An odd thought occurred to me while driving this morning

[Moonbeam]

As a old fashioned person on topics like love and marriage the idea of a prenuptial agreement sticks in my craw. Who needs that except a liberal who is so focused on his own self centered interests he or she divorces at the first bump in the road? It's for the effete rich elitist who burns through mates like candy bars. A simpleton and salt of the earth red blooded American guy like myself gets married and stays that way for ever. All that I have I would want and insist go to my wife because I married her because I love and trust her.

Well I'm sure you're looking for the kicker so here it comes:

While driving I realized several days ago, over all the hoopla about McHousingAuthority's many domiciles, that they really weren't his to begin with being subject to just a prenuptial, and that at the time it went right over my head, but must have lodged in my unconscious and surfaced in the mentally silent act of driving where my right brain takes the wheel and I disappear.

My God, I suddenly thought: That bastard wants to run the economy of the United States and his wife doesn't even trust him to have his fingers in her wealth.

John McCain isn't conservative like me. Even his wife doesn't trust him, and he compromised and sighed off on the thing. Throw in the fact he's got no principles. I don't trust people who don't trust love. But I'm conservative and old fashioned. How about you?

 

[Brovane]

Most high income people I would imagine do pre-nuptial agreements. Especially people that divorce and then get married again. For some people a marriage is also a business partnership and not just about love. If you where Bill Gates and getting married for the first time would you do a pre-nuptial?

 

[WHAMPOM]

GGEEEZZZZZ!! About every prenuptial I remember seems to be a conservative thing. All those actors and performing artists marry for love without one and then have spectacular divorce settlements.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As a old fashioned person on topics like love and marriage the idea of a prenuptial agreement sticks in my craw. Who needs that except a liberal who is so focused on his own self centered interests he or she divorces at the first bump in the road? It's for the effete rich elitist who burns through mates like candy bars. A simpleton and salt of the earth red blooded American guy like myself gets married and stays that way for ever. All that I have I would want and insist go to my wife because I married her because I love and trust her.

Well I'm sure you're looking for the kicker so here it comes:

While driving I realized several days ago, over all the hoopla about McHousingAuthority's many domiciles, that they really weren't his to begin with being subject to just a prenuptial, and that at the time it went right over my head, but must have lodged in my unconscious and surfaced in the mentally silent act of driving where my right brain takes the wheel and I disappear.

My God, I suddenly thought: That bastard wants to run the economy of the United States and his wife doesn't even trust him to have his fingers in her wealth.

John McCain isn't conservative like me. Even his wife doesn't trust him, and he compromised and sighed off on the thing. Throw in the fact he's got no principles. I don't trust people who don't trust love. But I'm conservative and old fashioned. How about you?

A romantic conservative would be an oxymoron????

 

[shira]

Romantic love leading to marriage is the willful suspension of disbelief. Anyone who "knows" up front that his or her marriage will last - and last well - until death they do part is a pie-eyed optimist and possibly in a state of denial.

I remember Angelina Jolie proclaiming, "I will be in love with him forever," in describing her feelings for Billy Bob. How ridiculous, I thought back then. How can anyone possibly think they know what they'll be feeling a month, year, or decade in the future? And who would be so foolish as the bet the farm on something so unpredictable?

People get pre-nups because the trajectory of relationships can't be predicted and because the person they love and trust so much right now might be very different a few years hence. If I were to marry a woman with substantially more assets than I, I'd INSIST we get a pre-nup to let her know I was marrying her ONLY because I love and trust her. And if I were the one with substantially more, I'd wonder about the sense of integrity and fairness of my spouse if SHE didn't insist on a pre-nup.

Besides, if a man has millions, how's he supposed to attract that foxy new trophy wife when he's in his fifties if he's been forced to give half of everything to that worn-out old bag he just discarded?

 

[Moonbeam]

A romantic conservative would be an oxymoron????

I think a conservative is a romantic who has been hurt and choses to get even rather than suffer. He has built a wall around his heart.

 

[soccerballtux]

I got halfway through the first paragraph and the noticed the author was moonbeam and decided it wasn't worth finishing because most of

 

[JS80]

You never know it might be a requirement of Cindy's trust that requires her to have a prenup when married. When I become multi-millionaire and I set up a trust for my children I will definitely write in that requirement.

 

[jonks]

epic fail. Getting married without a prenup when you have substantial assets with the statistical reality of divorce in this country is irresponsible to you and your heirs, especially if you have children from a prior marriage.

That McCain's wife has a prenup is highly responsible. Good for her.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I got halfway through the first paragraph and the noticed the author was moonbeam and decided it wasn't worth finishing because most of

heh 8/10

 

[Moonbeam]

shira: Romantic love leading to marriage is the willful suspension of disbelief. Anyone who "knows" up front that his or her marriage will last - and last well - until death they do part is a pie-eyed optimist and possibly in a state of denial.

M: This is true for those who don't know who they are.

s: I remember Angelina Jolie proclaiming, "I will be in love with him forever," in describing her feelings for Billy Bob. How ridiculous, I thought back then. How can anyone possibly think they know what they'll be feeling a month, year, or decade in the future? And who would be so foolish as the bet the farm on something so unpredictable?

M: There is no love like the moth for the flame

s: People get pre-nups because the trajectory of relationships can't be predicted and because the person they love and trust so much right now might be very different a few years hence. If I were to marry a woman with substantially more assets than I, I'd INSIST we get a pre-nup to let her know I was marrying her ONLY because I love and trust her. And if I were the one with substantially more, I'd wonder about the sense of integrity and fairness of my spouse if SHE didn't insist on a pre-nup.

M: Sounds like you'd be insisting to somebody whose integrity you question. That's sort of perplexing but then love, they say, is blind.

s: Besides, if a man has millions, how's he supposed to attract that foxy new trophy wife when he's in his fifties if he's been forced to give half of everything to that worn-out old bag he just discarded?

M: Not an issue lovers face.

 

[Foxery]

As said, prenups are the adult thing to do. If you wanted McCain to be less realistic, less responsible, and less mindful of the future, you need only look to his speeches and policies!

/zing

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks
epic fail. Getting married without a prenup when you have substantial assets with the statistical reality of divorce in this country is irresponsible to you and your heirs, especially if you have children from a prior marriage.

That McCain's wife has a prenup is highly responsible. Good for her.

You sound more like a liberal with respect for women than a conservative who would trust her husband like it says in the Bible. Good luck to you.

 

[Moonbeam]

One thing is for sure. It's easy to see why conservatives despise liberals. Their shifty capacity to destroy innocent and pure love is phenomenally disgusting. Poor sad jaded bastards, so smart and so empty and devoid of life.

 

[Lemon law]

As usual, Moonbeam has a point, but the prenup contract any President has is written on the tissue paper of campaign promises. And there is no higher higher court where such a prenup can be enforced except impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

As for the assets of the taxpayer, long before they wake up to the fact that they voted for and got married to an idiot, those assets are long before frittered away.

As for me, don't blame me, I did not vote for GWB, but he raped me anyway. Maybe some of you republirats thought you enjoyed doing your spousal martial duty as GWB practiced his tough love,
but as for me, GWB still has four months left to rape me again and again. And has enough time to murder me in his fits of insane decision making.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
shira: Romantic love leading to marriage is the willful suspension of disbelief. Anyone who "knows" up front that his or her marriage will last - and last well - until death they do part is a pie-eyed optimist and possibly in a state of denial.

M: This is true for those who don't know who they are.

Are you claiming to know yourself? In many, many past posts you've claimed to know nothing. Were you lying to us? If not, that means you think you do NOT know yourself. And if so, you therefore have no confidence in your ability to predict the trajectory of your marriage. Why, then, do you reject pre-nups?

There's a so-called "preference" on the Myers-Briggs Personality Type called Judging versus Perceiving. J-types tend to feel a great deal of certainty about things. P-types tend to not feel certainty. Interestingly, though, P is the only M-B preference that correlates with intelligence: More P correlates with higher intelligence. Thus, those with the least certainty tend to be the brightest. Those LEAST apt to claim to know themselves might well have a great deal more understanding than those who claim to know themselves. How does this little tidbit fit in with your theory about love and pre-nups?

 

[Fern]

So now you're trying to spin the subject of a marital prenup as something relevent to the Presidential campaign? Really?

Even if it was, which it isn't, wasn't it signed like 25 years ago?

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern
So now you're trying to spin the subject of a marital prenup as something relevent to the Presidential campaign? Really?

Even if it was, which it isn't, wasn't it signed like 25 years ago?

Fern

I just think it's kind of mind blowing that the guy who wants to appoint the next secretary of treasury isn't trusted by the woman who wants to be first lady. And if it's 25 years old why wasn't it canceled? Still no trust after all these years?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jonks
epic fail. Getting married without a prenup when you have substantial assets with the statistical reality of divorce in this country is irresponsible to you and your heirs, especially if you have children from a prior marriage.

That McCain's wife has a prenup is highly responsible. Good for her.

+1. Many trusts DO require a prenup. Mine does. It is exampt from marital property.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jonks
epic fail. Getting married without a prenup when you have substantial assets with the statistical reality of divorce in this country is irresponsible to you and your heirs, especially if you have children from a prior marriage.

That McCain's wife has a prenup is highly responsible. Good for her.

+1. Many trusts DO require a prenup. Mine does. It is exampt from marital property.

you +1 the wrong post. i was the one that said the trust might require prenup.

Originally posted by: JS80
You never know it might be a requirement of Cindy's trust that requires her to have a prenup when married. When I become multi-millionaire and I set up a trust for my children I will definitely write in that requirement.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Moonie has a point ... but he may want to ask Jeff Gordon how it feels to get sliced and diced for $14,000,000.00 and 2 houses in Florida by his trophy wife ...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jonks
epic fail. Getting married without a prenup when you have substantial assets with the statistical reality of divorce in this country is irresponsible to you and your heirs, especially if you have children from a prior marriage.

That McCain's wife has a prenup is highly responsible. Good for her.

+1. Many trusts DO require a prenup. Mine does. It is exampt from marital property.

you +1 the wrong post. i was the one that said the trust might require prenup.

Originally posted by: JS80
You never know it might be a requirement of Cindy's trust that requires her to have a prenup when married. When I become multi-millionaire and I set up a trust for my children I will definitely write in that requirement.

Youre right I did. Hung over : /

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Moonie has a point ... but he may want to ask Jeff Gordon how it feels to get sliced and diced for $14,000,000.00 and 2 houses in Florida by his trophy wife ...

ROFL

Jeff claimed that he was entitled to a greater share of the couple's loot because he earned most of it via his "hazardous, life-threatening occupation." Brooke countered his argument by claiming that driving a race car at nearly 200 mph was not that dangerous--compared to professional fishing, for example.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
shira: Romantic love leading to marriage is the willful suspension of disbelief. Anyone who "knows" up front that his or her marriage will last - and last well - until death they do part is a pie-eyed optimist and possibly in a state of denial.

M: This is true for those who don't know who they are.

Are you claiming to know yourself? In many, many past posts you've claimed to know nothing. Were you lying to us? If not, that means you think you do NOT know yourself. And if so, you therefore have no confidence in your ability to predict the trajectory of your marriage. Why, then, do you reject pre-nups?

There's a so-called "preference" on the Myers-Briggs Personality Type called Judging versus Perceiving. J-types tend to feel a great deal of certainty about things. P-types tend to not feel certainty. Interestingly, though, P is the only M-B preference that correlates with intelligence: More P correlates with higher intelligence. Thus, those with the least certainty tend to be the brightest. Those LEAST apt to claim to know themselves might well have a great deal more understanding than those who claim to know themselves. How does this little tidbit fit in with your theory about love and pre-nups?

When you get close to the truth you get into paradox. It is the reconciliation of opposites that truth consists of. It's not the data you gather but the state if consciousness required to see the resolution that is important. I know nothing and I know that I know nothing so it seems quite certain I know something after all. Of course other times I forget I know nothing and that's when I become stupid.

To your other question, they say that love is blind. I take it, therefore, that take it, therefore, if it's not blind it isn't love and just some ego infatuation that fades. The lover has maybe gone where you fear to tread for the lover has died in the flame.

As to the MB thingi, as I remember I came out one answer I had to pick at random into P over J, a question I would have been fine with either way. I am, I think smack dab right in the middle.

 

[Thump553]

In its essence, a prenup is a way of determining the potential property division in advance, without the uncertainty and expense of trial.

Frankly, I think anyone with substantial assets (say seven figures or higher) getting married these days who doesn't have a prenup is acting pretty rashly-and I would question their judgment as president.

And Moonbeam, focus a bit more on the driving-you cut me off.