S
7
71Fan
Guest
I mean here's a whole thread that is basically a Brooke Bash. Good for the goose but not for the gander?
H
HardScrabble
Guest
LMAO
Keep that armor polished and the white stallion nearby 71!
Oddly enough I have not the faintest clue what the criteria for being a Miss Winston is. Aside from the obvious. Nor am I much interested, but I doubt that goldigging, moneygrubbing, etc are part of the requirements. Mebbe, but I doubt it.
Jeff and Brooke are hardly the first high profile couple to enter divorce proceedings, not even the first in NASCAR I'd wager. It is highly doubtful they will be the last in either category.
Mebbe sometime after I check out the life story of drying paint I'll look into it. Mebbe not.
Keep that armor polished and the white stallion nearby 71!
Oddly enough I have not the faintest clue what the criteria for being a Miss Winston is. Aside from the obvious. Nor am I much interested, but I doubt that goldigging, moneygrubbing, etc are part of the requirements. Mebbe, but I doubt it.
Jeff and Brooke are hardly the first high profile couple to enter divorce proceedings, not even the first in NASCAR I'd wager. It is highly doubtful they will be the last in either category.
Mebbe sometime after I check out the life story of drying paint I'll look into it. Mebbe not.
7
71Fan
Guest
No kidding HS.....and I'll be waiting for the trestice on drying paint. You are going to publish your findings aren't you?
One of the things I like about this board is it's light hearted nature. There seems to be a real no big deals atmosphere here. Ol TWF goes off on his rants now and then, but other than that I see very little meant to offend or demean.
Jeff's rumored gayness has produced a pop art culture all it's own on the internet. I don't rightly care one way or the other about the kids sexual preferences, but the pop art surrounding it is imo much more entertaining than watching paint dry.
As for the Brooke Bashers, they too seem to be a sub-culture of sorts but without the artistic flair. Based on the info the public is privy to, it's real hard to come to an informed opinion about what is the problem with the Gordon's.
Tossing Brooke (and any other beauty) in to the gold digger file before the fact is kinda strange to me.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."- Herbert Spencer
One of the things I like about this board is it's light hearted nature. There seems to be a real no big deals atmosphere here. Ol TWF goes off on his rants now and then, but other than that I see very little meant to offend or demean.
Jeff's rumored gayness has produced a pop art culture all it's own on the internet. I don't rightly care one way or the other about the kids sexual preferences, but the pop art surrounding it is imo much more entertaining than watching paint dry.
As for the Brooke Bashers, they too seem to be a sub-culture of sorts but without the artistic flair. Based on the info the public is privy to, it's real hard to come to an informed opinion about what is the problem with the Gordon's.
Tossing Brooke (and any other beauty) in to the gold digger file before the fact is kinda strange to me.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."- Herbert Spencer
I love the inferences to "paint drying". I work for a commercial painting contractor, and we use the phrase "about as fun as watching paint dry" quite frequently. Believe me, there is nothing more boring that watching paint dry.
This is JMHO - I believe that Brook has brought on herself a lot of the nasty remarks that are being said about her. She didn't have to make such a spectacle about the divorce "reasons" as she has done. I also blame the media for blowing it more out of proportion than it should have. Like I said, JMHO.
This is JMHO - I believe that Brook has brought on herself a lot of the nasty remarks that are being said about her. She didn't have to make such a spectacle about the divorce "reasons" as she has done. I also blame the media for blowing it more out of proportion than it should have. Like I said, JMHO.
L
LadyCroft
Guest
I am so f-ing sick of listening to people bash Brooke. Give her a break. No one in here could possibly understand how hard it must be to have your divorce being discussed in chat rooms and seeing and reading about it in the news. No one here knows what happened between them, and that's none of your business anyway! People who call her a gold digger, blah.. blah... blah... have you ever met her? Or are you making your opinion off of the media and photographs and rumors. Stop believing everything you read in the paper.
Originally posted by LadyCroft
I am so f-ing sick of listening to people bash Brooke. Give her a break. No one in here could possibly understand how hard it must be to have your divorce being discussed in chat rooms and seeing and reading about it in the news. No one here knows what happened between them, and that's none of your business anyway! People who call her a gold digger, blah.. blah... blah... have you ever met her? Or are you making your opinion off of the media and photographs and rumors. Stop believing everything you read in the paper.
Take it easy LadyCroft. It's not what I read in the papers. The divorce papers that she filed is public information. She should have had them sealed by a judge!
7
71Fan
Guest
What? That's she's asking for 1/2 the marital assets?
That's her right as a resident of Florida and imo should be the law of the land. Any money and/or property gained DURING the course of the marriage SHOULD be divided equally.
Marriage (on top of everything else) is a partnership. An EQUAL partnership. Doesn't matter if Jeff made 200 gazillion buckeroos during the time they were married and she made zilch. The money was earned by a partner in a partnership and belongs to each partner as much as the other. It's the law.
And it imo speaks to the very moral character of anyone who would refuse a marriage partner their rightful share during a disolution of their marriage. So, if ya wanna discuss the moral character of someone who seemingly does not want to live up to what I feel are his moral and legal obligations, let's talk about Jeff eh?
That's her right as a resident of Florida and imo should be the law of the land. Any money and/or property gained DURING the course of the marriage SHOULD be divided equally.
Marriage (on top of everything else) is a partnership. An EQUAL partnership. Doesn't matter if Jeff made 200 gazillion buckeroos during the time they were married and she made zilch. The money was earned by a partner in a partnership and belongs to each partner as much as the other. It's the law.
And it imo speaks to the very moral character of anyone who would refuse a marriage partner their rightful share during a disolution of their marriage. So, if ya wanna discuss the moral character of someone who seemingly does not want to live up to what I feel are his moral and legal obligations, let's talk about Jeff eh?
7
71Fan
Guest
Or perhaps yer angry cause she wants control of some foundation that happens to have Jeff's name on it. Well who's name would you put over the door? John or what's her name Wayne?
Ever stop to think that maybe she's been working her tail off behind the scenes? Ever stop to think that maybe it was her baby or idea to begin with?
Jeff's so busy racing.....don't they all complain about how much time it takes out of their lives?.....that my best guess is that maybe he shows up for a function, smiles pretty, let's folks do their get a picture with Jeff Gordon thing, and heads back to the track or wherever else he heads when he wasn't hangin around the house concerning himself with living up to the promises he made at the alter.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the boy at all. He blew it big time. I blew off my own first marriage so I know of what I speak. At some point the marriage apparently became unimportant to him. So now he's gotta take his lumps.
And if he balks at giving her her share, I hope she spills her guts to the press about the purported "marital misconduct". I hope it all comes out.
You see, that's the problem with living on a pedestal in a glass house. Not only does it almost always lead to an eventual fall, the whole world gets to watch you bonk yer head.
Now somebody please help me down off this soapbox. I'm about to get a nosebleed.
Ever stop to think that maybe she's been working her tail off behind the scenes? Ever stop to think that maybe it was her baby or idea to begin with?
Jeff's so busy racing.....don't they all complain about how much time it takes out of their lives?.....that my best guess is that maybe he shows up for a function, smiles pretty, let's folks do their get a picture with Jeff Gordon thing, and heads back to the track or wherever else he heads when he wasn't hangin around the house concerning himself with living up to the promises he made at the alter.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the boy at all. He blew it big time. I blew off my own first marriage so I know of what I speak. At some point the marriage apparently became unimportant to him. So now he's gotta take his lumps.
And if he balks at giving her her share, I hope she spills her guts to the press about the purported "marital misconduct". I hope it all comes out.
You see, that's the problem with living on a pedestal in a glass house. Not only does it almost always lead to an eventual fall, the whole world gets to watch you bonk yer head.
Now somebody please help me down off this soapbox. I'm about to get a nosebleed.
I honestly don't think that someone, anyone, should want to have anything to do with someone that they don't want to have anything to do with anymore. I just find it very ironic that she wants the "Jeff Gordon Foundation" and doesn't want him anymore. The foundation bears HIS name not hers, therefore it belongs to him. It is based on his name, therefore it is his to do with as he sees fit. $.02
7
71Fan
Guest
If the foundation was created during the course of the marriage, it belongs to both of them. It's not "his", it's "theirs". Doesn't matter in the least how ironic you think it is, facts is facts.
Fact is, it is the Jeff Gordon Foundation, not the Jeff and Brooke Gordon Foundation. I certainly do not want to argue with you 71fan, but.......if it was "theirs" then it would be in both names. Not just his.
7
71Fan
Guest
Do you understand the concept of community property in a marriage? Community property is any property aquired by the married couple during the course of the marriage.
Fact remains that as community property the foundation belongs to both of them. Doesn't matter whose name is on it.
Fact remains that as community property the foundation belongs to both of them. Doesn't matter whose name is on it.
G
gmcbreadtrk
Guest
But the Gold digger wants 1/2 of his future income as well.
I can't recall EVER seeing her drive or work on the cars that made all of the money.
She knew he was a liar and cheat before she married him anyway, after all, they BOTH lied and cheated the company rules while dating.
I can't recall EVER seeing her drive or work on the cars that made all of the money.
She knew he was a liar and cheat before she married him anyway, after all, they BOTH lied and cheated the company rules while dating.
7
71Fan
Guest
.....................................
"1/2 of his future income".......What's so unusual about that? It's called alimony. Women are entitled to alimony when it can be shown that it was the male partner's "misconduct" that led to the disolution of the marriage. If you want to dance you gotta pay the band.
"I can't recall EVER seeing her drive or work on the cars....."
Niether can I but that is irrelevent to the division of community property and/or future income. Brooke was promised by default a certain lifestyle. Again, if it can be shown that it was the male partner's "misconduct" that led to the disolution of the marriage the promise of a certain lifestyle is not negated. The female is still entitled to whatever was promised.
"they BOTH lied and cheated"........
And so what if they did? Promises were made in good faith. Brooke's entire case revolves around showing that it was Jeff that broke the promise. Apparently, Jeff is not refuting that. Apparently, whatever the "marital misconduct" was is so possibly detrimental to Jeff's career (and future earning potential) that rather than have it disclosed, his lawyers have asked for a gag order.
What has Jeff Gordon done that could so devistate his career?
He can stand and fight and have it all come out, or he can take his lumps. All he's got to do is show that she broke the promise first and she'll be lucky to even get to keep her clothes. It's his choice.
But to demean Brooke for wanting what is morally and legally hers when Jeff is offering no defense? Something seems blatently absurd to me about that.
paul
Team Owner
My guess...I know it's a huge leap, but I'm guessing he cheated on her.
7
71Fan
Guest
naaaahhhhhh.....ya think?
paul
Team Owner
Well, you're the one that asked the question.
A
abooja
Guest
I have a problem with the word "morally" in this statement, 71. How is it that Jeff's money is morally Brooke's? Legally, perhaps. But morally? I don't think the words money and morality belong in the same sentence.
T
Tiny
Guest
Kyle Petty's wife was a Miss Winston when he met her.
My question is this:
Brooke wants to remain beneficiary of Jeff's life insurance policies. After the split, he named his mother as his beneficiary. Should any ex-wife (or soon-to-be in this case) have the right to be benificiary to a life insurance policy if you are no longer married to policy holder and there are NO children?
Brooke wants to remain beneficiary of Jeff's life insurance policies. After the split, he named his mother as his beneficiary. Should any ex-wife (or soon-to-be in this case) have the right to be benificiary to a life insurance policy if you are no longer married to policy holder and there are NO children?
7
71Fan
Guest
When a person makes a promise imo that person has a MORAL obligation to fulfill that promise.
As far as the life insurance thing goes, The policy itself is community property. Community property whose division (once the papers were filed) could not be disposed of or altered by either party without the permission of the other.
Should Brooke have a right to have the policy?
If that policy was bought with community assets she has a right to half of it. And if Jeff want to trade something of equal value away for Brooke's half, I'm certain she'll oblige. But Jeff imo did not have the legal right to change the policy once the divorce papers were filed.
As far as the life insurance thing goes, The policy itself is community property. Community property whose division (once the papers were filed) could not be disposed of or altered by either party without the permission of the other.
Should Brooke have a right to have the policy?
If that policy was bought with community assets she has a right to half of it. And if Jeff want to trade something of equal value away for Brooke's half, I'm certain she'll oblige. But Jeff imo did not have the legal right to change the policy once the divorce papers were filed.