Anonymous wrote:Didn’t really care for the song.

+1.

Ignoring all the stuff about it being about Adrian Pasdar, spousal support, who's worth what, the song is just so disappointing. And I say this as a big Dixie Chicks fan.

Great song!

Didn’t really care for the song.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire how they stuck together all these years. Lots of groups dissolve or have infighting. Not these ladies and they were in the midst of a heck of a firestorm.

They got rid of their first two lead singers, but since then I guess they've stuck together.

I saw the Dixie Chicks at the Birchmere as the opening group for Trout Fishing in America, a good but obscure duo, back oh must have be 30 years ago. And they had a different lead singer then. I liked them back then but it really looks like Natalie Maines was the powerhouse that made them famous.

The two sisters were the OG members, and were more cowgirl music back then. They got a new manager who suggested bringing in a more powerful voice as a lead singer, who just happened to be his daughter. The group has obviously evolved, but these three have been through a ton of shit together, and stayed united.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire how they stuck together all these years. Lots of groups dissolve or have infighting. Not these ladies and they were in the midst of a heck of a firestorm.

They got rid of their first two lead singers, but since then I guess they've stuck together.

I saw the Dixie Chicks at the Birchmere as the opening group for Trout Fishing in America, a good but obscure duo, back oh must have be 30 years ago. And they had a different lead singer then. I liked them back then but it really looks like Natalie Maines was the powerhouse that made them famous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dixie Chicks put out two albums in the first half of the 2000s. They toured in 2003, 2004, and 2006.

She had her kids in 2001 and 2004 in the middle of two albums and three tours. He barely worked those years.

Someone had to be with the kids and it makes sense that it was him. He likely went on tour with her. Tours are not very child friendly. Lots of rehearsals, sound checks, stage orientation, late loud shows and late mornings.

She wasn't being the primary parent while touring.

He worked a lot in the 90s and then picked up a lot more work again from 2011ish on. There is a decade where he didn't do much. I could be wrong that he went on the tours with her but it seems quite possible.

I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are. She hasn't toured since her kids were 2 and 5, over 13 years ago. How does that make him the primary parent for anything other than the preschool stretch?

I am more just looking at the information available. I don't really care either way and not really making a point! They did tour again in 2013-2014 and 2016-2017.

The courts have all the info and made whatever decision was the legally correct one. If both of them feel wronged by it - so be it!

Just googled this. I had no idea she was married to Adrian Pasdar! Didn't expect that!

It's a banger. The only thing I don't like is the call-back to his father. I don't think dwelling on generational dysfunction helps.

Anonymous wrote:I admire how they stuck together all these years. Lots of groups dissolve or have infighting. Not these ladies and they were in the midst of a heck of a firestorm.

They got rid of their first two lead singers, but since then I guess they've stuck together.

Anonymous wrote:The Dixie Chicks put out two albums in the first half of the 2000s. They toured in 2003, 2004, and 2006.

She had her kids in 2001 and 2004 in the middle of two albums and three tours. He barely worked those years.

Someone had to be with the kids and it makes sense that it was him. He likely went on tour with her. Tours are not very child friendly. Lots of rehearsals, sound checks, stage orientation, late loud shows and late mornings.

She wasn't being the primary parent while touring.

He worked a lot in the 90s and then picked up a lot more work again from 2011ish on. There is a decade where he didn't do much. I could be wrong that he went on the tours with her but it seems quite possible.

I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are. She hasn't toured since her kids were 2 and 5, over 13 years ago. How does that make him the primary parent for anything other than the preschool stretch?

Anonymous wrote:The Dixie Chicks put out two albums in the first half of the 2000s. They toured in 2003, 2004, and 2006.

She had her kids in 2001 and 2004 in the middle of two albums and three tours. He barely worked those years.

Someone had to be with the kids and it makes sense that it was him. He likely went on tour with her. Tours are not very child friendly. Lots of rehearsals, sound checks, stage orientation, late loud shows and late mornings.

She wasn't being the primary parent while touring.

He worked a lot in the 90s and then picked up a lot more work again from 2011ish on. There is a decade where he didn't do much. I could be wrong that he went on the tours with her but it seems quite possible.

He was working


000–2002 Mysterious Ways Declan Dunn Lead
2002 The Twilight Zone Andrew Lomax Season 1 - Episode 4 - "Dream Lover"
2003–2005 Judging Amy David McClaren Recurring role (Seasons 5-6)
2003 Secondhand Lions Traveling Salesman
2005 Desperate Housewives David Bradley Guest appearances: 2.4 "My Heart Belongs to Daddy",
2.5 "They Asked Me Why I Believe In You",
2.6 "I Wish I Could Forget You"
2006–2009 Heroes Nathan Petrelli Main cast
2008 Home Movie David Poe
2009 The Super Hero Squad Show Clint Barton / Hawkeye Voice role
2010 Black Panther Steve Rogers / Captain America
2011 Castle Mark Fallon Guest Appearance: 3.16 "Setup" & 3.17 "Countdown"
2011 Chasing Leprechauns Michael Garrett Lead
2011 Marvel Anime: Iron Man Tony Stark / Iron Man[3] Voice role; English dub
2011–2013 The Lying Game Alec Rybak 29 episodes
2011 Young Justice Hugo Strange Voice role
2012 Ultimate Spider-Man Tony Stark / Iron Man[21]
2012 Political Animals President Paul Garcetti
2013–2017 Avengers Assemble Tony Stark / Iron Man / Iron Patriot,[22] Space Phantom,[23] Strongman[24] Voice role (Seasons 1-3); Replaced by Mick Wingert as Tony Stark / Iron Man from Seasons 4-5
2013 Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. Tony Stark / Iron Man Voice role
2013 Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel
2013 Lego Marvel Super Heroes
2013 Burn Notice Randall Burke Season 7; 4 episodes
2013 Iron Man & Captain America: Heroes United Tony Stark / Iron Man Voice role
2014–2018 Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Glenn Talbot / Graviton Recurring role
2015–2017 Transformers: Robots in Disguise Micronus Prime Voice role
2015 Disney Infinity 3.0 Tony Stark / Iron Man Voice role[25]
2016–2017 Colony Nolan Burgess Recurring role

The Dixie Chicks put out two albums in the first half of the 2000s. They toured in 2003, 2004, and 2006.

She had her kids in 2001 and 2004 in the middle of two albums and three tours. He barely worked those years.

Someone had to be with the kids and it makes sense that it was him. He likely went on tour with her. Tours are not very child friendly. Lots of rehearsals, sound checks, stage orientation, late loud shows and late mornings.

She wasn't being the primary parent while touring.

He worked a lot in the 90s and then picked up a lot more work again from 2011ish on. There is a decade where he didn't do much. I could be wrong that he went on the tours with her but it seems quite possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natalie Maines' ex seems like a total pr*ck.

Why? Because he asked for support? If he'd been a woman and they'd been married 17 years (like they were), ya'll would be saying he's owed that and more.

Not if he'd been a woman that signed a prenup saying otherwise. It's not like he was at home managing the house and children behind the scenes. He had his own career, she was just better at hers.

Women try to get around prenups ALL the time. He just used the same tactic. You support outrageous child support and maintainence ence levels for one type of spouse - you have to do it for both.

Child support is one thing--the kids should have the same lifestyle they had before. But he wanted $45k extra in spousal support, which he did not get because he signed a valid prenup. I dont support "outrageous" maintenance levels for anybody in a divorce.

Sounds like he did exactly what you said a SAHM does. He raised the children, saw them off to school, made sure their meals were made, and put them to bed while Natalie was making music, touring, and fighting the establishment.

At the time, he claimed he sacrificed his professional career to focus on the former couple's children while Maines toured and made music.

At one point, the kids came on tour with them. And their son played at some of the DCX shows. He just sounds like a jerk. He wasn't manipulated into a prenup. They're both professional entertainers with potential to make big bucks. He made an agreement with full capacity to understand it, and then went back on what he agreed to. Destroys his credibility.

This is an interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, you believe that if a woman who has potential to make good money (maybe she was lawyer) makes a personal choice to stay at home or follow her husband's career - then she shouldn't be entitled to any alimony or child support. I am sure many others agree with you. The courts generally don't.

The court awarded him 350,000 in legal fees that she had to pay so there was something to the case he brought forward. I am not sure it was ever disclosed what the final ruling was in terms of alimony / child support she needed to pay.

Not PP, but she's specifically talking about the prenup, not about being a SAHP in a marriage. If a woman has the potential to make good money and makes a personal choice to have a prenup (to protect her assets because she thinks she'll make more), and then the DH's career takes off and she tries to get out of the prenup, then no, she's not entitled to alimony (child support cannot be avoided with a prenup). The point is that he was just as sophisticated a player and had just as much to protect at the time of the prenup - he wasn't conned into it and she didn't use her position to coerce him into acting against his interests. They both had not much but high hopes for themselves. He signed it thinking he might get rich and need to protect that money in a divorce. She did the same. Trying to get out of it because the other party benefits and you don't is predictable but not really compelling.

Thanks. That makes sense. So his argument that he needed more child support to maintain the same standard of living as pre-divorce is valid but his claim that he should get alimony after a 17 year marriage where he took on the role of the trailing spouse / primary parent so she could focus on building her career is not because he signed a prenup. He was either a fool to sign the prenup or a fool to support her in building her career at the expense of his own.

If he did give up his career to support hers, he should have insisted on a post-nup when the marriage shifted from everybody-for-themselves to "we're going all in on the Dixie Chicks." But I think it's just as likely that he didn't actually take on the role of trailing spouse/ primary parent/ focus on her career, but rather his career, which he remained focused on, just never took off like hers did. Which makes sense, because it's rare for lightning to strike the same house twice. This is why I wouldn't want to sign a prenup for myself, because I view any income as family good fortune, not me getting rich while my husband doesn't (and vice versa). The thing to remember is they both signed it with the same goal - protecting their own assets in case of a divorce. If his career had taken off and hers didn't, I doubt he'd be making an argument that he should pay her alimony because the marriage lasted 17 years and she wasn't as successful.

It's like buying a stock thinking you'll get rich and then ten years later trying to sell it for the same price after it tanks because you really only wanted the stock if it went up. That's just not how it works. He wanted the prenup because he figured he'd get rich and could shelter the money from her. (She must have felt the same way in reverse; they both signed.) But the terms cut both ways - you can't try to set up a legal situation to protect the higher earning and then complain when the document takes effect because you weren't the beneficiary as you expected to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natalie Maines' ex seems like a total pr*ck.

Why? Because he asked for support? If he'd been a woman and they'd been married 17 years (like they were), ya'll would be saying he's owed that and more.

Not if he'd been a woman that signed a prenup saying otherwise. It's not like he was at home managing the house and children behind the scenes. He had his own career, she was just better at hers.

Women try to get around prenups ALL the time. He just used the same tactic. You support outrageous child support and maintainence ence levels for one type of spouse - you have to do it for both.

Child support is one thing--the kids should have the same lifestyle they had before. But he wanted $45k extra in spousal support, which he did not get because he signed a valid prenup. I dont support "outrageous" maintenance levels for anybody in a divorce.

Sounds like he did exactly what you said a SAHM does. He raised the children, saw them off to school, made sure their meals were made, and put them to bed while Natalie was making music, touring, and fighting the establishment.

At the time, he claimed he sacrificed his professional career to focus on the former couple's children while Maines toured and made music.

At one point, the kids came on tour with them. And their son played at some of the DCX shows. He just sounds like a jerk. He wasn't manipulated into a prenup. They're both professional entertainers with potential to make big bucks. He made an agreement with full capacity to understand it, and then went back on what he agreed to. Destroys his credibility.

This is an interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, you believe that if a woman who has potential to make good money (maybe she was lawyer) makes a personal choice to stay at home or follow her husband's career - then she shouldn't be entitled to any alimony or child support. I am sure many others agree with you. The courts generally don't.

The court awarded him 350,000 in legal fees that she had to pay so there was something to the case he brought forward. I am not sure it was ever disclosed what the final ruling was in terms of alimony / child support she needed to pay.

Not PP, but she's specifically talking about the prenup, not about being a SAHP in a marriage. If a woman has the potential to make good money and makes a personal choice to have a prenup (to protect her assets because she thinks she'll make more), and then the DH's career takes off and she tries to get out of the prenup, then no, she's not entitled to alimony (child support cannot be avoided with a prenup). The point is that he was just as sophisticated a player and had just as much to protect at the time of the prenup - he wasn't conned into it and she didn't use her position to coerce him into acting against his interests. They both had not much but high hopes for themselves. He signed it thinking he might get rich and need to protect that money in a divorce. She did the same. Trying to get out of it because the other party benefits and you don't is predictable but not really compelling.

Thanks. That makes sense. So his argument that he needed more child support to maintain the same standard of living as pre-divorce is valid but his claim that he should get alimony after a 17 year marriage where he took on the role of the trailing spouse / primary parent so she could focus on building her career is not because he signed a prenup. He was either a fool to sign the prenup or a fool to support her in building her career at the expense of his own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natalie Maines' ex seems like a total pr*ck.

Why? Because he asked for support? If he'd been a woman and they'd been married 17 years (like they were), ya'll would be saying he's owed that and more.

Not if he'd been a woman that signed a prenup saying otherwise. It's not like he was at home managing the house and children behind the scenes. He had his own career, she was just better at hers.

Women try to get around prenups ALL the time. He just used the same tactic. You support outrageous child support and maintainence ence levels for one type of spouse - you have to do it for both.

Child support is one thing--the kids should have the same lifestyle they had before. But he wanted $45k extra in spousal support, which he did not get because he signed a valid prenup. I dont support "outrageous" maintenance levels for anybody in a divorce.

Sounds like he did exactly what you said a SAHM does. He raised the children, saw them off to school, made sure their meals were made, and put them to bed while Natalie was making music, touring, and fighting the establishment.

At the time, he claimed he sacrificed his professional career to focus on the former couple's children while Maines toured and made music.

At one point, the kids came on tour with them. And their son played at some of the DCX shows. He just sounds like a jerk. He wasn't manipulated into a prenup. They're both professional entertainers with potential to make big bucks. He made an agreement with full capacity to understand it, and then went back on what he agreed to. Destroys his credibility.

This is an interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, you believe that if a woman who has potential to make good money (maybe she was lawyer) makes a personal choice to stay at home or follow her husband's career - then she shouldn't be entitled to any alimony or child support. I am sure many others agree with you. The courts generally don't.

The court awarded him 350,000 in legal fees that she had to pay so there was something to the case he brought forward. I am not sure it was ever disclosed what the final ruling was in terms of alimony / child support she needed to pay.

Not PP, but she's specifically talking about the prenup, not about being a SAHP in a marriage. If a woman has the potential to make good money and makes a personal choice to have a prenup (to protect her assets because she thinks she'll make more), and then the DH's career takes off and she tries to get out of the prenup, then no, she's not entitled to alimony (child support cannot be avoided with a prenup). The point is that he was just as sophisticated a player and had just as much to protect at the time of the prenup - he wasn't conned into it and she didn't use her position to coerce him into acting against his interests. They both had not much but high hopes for themselves. He signed it thinking he might get rich and need to protect that money in a divorce. She did the same. Trying to get out of it because the other party benefits and you don't is predictable but not really compelling.