Real Estate Agents - Re: Marriage is legalised extortion....

Author

Re: Marriage is legalised extortion....

Avenger

2007-05-30, 8:25 pm

"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180566306.118735.94180@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 10:06 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> (edit)
>
> Because no woman will marry you,

That may be a blessing in disguise :o)

and the one you pay is the only one
> who will "see" you?

All females are whores by Nature, it's just a matter of degree. So I
recommend shagging only young girls, before they learn from other women that
they can exploit men. Once they're turned dump them and get a young
replacement :o)

Try getting rid of all those old Dave Sim comic
> books in your bathtub, Dave. :-)

More paranoia. Poofy thinks this Sim person is hiding under his bed.

From the California Department of Real Estate licensee status web page
>
> http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pp...nse_id=01783325
>
> Name:
> Hemingway, Carol A
>
>
> Mailing Address:
> 15300 PALM DR #211
> DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA 92240
>
>
> (Note: A real estate agent's "mailing address" is often his or her
> residence.
>
> 15300 Palm Drive in Desert Hot Springs is a mobile home park - Quail
> Hollow Mobile Home Park. #211 is presumably a space number. Does
> this explain how it is that a certain individual is able to move from
> city to city with such ease?)
>
>
> License ID:
> 01783325
>
>
> Expiration Date:
> 12/11/10
>
>
> License Status:
> LICENSED
>
>
> Original License Date:
> 12/12/06 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records)
>
>
>
> (Note: Licensed for a little over five months. A mid-life career
> switch?)
>
> Former Name(s):
>
> NO FORMER NAMES
>
>
> Employing Broker:
> License ID: 01357104
> Dalton, Gerry Lyon
> 16900 DESERT CREST AVE
> DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA 92241
>
>
>
> (Note: The name of the business is Desert Crest Sales. It's not a
> very big agency as Carol Ann Hemingway is Gerry Lyon Dalton's only
> salesperson.
>
> As the employing broker, Gerry Lyon Dalton would be Carol Ann
> Hemingway's supervisor. A MALE supervisor. Is this Carol Ann's
> "business partner"? As in "My business partner is the opposite sex
> and the two of us support each other's goals and plans".)
>
> http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pp...nse_id=01357104 )
>
>
> Comment:
> NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
>
> YET :o)
>
>
> NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS
>
>
> (Note: If they only knew)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

proudamerican

2007-05-30, 8:25 pm

One whore for me please .
"Avenger" <avenger@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yro7i.65677$UD2.21055@trnddc05...
>
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1180566306.118735.94180@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> That may be a blessing in disguise :o)
>
>
>
>
> and the one you pay is the only one
>
> All females are whores by Nature, it's just a matter of degree. So I
> recommend shagging only young girls, before they learn from other women
> that they can exploit men. Once they're turned dump them and get a young
> replacement :o)
>
>
>
> Try getting rid of all those old Dave Sim comic
>
>
> More paranoia. Poofy thinks this Sim person is hiding under his bed.
>
>
> From the California Department of Real Estate licensee status web page
>
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Avenger

2007-05-31, 5:25 pm

"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180618959.569797.22470@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 1:59 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>
>
> In terms of marriage, 30 is the new 20. :-) Most young people are
> just getting out of school and starting their careers at 25-30. That
> would seem a good time to start looking for a partner.
>
>
>

A man connot rape his wife.

[color=darkred]
>
> Contracts for sex are illegal. And sex is an act that requires
> consent. That doesn't mean women don't want sex with their mates,
> just that it is consentual. Women don't exist to provide men with
> sex. They are not vessels.

When you married that is implied consent.

>
>
> Women have the same rights over their bodies that men have over
> theirs. That's what equality is all about.

Then I would advise a female with that attitude to never marry.
>

>
>
> Men become fathers either by comission or omission and also by biology
> or contract. If you don't want children, don't risk having any.

We men now have the morning after pill to abort any little bastards in the
making. Just slip it to her :o)

>
>
>
>
> Sounds like this person has some experience in this department.

Then he knows of what he speaks.

Of
> course, if you are the primary parent before the divorce, chances are
> you will maintain that position after. Choose well.
>
> He still hasta support them.
>
> Supporting your child does not depend upon the improved sex life of
> the child's mother. Did you really think it did?

You're just a sick little bitter fag troll Poofy. A contract is only valid
when both parties are receiving some consideration.

>
>

Avenger

2007-06-01, 3:25 am

> I dont see many smart young men getting married any more. Several I
> know> are nearing 30.
> In terms of marriage, 30 is the new 20. :-) Most young people are
> just getting out of school and starting their careers at 25-30. That
> would seem a good time to start looking for a partner.
> That's already been tried on my planet. :-)

Planet Poofy is not the real world, You won't find one case where a man has
been convicted of raping his wife :o)

Absolutely correct. In fact, if a wife refuses sex it's grounds for divorce
and she will get $0 and will have to forfeit anything she owns for breech of
contract :o)

[color=darkred]
>
> What you "advise" is not relevant to reality.

You're not relevant to reality loser. Get back into grandpappy's cellar fag
boy.

She'll never even know she took it :o)[color=darkred]
> You mean on planet Penus? :-)

Still obsessed with cocks homo?
>
>
>
> Even if that were so, it would be better than being you, dear.
>
> A contract is only valid> when both parties are receiving some
> consideration.
>
> Spreading ones seed is consideration enough.

We're talking about marriage here, something YOU will never know anything
about. Sowing your wild oats is not the same. men can do that with the
millions of horny girls available in any large city :o)
>
>

Avenger

2007-06-02, 5:25 pm

"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180795927.781912.311720@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 6:40 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ????? That applies to any parent who takes on the role of primary
> parent, so it occurs to me that folks should make better choices, i.e.
> marry a person who can support themselves and marry a person who's
> willing to share the role of primary parent.
>
> frightened of him. No previous history of domestic violence is
> required.
>
> The "T" in TRO stands for TEMPORARY...and these can be had in either
> open or closed hearings depending on the circumstances. When an
> permanent restraining order is obtained, it must be with evidence of
> harm.

No order should issue before a hearing where it can be challanged.

>
> No one is "found innocent"; while a person is considered innocent
> until proven guilty, you can only be criminally found guilty or not
> guilty which does not imply innocence. OJ Simpson was found non-
> guilty, but few believe him "innocent". The reason for rape shield
> laws is to promote rape victims coming forward.

That's right, promote false charges without consequences. I guess we'll have
to dump these laws, the experiment is over and it failed.

> I'm sure some would like to see them remain forever in shadow.
>
>
> Most divorced couples CHOOSE for the mother to raise the children,
> with the father to have liberal visitation. The few contested court
> cases actually end up favoring men and those men who have been primary
> parents generally get to continue that. However, most of THESE men
> prefer joint custody so they can avoid paying more for child
> support. Often they have another woman in the family raise the child
> as well.

How would they pay more stoopid? When spending is under their control they
will pay less rather than giving it to some former wife to waste as she
pleases. We all know that females like teenagers can't handle money or
responsibility.
>
>
> That's not odd at all; sexual discrimination doesn't belong at work.
> Men also file these claims.
>
Little girls don't belong at work.
>

Topaz

2007-06-03, 9:25 am

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:52:07 -0700, Hyerdahl <Hyerdahl3@aol.com>
wrote:

>????? That applies to any parent who takes on the role of primary
>parent, so it occurs to me that folks should make better choices, i.e.
>marry a person who can support themselves

Women may marry for money, but men marry for looks and sweetness.

> and marry a person who's
>willing to share the role of primary parent.

Most women should be mothers and that should be a real job with a
real paycheck. Men should not be doing womens work.

>
>The "T" in TRO stands for TEMPORARY...and these can be had in either
>open or closed hearings depending on the circumstances. When an
>permanent restraining order is obtained, it must be with evidence of
>harm.

The courts are run by evil feminists and their fag cohorts.

Theresa Smyth
"It is estimated that about 95 to 97 per cent of
support payors in Ontario are male. That number has
not changed appreciably in many years," confirmed Paul
Doig from the FRO's communications and marketing
branch.
According to a 1998 study by Glenn Cheriton of the
Men's Health Network, 93 per cent of non-custodial
mothers in Canada paid no child support. Of moms who
were ordered to pay, twice as many defaulted as dads.
At the same income levels, men were ordered to pay up
to 8.5 times what women were ordered.
In contrast to these lopsided conventions, Baskerville
does not "think anyone should (have) to pay child
support at all, unless they've either a) abandoned
their children or b) deserted their families through
divorce or at bare minimum, agreed to the divorce. I
don't think you should be able to divorce somebody
involuntarily who's done nothing legally wrong and
then force him to pay for (your) stealing his own
children…

I would also like to see reform in the
no-fault divorce laws."
Contrary to conventional wisdom, few family break-ups
are attributable to male abandonment. As of the early
1990s, three-quarters of Canadian divorces were
initiated by women. According to Schneider, men are
"less likely to seek divorce, because that would
destroy their self-image as providers and protectors
of the family. It would destroy their world; all
they've sacrificed for would go down the drain."
A 1999 American study of no-fault divorce by Margaret
Brinig and Douglas Allen determined that the spouse
who expects to be awarded child custody (and its
associated support) is the one more likely to initiate
divorce. States that have implemented a presumption of
joint custody actually saw declines in the divorce
rates.
Even after infidelity, the present system of no-fault
divorce appears to reward spouses - wives in
particular - who break up their families. Baskerville
commented, "You could make the case that the courts
are encouraging that kind of mother, that kind of
parent generally, by effectively bribing her. 'You
want to go out and commit adultery, leave your
marriage, we'll make it lucrative for you.'"
At the same time, the child support system itself has
been portrayed as punishing fathers' fidelity. Up to a
threshold of sharing 40 per cent of a child's time,
the more access a non-custodial parent has to his
child(ren), the greater the child support owed to the
custodial parent. Furthermore, under the 1997 Income
Tax Act, child support payments are no longer tax
deductible for either the payor or recipient.
"For many men, the child support amounts that are
being ordered ... are insurmountable" and can even
exceed their net pay, says Schneider…

Columnist David Warren complained in the Feb. 26
Western Standard that, after "voluntarily (parting)
with almost everything (he) owned," he has had half
his net income garnished, been "pursued for the rest
in additional spousal-support 'arrears'" and been
"driven ... into bankruptcy and default of taxes" - even
though the children he is ordered to support are now
adults. He denounced the harassment and
criminalization of men like himself, who are
"pauperized, ... stripped of the traditional protections
of the common law; many driven to suicide."
Divorce has no impact on the suicide risk for women…

>
>No one is "found innocent"; while a person is considered innocent
>until proven guilty, you can only be criminally found guilty or not
>guilty which does not imply innocence. OJ Simpson was found non-
>guilty, but few believe him "innocent".

He was Black. Everything is for women and minorities.

> The reason for rape shield
>laws is to promote rape victims coming forward.
>I'm sure some would like to see them remain forever in shadow.

You have a point there.

>
>Most divorced couples CHOOSE for the mother to raise the children,
>with the father to have liberal visitation. The few contested court
>cases actually end up favoring men and those men who have been primary
>parents generally get to continue that. However, most of THESE men
>prefer joint custody so they can avoid paying more for child
>support. Often they have another woman in the family raise the child
>as well.
>
>
>
>That's not odd at all; sexual discrimination doesn't belong at work.
>Men also file these claims.
>

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Hyerdahl

2007-06-03, 5:25 pm

On Jun 3, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:52:07 -0700, Hyerdahl <Hyerda...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>marry a person who can support themselves
>
> Women may marry for money, but men marry for looks and sweetness.

So they both get the benefit of that for which they bargain, and men
who marry ONLY for looks and women who marry ONLY for money deserve
one another.

Bubba

2007-06-03, 5:25 pm

"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180897300.894123.68210@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Look and sweetness are cheap down here in Arkansas :o)

[color=darkred]
>
> So they both get the benefit of that for which they bargain, and men
> who marry ONLY for looks and women who marry ONLY for money deserve
> one another.
>

Hyerdahl

2007-06-04, 1:25 pm

On Jun 3, 1:12 pm, "Bubba" <bubbaclin...@thehohouse.org> wrote:
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180897300.894123.68210@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> Look and sweetness are cheap down here in Arkansas :o)

Perhaps, but they soon turn to ignorance, sloppiness, alcoholism and
alimony payments if that's what you're basing your future upon.[color=darkred]
>

LinkBot