Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I just looked it up and saw that it also starred another former national treasure... John Candy. 

There were a lot of shitty movies in the 70s and 80s but man those comedies with Pryor & Wilder & Candy were some of the best ever. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I just looked it up and saw that it also starred another former national treasure... John Candy. 

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Yeah, what Mug said...

10 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

pxY7RUf.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UNLV2001 said:

Literally impossible........things that you'd have to spend it on in massive blocks would end up being assets - don't see how it could be done short term 

 
My first order of buisiness would be to retain @Joe from WY as curator/director of my affairs. From there, traveling the world via leased jet, yacht, helicopter, to fully staffed, on-call, mansions, penthouses, villas would be plenty expensive. Throw in degenerate, high-limit gambling and we’re golden. 
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mad_Hatter said:
 
My first order of buisiness would be to retain @Joe from WY as curator/director of my affairs. From there, traveling the world via leased jet, yacht, helicopter, to fully staffed, on-call, mansions, penthouses, villas would be plenty expensive. Throw in degenerate, high-limit gambling and we’re golden. 

tumblr_o8z6xdaAJG1smsmqro1_500.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

:huh: Well dammit :unsure:..........now I feel bad for the poor lady :crying:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They mar

15 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

They married in 1993.  He founded Amazon in his garage in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents. Washington is a community property state.

Even if there was a prenuptial agreement of some kind, I don't think it matters.  Half of their wealth is now hers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mugtang said:

Richard Pryor was a national treasure.  

How do you fit five comedians in a VW Bug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

How do you fit five comedians in a VW Bug?

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mugtang said:

:shrug:

Two in the front. Two in the back. And Richard Pryor in the ash tray.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bsu_alum9 said:

They mar

They married in 1993.  He founded Amazon in his garage in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents. Washington is a community property state.

Even if there was a prenuptial agreement of some kind, I don't think it matters.  Half of their wealth is now hers.  

I see but my point is then that it was always hers. There's an impression that she's going to gain money but really she's going to lose half her money, just like him.  See what I mean?  I think you do but I'm just trying to get my point across to whomever is reading this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I see but my point is then that it was always hers. There's an impression that she's going to gain money but really she's going to lose half her money, just like him.  See what I mean?  I think you do but I'm just trying to get my point across to whomever is reading this.

Agreed, there are a lot of sexist neanderthals from the Associated Press on down thinking "he" has to "give" "her" what is in reality is already "hers".  I think the greater fairness question will be if there is a 50/50 custody arrangement (if there are minor children), associated child support amount (there should be none), and alimony (there should be none). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, retrofade said:

I just looked it up and saw that it also starred another former international treasure... John Candy. 

Gotta give the Canucks their due. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

 

4 hours ago, mugtang said:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

I was only behind by four hours!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mugtang said:

I could do that.....probably.  

:hookah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

Agreed, there are a lot of sexist neanderthals from the Associated Press on down thinking "he" has to "give" "her" what is in reality is already "hers".  I think the greater fairness question will be if there is a 50/50 custody arrangement (if there are minor children), associated child support amount (there should be none), and alimony (there should be none). 

In retrospect, it's possible he doesn't want 50/50 and then he should pay child support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×