are main suspects with the help of the mafia (Ruby suspected of Mafia ties)- JFK and his brother went after the mafia- supposedly breaking an agreement made with the father Joseph Kennedy- then the industrial military complex wanting to escalate the Vietnam War (his successor, L. B. Johnson soon did). Later his brother Robert was shot- campaigning for president- his chances of winning were very high and he spoke out against the war.

[tsetse22]

True, true.... the Kennedy assassinations where a MAJOR turning point in this Country. It will take a lot of different
political and social factions pulling together on the same rope to ever get America back on the track they worked to
put us on in the early 60's. It was the most 'average man empowering' and 'people-minded' circle of leaders we had in
over 100 years. Historically, their murders are suspicious, no doubt.

[Brake4Wind]

Yes, there was MLK and the civil rights movement, plenty of cheap oil, men going to the moon. Eisenhower before Kennedy built all that hi-way infrastructure and Mo-Town actually made cars- lots of them (and music- whistle while you work). Families could afford homes- VA loans, FHA. Seems like people lived well and had jobs. Eisenhower was also the one who warned us to beware of the industrial military complex. He knew how awful war can be and how greed glorifies aggression so these guys can profit; that's not so good. Wasn't the Vietnam war actually undeclared while they drafted men? (Only Congress can declare war- but didn't bother to vote?). Still, there was a baby boom coming of age and protesting the war in large numbers- it converged with civil rights and MLK was awarded the Nobel peace prize.

Hmm... We definitely need another way to fuel commerce but, do you suppose that kind of 'average man empowering' and 'people-minded' infrastructure could be re-built?

[tsetse22]

Brake4wind,
I have given that very question a great deal of thought. Who hasn't I suppose.
My "solution" is rather about fighting fire with fire. The long term manipulation of certain sectors of politics and business
was done under the radar so to speak. If there was a populist movement that gained momentum, sadly the
mechanisms are all already in place to out it down, discredit it, through the bought press (Murdocks and FOX for example)
as well as through self inflicted subversion via mob mentalities and tenancies to need violence to be taken serious.
Marshal law, stricter controls placed by powers wanting to stay there etc.....a bad scene altogether.. The best and only private sector chance is to have credible organizations (and I mean everyone of them) from The Boy Scouts to the NAACP march,rally, boycott and vote and speak up...but that is a long shot and pipe dream anyway.

My thoughts have been the best solution is to have the Executive branch form a covert think tank in DC to plan corruption stings, (and prosecute with life sentences or the death penalty) Certain practices, are, I believe, the root problem. Classifing these kinds of high crime white collar criminals are traitors and committing actual sabotage or subversion. We should be treating those as it best fits the crime and punish accordingly. 2400 Pennsylvania Ave has basically become like a time $hare.

It would be nice to see the CIA infiltrate the real criminal threat to the Country and infiltrate Wall street, Oil and Power companies, Pharmaceutical and insurance Industries too. Then straighten them up from the inside. The spy was always the best piece on the board in Stratego.

10 years ground-work, implementation and prosecution would fix a lot and restore faith in our Government and Public Service all around. imho.

retro radical, eh?

[SamZee]

@ Krsty

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there may be a discrepancy of understanding here. I apologize if this isn't the case, but when I use the term "negligence," I'm referring to the plaintiff. I'll address that next.

Who said anything about multiple actions? What are you getting at?

When I refer to litigants being deemed negligent by the judge, I mean that they've allowed themselves to sustain the same damages over and over. For example, a plaintiff who's dissatisfied with the defendant's services but keeps hiring them anyway. But in this case, it has to do with the length of time. Marriage may be legally binding in various ways, but I tend not to view the situation so much in terms of legality. I think that accounts for much of the difference between you and I.

Is it abuse of a set of laws to use those very same laws to recover damages that you are entitled to be reimbursed for?

No, but it's not a crime in the eyes of the law to be a bad husband or wife. And I know it's not that black and white but the thing is, I have much sympathy for the plaintiffs in genuine cases where they're not just being vindictive. What I don't have sympathy for is the plaintiffs who pursue these cases for other reasons which I imagine is the the case most of the time.

It is not abuse of the system or the laws to recover monetary damages for a legitimate loss that you have received due to the negligent actions of another person.

What I'm getting at is, the defendant isn't the only person neglecting the plaintiff. What matters to me is that the plaintiff is neglecting the plaintiff. (This time I'm not using that word as a legal term) My stance is basically that the plaintiff needs to take responsibility for their own lives. They made the adult decision to marry this person, so they should be able to make the decision to unmarry them so that they don't suffer in the first place. It's like keeping your hand on a hot stove. I know that's grossly oversimplifying it, but if your relationship has been that bad for that long, then it has long since expired.

I won't go too deep into it, but I was once in a terrible relationship like this. It was when I was younger and before I had awoken from the dream that is life. (I'll leave that interpretation up to you) I was naive at the time. No self-worth or esteem. We had been together for over a year, and for almost a year I suffered from true alienation of affection. When things went down hill, she treated me like less than crap. Didn't give a damn about me or anything I felt. I really was a martyr to it. It was very emotionally traumatic. I developed PTSD and had panic attacks -- it was bad. It was the biggest catalyst experience of my life, and it changed me profoundly. But I didn't need to forgive her. I had to forgive myself.

So maybe now you can understand why my position is what it is. I'm not saying that none of these cases should exist, but it shouldn't be the law's duty to compensate every married relationship that goes sour. The thing is that I view the situation differently and hold the plaintiff accountable for their own life. Is that fair enough?

[JeremyM]

My next contributing question (not one of my "random" ones):

What do you all think about alienation-of-affections lawsuits?...

I, personally, think they're stupid, and borne out of bloodthirst and greed. They're just an excuse for the wife (or husband) to be unnecessarily vindictive. Plus the wrong person gets blamed. Although there haven't been many of these in the news, it seems to me like they've become some kind of fad--since Cynthia Shackleford won a ridiculous amount of money she knew damn well she'd never see, AOA lawsuits have become like some kind of fashion statement. (See why I said earlier in this thread, "don't get me started"? )

Most people I share my opinion with disagree--"you're not married so you don't know what you'd do" (which I hate!). They think it's fair. Of course, I live in a Bible-belt state, so it doesn't surprise me--Kentuckians are all about their "family values." I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

Never heard much about AOA lawsuits. Lots of women marry rich men with an eye for other women, they know it, they were probably a chick he cheated with to begin with, so why they are shocked he cheats is odd.

I think the husband or wife who ever ruins the marriage should pay, but isn't that what alimony is for? Some women have agreements made with their husbands that he can cheat/take a mistress as long as he is discrete and he does not divorce her.

When love goes bad people do things they'd never imagine they'd do.

[JeremyM]

I can see how so many would choose Hitler he was a great evil and certainly deserved to be killed, imo. I think I would seriously worry about the Butterfly effect, I would run scenarios over and over and prolly never take the chance, I certainly could not and would not murder a baby, no matter what type of monster that baby grew into. And I would never kill an innocent person for the sins of another, like his mom or dad.

I agree with this too. How could anyone kill a child or an innocent person? I think I'd do the same later too- tempted maybe but I'd be thinking how many ways I might make things worse- playing God? That could be disastrous.

I am shocked not to see anyone especially Americans say Lee Harvey Oswald, thought he would be a prime subject for this sort of thing. Although I am not sure it was him who killed Kennedy that day, he might have been a fall guy for it.

Interesting you point out Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby did shoot him (how he got so close is suspicious) and, many Americans think it was a conspiracy. I saw the percentage once- don't recall exactly but something like 2/3rds think it was a conspiracy and cover-up. The CIA and possibly J. Edgar Hoover/ the FBI are main suspects with the help of the mafia (Ruby suspected of Mafia ties)- JFK and his brother went after the mafia- supposedly breaking an agreement made with the father Joseph Kennedy- then the industrial military complex wanting to escalate the Vietnam War (his successor, L. B. Johnson soon did). Later his brother Robert was shot- campaigning for president- his chances of winning were very high and he spoke out against the war.

Oswald even called himself a patsy. He wasn't even that good of a shot by his and others admission.

Oliver Stone in JFK claimed the assassination of Kennedy came from high levels of the U.S. government, Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, FBI and the CIA, and even the White House too. JFK was seen as a threat.

I am shocked this mystery is still not solved.

[Brake4Wind]

Brake4wind,I have given that very question a great deal of thought. Who hasn't I suppose.My "solution" is rather about fighting fire with fire. The long term manipulation of certain sectors of politics and businesswas done under the radar so to speak. If there was a populist movement that gained momentum, sadly the mechanisms are all already in place to out it down, discredit it, through the bought press (Murdocks and FOX for example) as well as through self inflicted subversion via mob mentalities and tenancies to need violence to be taken serious. Marshal law, stricter controls placed by powers wanting to stay there etc.....a bad scene altogether.. The best and only private sector chance is to have credible organizations (and I mean everyone of them) from The Boy Scouts to the NAACP march,rally, boycott and vote and speak up...but that is a long shot and pipe dream anyway.
My thoughts have been the best solution is to have the Executive branch form a covert think tank in DC to plan corruption stings, (and prosecute with life sentences or the death penalty) Certain practices, are, I believe, the root problem. Classifing these kinds of high crime white collar criminals are traitors and committing actual sabotage or subversion. We should be treating those as it best fits the crime and punish accordingly. 2400 Pennsylvania Ave has basically become like a time $hare.
It would be nice to see the CIA infiltrate the real criminal threat to the Country and infiltrate Wall street, Oil and Power companies, Pharmaceutical and insurance Industries too. Then straighten them up from the inside. The spy was always the best piece on the board in Stratego.10 years ground-work, implementation and prosecution would fix a lot and restore faith in our Government and Public Service all around. imho. retro radical, eh?

Hey tsetse; thanks for a great response! (Out gallivanting yesterday).
Yes, I do think about it almost every time I turn on the "news". No doubt the press is bought. Politics has become big business- integrity/ honesty gone. The Supreme Court made that clear in their ruling on unlimited campaign contributions- public office is for sale- the candidates we will see are bought-off as surely as the press. (imho) That pretty much rules out all 3 branches of government as those we can trust. A popular movement? Hard to avoid thugs and thieves just looking for opportunity and some are mercenaries hired to derail a movement. (Merrill Lynch "donating" $1million to the NYPD before a planned march- people herded to the Brooklyn Bridge then "news" focusing on arrests for blocking traffic??). We also saw people stealing TV's during hurricane Katrina- idiots? Surely, but was the focus a diversion from a greater failure in government? To portray all as not deserving? I recall Anderson Cooper (very angry); saying he won't be pressured any longer to withhold the truth (and didn't). By martial law- Do you refer to the 2012 military budget used to expand the Patriot Act? 'Any American citizen can be held indefinitely without trial'. Congress' disapproval rating is 89%- the lowest recorded: Worried about their own 'regime change'? Obama waited to New Year's eve to sign it saying, "We wouldn't really do that". Little to nothing was reported on the "news". Hmm... The 4th amendment has been suspended but not really- And now a word from our sponsor- see piggy go "WHEEEE"

Lol- do I sound a little disgusted? I know, I just hate that big cow on Wall Street- it reminds me of the golden calf being worshiped while Moses was up on the mountain receiving the ten commandments.

IDK the answer but historically I favor leaders like Gandhi, MLK and Nelson Mandela- passive resistance, boycott, labor strikes and peaceful marches (despite the risk of violence beyond their control- often the police having started it). All these men were beaten/ incarcerated but they knew that responding with violence will not work. The press did everything possible to discredit them- focusing on thugs to blame men of peace for violence (OH! and the inconvenience- disrupting work, commerce, profit with petty grievances like bus seating- too dumb to know what they want). Still, these men got up, again and again- their message was not of violence but of justice- standing together in mass to oppose oppression- people of all creeds, races and religion- stand together. It certainly was a pipe dream in the beginning- the opposition seemed insurmountable but these men believed in something greater-simple truths that we can all understand, respect and cherish: Those were the dreams that won our hearts and minds.

Radical Chic?

[Brake4Wind]

Oswald even called himself a patsy. He wasn't even that good of a shot by his and others admission.Oliver Stone in JFK claimed the assassination of Kennedy came from high levels of the U.S. government, Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, FBI and the CIA, and even the White House too. JFK was seen as a threat.I am shocked this mystery is still not solved.

I don't think this will ever be solved because the evidence was destroyed- ASAP. It takes men in government to do that.

[Brake4Wind]

I am sort of the same mind set as Krsty is on this, maybe not as passionate, bless her.

Yep- two women that love deeply and wouldn't hurt the one they love. It's therefore inconceivable why anyone else would.
Bless you both.

Is it abuse of a set of laws to use those very same laws to recover damages that you are entitled to be reimbursed for?

I agree. As in 'gifts' taken from community property and given to a lover: Not alienation of affection but stolen assets (expensive jewelry, a condo, cars...). Similar to a pawn shop buying stolen goods, there is no burden of proof that a person knew it was stolen- the rightful owner still has first rights of ownership- ignorance doesn't excuse liability or allow the continued enjoyment of what rightfully belongs to another. The mistress is not entitled to keep the condo.

[Jeff_in_Time]

My next contributing question (not one of my "random" ones):

What do you all think about alienation-of-affections lawsuits?...

I, personally, think they're stupid, and borne out of bloodthirst and greed. They're just an excuse for the wife (or husband) to be unnecessarily vindictive. Plus the wrong person gets blamed. Although there haven't been many of these in the news, it seems to me like they've become some kind of fad--since Cynthia Shackleford won a ridiculous amount of money she knew damn well she'd never see, AOA lawsuits have become like some kind of fashion statement. (See why I said earlier in this thread, "don't get me started"? )

Most people I share my opinion with disagree--"you're not married so you don't know what you'd do" (which I hate!). They think it's fair. Of course, I live in a Bible-belt state, so it doesn't surprise me--Kentuckians are all about their "family values." I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

Man, that is crazy shit. Never heard of it before, certainly do not know anyone who did that or would.
Does it have to do with jealousy, anger and revenge? or is it about more than that?
I think some men are cold fooks too and get a new piece and the wife and family mean nothing after, so could some of these women do it for the kids?

[Jeff_in_Time]

Here is a Question for the Think Tanker's off of Pk's question.

If you were a time traveler and could go back in time any year, doesn't matter and kill an evil person, would you and who would you kill? And would you worry about a Butterfly effect happening or not?
I would go and kill Bin Laden and all his team who were planning 9/11.
You?

Yipes, I missed lots of going ons in here, will try to muddle through most of it, not really in the best mind set to focus on deep issues tho. I can see how so many would choose Hitler he was a great evil and certainly deserved to be killed, imo. I think I would seriously worry about the Butterfly effect, I would run scenarios over and over and prolly never take the chance, I certainly could not and would not murder a baby, no matter what type of monster that baby grew into. And I would never kill an innocent person for the sins of another, like his mom or dad. I think I would go with your choice actually Jeff. I would chose to kill Bin Laden and Company. I am shocked not to see anyone especially Americans say Lee Harvey Oswald, thought he would be a prime subject for this sort of thing. Although I am not sure it was him who killed Kennedy that day, he might have been a fall guy for it.

I completely forgot about Oswald, BD.
Be good to travel back to that moment and see who did kill Kennedy too.
Going to look up some info and post, got me curious now

B4W and Tse posted some cool info and comments, I love reading your guys posts, everyones in here.
It opens your eyes to other points of view and history you might not know.
:: claps for ya all ::


Found this for what it is worth.

Consistent with the Warren Report, at present, the U.S. government’s official belief is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who killed President John F. Kennedy on Elm Street at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Although many hypotheses have questioned the scientific validity of the Warren Report and hence Oswald’s guilt, there has never been any peer-reviewed evidence of Oswald’s innocence. This paper offers evidence to demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and from the moment he was arrested to his death, he was framed up to be the fall guy.

We studied the evidence of Oswald’s potential participation in the assassination from three separate angles. (A) Review of Oswald’s previous work consistent with his services for the U.S. government. (B) Review of the evidence by the Dallas city police and FBI declaring Oswald as a suspect in the assassination. (C) Review of forensic evidence to prove Oswald’s innocence.

Review of Evidence of Oswald’s Work for the U.S. Government

Several documents clearly demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked for the U.S. government.

1. The evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald contracted gonorrhea in the line of duty in 1958. For some other background information see THIS
2. Oswald also worked for the CIA and carried an identification card DD Form 1173, which was the same type of ID carried by U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was a civilian employee and a CIA contract agent (Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center).
3. Shortly before his arrest in the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald had contact with the FBI as an informer. (Editor: True, it is my understanding that solid evidence now exists that he did this prior to the planned assassination attempt in Chicago and prior to the actual assassination in Dallas)

The Evidence That Oswald was Framed

1. Oswald was framed at the killer precisely 70 minutes after the assassination when there was no reason to make him a suspect for the assassination. (Editor: absolutely true. There was no legitimate reason to have suspected him as early as the Dallas Police allegedly did)
2. The Dallas police misled the public by declaring that Oswald was the primary suspect, for he was supposedly the only missing employee at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, where the evidence shows that there were at least four people missing.

The Evidence That Oswald Did Not Kill Officer Tippit

1. The ballistic evidence did not match Oswald’s gun. The ballistic expert from the FBI concluded that it was not possible to determine whether or not the bullets had been fired from Oswald’s weapon. No external physical evidence such as fingerprints or shirt fibers linking Oswald to the crime scene was established.
2. The ballistic evidence proved that Oswald was not the killer of Officer Tippit. Of the four bullets extracted from Tippit’s body, there were three Western Winchesters and one Remington Peters. Oswald’s revolver (a .38) contained six rounds of live ammunition at the time of his arrest. The four empty shells found at that time at the murder site were two Remington's and two Winchesters and Oswald’s revolver did not eject empty cases. Rather, Oswald’s revolver had an automatic ejection system, whereby all six shells should have been ejected at once.

Ballistic Evidence Proving Oswald’s Innocence

1. The trajectory of the bullets suggests that the bullet that struck JFK was shot from the front, consistent with a frontal entry and exit from the back according to the autopsy findings. Fragments of JFK’s skull and blood splattered the motorcycle policeman who was behind the presidential limousine on the left side, again consistent with a shot with a frontal entry.
2. Paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald were negative on his face, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. The FBI submitted the paraffin tests to the Atomic Energy Commission’s facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where Dr. Frank Dyer and Dr. Juel Emery tested them using neutron activation analysis. They concluded that the cheek testing could not be specifically associated with a rifle, therefore exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald.

[*~*Isis*~*]

@Jeff--I think it's mainly just sheer vindictiveness, because it's specifically the other woman who gets sued and not the husband (I think the husband should be the one to get sued). I think it's just a way for the wife to make the other woman "wrong." As I said before, in no way am I condoning her actions--she messed up, too--but I don't think she's the one who should pay up.

I think the husband (or wife), not the outsider, should be the target. The other woman is a symptom, not the cause. Men (and women) don't cheat because they want too, or because they meet someone who's so beguiling they just can't help themselves. They do it because the relationship they're in is weak. They do it because the connection between themselves and their partners has faded--in other words the home already wrecked itself.

If my husband (assuming I ever get married) ever were to cheat, I'd like to think I would be a bigger person about it and look at what went wrong between us instead of automatically declaring war on the one he was caught with--there's already too much hostility in the world.

Like I said, she's wrong like he is, but she isn't the one solely responsible for threatening the marriage, which is exactly the message that these sort of lawsuits convey. (Same thing goes for the other man in the case of a cheating wife--he's wrong, but he's not the only one responsible.)

AOA lawsuits--and I've said this before, too--perpetuate the faulty idea that men can't help but cheat, and that it's just their nature, thus relieving the husband of any responsibility...that's my main problem.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@brake4wind,
A lot of what you posted is where I was going to go next. No one can seem to get beyond suing for emotional reasons or separate why anyone would sue the other woman keeping it separate from the acts of the husband

Remember that damages are limited to actual damages; that is, out-of-pocket losses. There is no award for “pain and suffering” or loss of love.

The husband could be sued if there was a divorce. That would be alimony or spousal support. The married woman does not have to only sue the other woman, but if the married couple decided to stay together and there were still financial losses that were the fault of the other woman, she could lose her case as a defendant and have to pay actual losses.

An action for alienation of affection does not require proof of extramarital sex. An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and there are several defenses. To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff has to show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; (3) defendant's malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts which would foreseeable impact on the marriage.

I know that California does not have this Law B4W. Could you imagine? California is like right at the top of the list where extra marital affairs are concerned.

Since a tort does not consist of damages for pain and suffering, it has to be assumed that 9 million dollars would be figured as a loss to the wife in more concrete measures than pain and suffering, such as loss of a business or asset's etc.

Again, remember that damages are limited to actual damages; that is, out-of-pocket losses. There is no award for “pain and suffering” or loss of love.

Alienation of affections law suit = revenge made legal.

@ Nos, I don't know why you brought it up in another thread though. Did you think my reference to a man committing suicide and taking out an innocent bystander was in reference to soulkisses thread on a similar subject? Well, I will tell you that I was referring to a case in California from several years ago and not the one soulkiss brought up. Maybe that's why you didn't get the difference between "an innocent bystander being killed and an old woman being injured". Just know, that I have treated everyone that I disagreed with on this topic with respect in ALL other threads that I commented on. I didn't let my feelings compromise anyone else in any other thread.

The other woman never sits at home and plots and plans to break up a marriage.

That is BS. There are plenty of women that see Sugar Daddy written all over the Cheating husbands forehead. I'v seen it, we have all seen it. So to say never is quite a blind statement.

If there's an affair, then the home was already wrecked before the other woman (or other man) got there. The idea that "the marriage was fine until she came along" is bullshit.

But prior marital problems do not establish a defense unless such unhappiness had reached a level of negating love between the spouses.


I think that most of the anger I feel with this topic is not so much about the cheaters, but that it seems only B4W actually took the time to read and understand the Actual meaning of Alienation of Affection and was able to really make an informed decision on how she felt about it as a result and the information she contributed was very helpful. I realize she is not in agreement with me..LOL
Early on Isis, made a comment about (9 million dollars would never heal the jilted woman's emotional pain). I think that comment kind of swayed some people into thinking that maybe AOS suits were just revenge. To me it was not really ever about emotional pain being the basis for the Law Suit, but real monetary losses being the basis for the suit. I think the term Alienation of Affection gives the connotation of being all about emotions?? Anyway this is called Think Tank, and I am actually glad to have had a "heated" discussion instead of a bunch of fluff and stuff.

@Isis, and soulkiss, I have no hard feelings and never did, certainly not against either of you.

I hope you don't harbor any against me either.

[*~*Isis*~*]

No worries here. Sometimes a nice, heated debate is good for the soul

[*~*Isis*~*]

To lighten things up:

On to a totally random question someone probably already asked: If a cat chokes to death on a mouse, who killed who?...

[tsetse22]

To lighten things up:

On to a totally random question someone probably already asked: If a cat chokes to death on a mouse, who killed who?...

This is Tsetse22 reporting on a breaking story .

Police are on scene piecing together the facts of a Murder-Suicide tonight in the Bronx....

Shocked neighbors and friends of the victim, Kitty kitty kitty as 'just an ordinary feline"

and the family of one mouse-ity mouse, known on the street as " Squeeky", described him as "a very vindictive sort".

............film at 11

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ tsetse22,

[Nostalgic]

No feelings hurt here, if we all agreed with each other life would be pretty boring.

As for the cat and mouse..... I say blame the cat

[Guardian7347]

To lighten things up:

On to a totally random question someone probably already asked: If a cat chokes to death on a mouse, who killed who?...

I think it depends on whether the cat was eating the mouse for sustenance or sport. If the cat was eating the mouse just because it was there, then it was a choice to eat it, and the cat killed the mouse. If it was out of necessity that the cat ate the mouse, then the mouse killed the cat. Personally, I would not eat one on a train, I would not eat one on a plane. I would not eat one here or there, I would not eat one anywhere. Just sayin'.

[Brake4Wind]

That was some interesting info on Oswald Jeff! I knew about some of the ballistics (trajectories were serious evidence of conspiracy) but didn't know he was apprehended 70 mins later or that at least 4 were missing from the depository (not just Oswald), the paraffin tests- Hmmm... lots of things and yes, very suspicious.

I loved the murder- suicide report playing on cat and mouse.
Good one tsetse!

[JeremyM]

To lighten things up:

On to a totally random question someone probably already asked: If a cat chokes to death on a mouse, who killed who?...

The cat killed the mouse and itself. I don't think the mouse wants to be in the cats mouth, lolz.

[JeremyM]

This is old news by now- but who saw the video of the father who shot his daughter's laptop? Lolz! Spoilt kids are a peeve of mine.

I liked the dude posted it on his daughter's FB wall after for all her friends to see. I applaud this father, do you?

Vid of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=kl1ujzRidmU

[tsetse22]

Shame he let her under his skin so bad... that was not only immature and expensive (he really $hot his own foot) but, to me, it reflects past negligence in the parenting at that household.. a teenager should not to be let to grow so out of control. Someone failed to intervene (with love) re: her perception of her 'chores'.

Also it sounds to me she was spoiled .... and now he reaps what he's sown, and acted out stooping to her level. Poor form 'ol boy. Taught that child nada.

Where was the adult in that clip? I didn't see any.

[JeremyM]

I laughed when I watched it, his lit cig and all, but I still think he had the right, he bought it and I think the dude felt embarrassed his kid bad mouthed him and their fam online and her complaining about her hard life didn't go over well.

My dad was strict but fair, you knew what you were expected to do and you did it. I had chores and I did them- after the death of my brother I wanted things easier for my parents, not harder.

I can see your point, Tsetse, thinking he acted out and didn't parent, but everyone does it in their own way.

[tsetse22]

..... he acted out and didn't parent, but everyone does it in their own way.

true enough, J

[cap1015]

AFter you get over it's funny, it does go to show you that there are consequences for our actions........her for what she said/did, and now him for what he did........I bet neither ever in their wildest dreams woudl think they would garner so much attention (wanted or unwanted) and/or so much praise/critisism (wanted/unwanted)........as I've said before, be aware of what you are doing or saying....you can never,ever take it back.....

[jojo]

To lighten things up:

On to a totally random question someone probably already asked: If a cat chokes to death on a mouse, who killed who?...

Cat was only doing what comes natural to it, if the mouse killed the cat in the process that might be karma?

[jojo]

This is old news by now- but who saw the video of the father who shot his daughter's laptop? Lolz! Spoilt kids are a peeve of mine.

I liked the dude posted it on his daughter's FB wall after for all her friends to see. I applaud this father, do you?

Vid of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=kl1ujzRidmU

I thought the dad was good looking a friend showed me this video. He was stuttering his way through it, obviously nervous. Daughter gets her attitude from the dad, I'm guessin? I agree bet both are embarrassed now, but he got alot of kudos for what he did. He's a youtube star now, lol?

[JeremyM]

AFter you get over it's funny, it does go to show you that there are consequences for our actions........her for what she said/did, and now him for what he did........I bet neither ever in their wildest dreams woudl think they would garner so much attention (wanted or unwanted) and/or so much praise/critisism (wanted/unwanted)........as I've said before, be aware of what you are doing or saying....you can never,ever take it back.....

Be good to have other dad's like you and tsetse weigh in and then other guys like myself without kids and see how opinions could differ.

I guess people called the police on him after viewing that video, lots of support and probably as much outrage.

I read this:
The former Marine wrote on his Facebook page that Child Protective Services officials came to his home in Stanly Co. on Saturday and interviewed him and his daughter — separately — after viewers of the video called with concerns about his actions.

He said the police also stopped by.

“The police by the way said ‘Kudos, sir,’ ” Jordan wrote. "I actually had a "thank you" from an entire detectives squad. And another police officer is using it in a positive manner in his presentation for the school system. How’s about those apples? Didn’t expect THAT when you called the cops did you?”

Police officials in Albemarle told Channel 9 they have received dozens of calls and emails asking why they haven't done anything about the video. Officials said Jordan lives outside of city limits, so his actions are outside of their jurisdiction.

Officials at the Stanly County Sheriff's Office said there are no laws against what Jordan did, so they will not be investigating the matter.

In the Saturday Facebook post, Jordan said he does not regret making the video and stands by his decision to post it.

Jordan's post also said if he had to do it again he would, "Not be smoking a cigarette ... not have used the word "ass" in my comment directed at my daughter ... would have worn my Silverbelly Stetson, not my Tilley hat if I'd known that image was going to follow me the rest of my life and I'd probably have cleaned my boots."

If there is a bright spot for Jordan's daughter, it appears she has at least one job offer from an ice cream shop in the town of Stanley. The offer was posted on YouTube Friday after Jordan's video went viral.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ Jeremy,


I see nothing wrong with that! Kids are soo disrespectful these days. Like the guy said, she shouldn't have been so stupid to try to hide that from her parents when he's an IT specialist. Damn teenagers!

I understand where tsetse22 was coming from, but there is always a point where teens want to push as far as they can and I think that father made it clear that was as far as she'll go for a while.
There was a girl that my 21 year old son knew growing up. I remember her saying that she never had all the gadgets that kids have these days. Her toys were a doll and a ball. She had to make do with those two things and she did. She said she was happy to have that and that her younger brother was a spoiled brat. He wasn't but to her he was.

She was an Iraq vet by the time she was 22, and last I heard she was applying to Homeland Security or Border control. Great girl, responsible and grateful for even the little things her parents gave her.

[tropicalheatwave]

i say they both acted childish. but its childish behavior that makes for good entertainment.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ Tropical,

What would you do to teach your daughter a lesson?

I have to admit, I'v been pretty childish at times when my kids were being impossible. I smashed a x box with a garden tool once after putting them on restriction from it. They snuck in my room while I was at work and found where I hid it. Then they waited until Daddy and I went to sleep, snuck around to hook it up in the living room and then were stupid enough to argue about who's turn it was to play at about 1:30 in the morning. I'd like to see what they do when their kids get older and start pulling that crap.

[tropicalheatwave]

What would you do to teach your daughter a lesson?

i don't know, i might be just as childish but in my own way. not sure.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Its so much easier being a grandmother. I'v had time to mellow out and learn some wisdom from both experience and from other parents. Now when my boys and I discuss the rotten things they did when they were little, they act all shocked and they get a mesmerized look on their faces, then say they don't remember half of the stuff that I remember them doing. They will probably end up being the tougher parents, because, they do remember some of the stuff they did and why, so I think they will be a little more ahead of the game than I was. I was so naive! Surely not really ready to be a parent. Oh but I relish the thought of pay back sometimes!

[Jeff_in_Time]

@Jeff--I think it's mainly just sheer vindictiveness, because it's specifically the other woman who gets sued and not the husband (I think the husband should be the one to get sued). I think it's just a way for the wife to make the other woman "wrong." As I said before, in no way am I condoning her actions--she messed up, too--but I don't think she's the one who should pay up.

I think the husband (or wife), not the outsider, should be the target. The other woman is a symptom, not the cause. Men (and women) don't cheat because they want too, or because they meet someone who's so beguiling they just can't help themselves. They do it because the relationship they're in is weak. They do it because the connection between themselves and their partners has faded--in other words the home already wrecked itself.

If my husband (assuming I ever get married) ever were to cheat, I'd like to think I would be a bigger person about it and look at what went wrong between us instead of automatically declaring war on the one he was caught with--there's already too much hostility in the world.

Like I said, she's wrong like he is, but she isn't the one solely responsible for threatening the marriage, which is exactly the message that these sort of lawsuits convey. (Same thing goes for the other man in the case of a cheating wife--he's wrong, but he's not the only one responsible.)

AOA lawsuits--and I've said this before, too--perpetuate the faulty idea that men can't help but cheat, and that it's just their nature, thus relieving the husband of any responsibility...that's my main problem.

The men they sue would have to be rich men, you can't get blood from a stone.
I think judges can tell what the motives are and throw alot of those out.
Would be rare to win suing the mistress.

Some women cheat with married men because they can have all they want without having to deal with the drudgery of a real relationship.
Some seek married men only too, rich ones, so those would be gold diggers, men do this with women too.
Men and women cheat because they want to, and they don't have boundaries.

@ Jeremy- LMAO on that video.
Sometimes I think people do that sort of thing to get some stardom, TV appearances and instant celeb, I bet he knew it would go viral.
For some any attention is good and means $$.
I think he had the right to discipline his kid however he wanted, why'd he have to shoot the laptop? for effect, he wanted it seen, globally.


@ Krsty- no idea what I'd do if me, but it would be a private grounding and punishment, methinks.

[physco kid]

Question I thought I'd toss in here. Since I wanted to hear someone Else's opinion...

What are your feelings towards Gays/Bisexual People?

[rp0059]

Question I thought I'd toss in here. Since I wanted to hear someone Else's opinion...

What are your feelings towards Gays/Bisexual People?

I think love is love