It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"I Totally understand OJ." Hulk Hogan tells Rolling Stones

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

"I Totally understand OJ." Hulk Hogan tells Rolling Stones


www.cnn.com

Pro wrestling legend Hulk Hogan, embroiled in a bitter divorce with his wife, Linda, told Rolling Stone magazine he can "totally understand" O.J. Simpson, the former football great found liable for the deaths of his wife and another man.

"I could have turned everything into a crime scene like O.J., cutting everybody's throat," Hogan said in the interview for a feature that will run in Friday's edition of the magazine.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This is important cause it really hightlights how we have let things become of our lives, that are so nonsensical that often terrible things happen that shouldn't.

Hulk Hogan, whether you're a wrestling fan or not, has built a multi-million dollar empire and well over 90% of people in life won't achieve that.

Then just like so many other men who have spent their lives building what they have, get a divorce and their life is ruined. The wife takes everything, even though she may not have even contributed a percentage of it.

Hulks says, and it practically sums it up for a lot of these men:


"You live half a mile from the 20,000-square-foot home you can't go to anymore, you're driving through downtown Clearwater [Florida] and see a 19-year-old boy driving your Escalade, and you know that a 19-year-old boy is sleeping in your bed, with your wife... .


How many bad things have been done because of fear of divorce, where the people see no way other than murder to get through a divorce. Theres so many known cases, but how many are unaccounted or labeled unknown or mislabeled as accidental.

What always perplexed me growing up was how when times were good, the wife always prospered, if she left her husband she could take half guaranteed. But if the business suddenly tanked and got into heavy debt, the wife could jump ship and be liable for none of the negative aspects of the situation. Everything always resting on the man.

Desperation can be all that's needed for any atrocity to occur, and to forget that is ignorance.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


For some strange reason I am overcome with the desire to go out and buy a pint of BITTER ! Everyone knows the rules in this circus , take it on the chin and be grateful that you can walk away . Curse yourself for being a bad judge of character . Live and learn !



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
It's called a prenuptial agreement and it is a hell of a lot better than murder.

You really think OJ killed Nicole for those reasons? To me it seemed like pure, idiotic jealousy coming from an abusive partner. I don't think money had anything to do with it. Murdering her and her boyfriend cost him a lot of money, or have people not heard of the amount he paid out to the families?



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 



What always perplexed me growing up was how when times were good, the wife always prospered...


How did she prosper? For the most part everything (was) in the mans name? That means complete dependancy on her husband and God help her if he was a rutting wife bashing bum.


if she left her husband she could take half guaranteed.


If she left her husband she needed grounds to do so if she was going to get anything.
So, who could blame a woman for leaving a dog who’d sleeping around?
In that case he broke the contract (marriage) and deserves to pay.


But if the business suddenly tanked and got into heavy debt, the wife could jump ship and be liable for none of the negative aspects of the situation. Everything always resting on the man.


Yes, and the business tanks and guess who gets the kids?
She does.
Never having been in the job market before what does she do?
Pay for a home, herself, a couple a kids, a car, etc, on a waitresses salary? Not.
And child support?
His business is *tanked* as you say - what kind of child support will he be forking over? ALl he’ll be forking over is excuses - if that.

Ok, ok okkkkk, so these are just a bunch of clichés, but, all in all clichés are there for a reason - the majority makes them.

All I’m saying is there are two sides to it all and I wouldn’t go around putting it *all on the man* when that pity party hasn’t a balloon left that will fly.

I think what is far more important concerning Mr. Hogan is the double standards the *Actor Aristocracy* have in this country.

Anyone else said something like that they’d be up on charges.


peace



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I love the Hulk's ideas of fairness . This , coming from a musclebound ham acting clown who is fortunate enough be around at a time when the masses are not too fussy about the standard of their entertainment . He wouldn't have lost so much if he hadn't hoarded it in the first instance . Boo hoo !



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by king9072
 



What always perplexed me growing up was how when times were good, the wife always prospered...


How did she prosper? For the most part everything (was) in the mans name? That means complete dependancy on her husband and God help her if he was a rutting wife bashing bum.


if she left her husband she could take half guaranteed.


If she left her husband she needed grounds to do so if she was going to get anything.
So, who could blame a woman for leaving a dog who’d sleeping around?
In that case he broke the contract (marriage) and deserves to pay.


What I meant, is that she prospers during that divorce. If she leaves while business is well, she gets half of it. And her reason for divorce could be one of 100 things, not all divorces are the result of battery, or promiscuity. Though it is very arguable, that the reason could have been a result of both parties, for instance he works to much so I am not happy and I am leaving him.

In that case, she cashes out with half. Mean while, shes been sitting at home in the mansion, going to the spa with her friends, driving her mercedes everywhere. Arguably, not a bad job for a woman who has made nothing of her life on her own.

Additionally, lets say things go poorly and hes in the process of losing, she can divorce and boom shes out of the picture, none of the debt gets shouldered by her and shes out to hunt for another, hopefully, smarter man.

Of course, some may say this isn't always the case, sometimes the women do shoulder part of it. In these cases, the business was likely one in which both of them contributed to. Which is the right outcome. Also, if she started the business with him, and was integral to the success, then of course she deserves half - please understand that's not what I am debating here.




But if the business suddenly tanked and got into heavy debt, the wife could jump ship and be liable for none of the negative aspects of the situation. Everything always resting on the man.


Yes, and the business tanks and guess who gets the kids?
She does.
Never having been in the job market before what does she do?
Pay for a home, herself, a couple a kids, a car, etc, on a waitresses salary? Not.
And child support?
His business is *tanked* as you say - what kind of child support will he be forking over? ALl he’ll be forking over is excuses - if that.


I am pretty sure in cases of affluent couples splitting up, its rare that the husband does not want the kids. The wife will rather paint him as a terrible father which he may or may not be. She will take the kids, in an effort to ensure that she gets more money. And the sickest part, as I know a bunch of people that as kids, lived through these exact scenarios, DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THE CHILD SUPPORT!

Often these mothers are selfish and spend the money on whatever they want. I know several kids who not only lived without, but also had to live through the constant battle between their mother and father over money. Child support being the key topic, these kids are thrown into the middle and the parents use them to gather intel and relay messages. It's sickening. And ultimately effects these children greatly, as I said, I know many of these kids (now adults).



Ok, ok okkkkk, so these are just a bunch of clichés, but, all in all clichés are there for a reason - the majority makes them.

All I’m saying is there are two sides to it all and I wouldn’t go around putting it *all on the man* when that pity party hasn’t a balloon left that will fly.

I think what is far more important concerning Mr. Hogan is the double standards the *Actor Aristocracy* have in this country.

Anyone else said something like that they’d be up on charges.


peace


Well I just hope that next time, you take a moment to read the article and bring forward a legitimate view point. Just cause you see me on the mans side of the debate, don't you think it important to NOT just bring the cliche womens point of view, when you yourself are wagging your finger for me being biased?

Im afraid that the incidents of women taking everything, when they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED, far outweigh the incidents where women leave with what is rightfully theirs. This is obvious if you look around at the world.

In fact, it's one of the most cliche comments of this entire discussion, that the women takes half regardless of merit. And you yourself claim "all in all clichés are there for a reason - the majority makes them."


Ill end on two quotes, one from Hogan and one from his WIFE after his comments:


Hogan:
"You live half a mile from the 20,000-square-foot home you can't go to anymore, you're driving through downtown Clearwater [Florida] and see a 19-year-old boy driving your Escalade, and you know that a 19-year-old boy is sleeping in your bed, with your wife ...



Linda Hogan:
"Sadly, his recent comments remind us that his definition of fair is much different than what the law dictates," Linda Hogan said in a written statement.


Looks like Linda her self defeated you. Good job on reading the article before attacking my message.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by king9072]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by king9072]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Some of the comments he made were way over the line and bordering on direct death threads to his ex-wife. If he was caught up in the moment and just started to talk before he thought, that could explain this. But a man with the experience of Hulk Hogan, surely he had the awareness to shut his mouth and not say some of this.

He said something along the lines of, "he could of did the OJ thing and cut all their throats." Then also proceeded to, in his opinion, justify the actions that most people OJ is guilty of.



Foot... meet mouth.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Out of line yes but understandable.

Divorce is a terrible thing to have to go through, believe me. There were times I thought the same thing. Fortunately rational thought won the day and I didn't act on my earlier more idiotic thoughts.

The point is, divorce in western societies is unfair. It's biased, and it's corrupt.

They claim that no fault divorce is a equitable way to dissolve the bonds of marriage without the need to justify ending the marital contract. Yet, in many cases, one person is singled out for punishment. The idea of accustomed lifestyle takes precedent and even though the divorce is supposed to be no fault a punishment is levied on the person that retains more of the marital assets.

Mr. Hogan worked, it was him that earned the paycheck, brought home the bread. It is his to do with as he chooses. However the court will ultimately state that the lifestyle she has grown accustomed to dictates that she deserves to retain that lifestyle after the marriage has ended.

The question is why? and is that fair? Did she contribute to their shared lifestyle in a way that makes her an equal partner? Did she contribute the same amount of money to their shared life together?

Perhaps the argument can be phrased as such.

I am accustomed to sexual relations four times a week. Do I deserve to have sex with my ex wife two times a week after the divorce because I have grown accustomed to that lifestyle? The answer is of course not. So why should she get something that is not hers to begin with?

silo13, obviously you haven't been through a divorce.


If she left her husband she needed grounds to do so if she was going to get anything.
So, who could blame a woman for leaving a dog who’d sleeping around?
In that case he broke the contract (marriage) and deserves to pay.


She needs no reason whatsoever to end the marriage. No Fault Dissolution means that just simply wanting to end the marriage is enough to dissolve the marital contract.

One cannot blame Hulk Hogan for being upset. Divorce is a terrible thing to go through, and what makes it worse is when someone who hasn't contributed financially to the relationship is allowed to take half of the marital assets.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Out of line yes but understandable.


Understandable? Have you read everything he said? I don't see how you could say that those comments were understandable. He openly talked about slicing his ex-wife's throat. In a divorce, that is understandable? Not in the least. Now someone could say that they empathize with him, but in no way, shape or form could somebody say that it is "understandable" and attempt to justify his comments. (in my opinion)


Originally posted by whatukno
One cannot blame Hulk Hogan for being upset.


Nobody is blaming him for being upset. But what he is taking heat for are his ridiculous comments. Nobody cares that he's upset, what people care about are his references to what he "could" have done.

It's not like I'm rounding up a mob of people or boycotting anything that Hulk Hogan has to do with. I just genuinely feel that those comments were out of line and completely inappropriate. He doesn't deserve to face further punishment based on the comment, but he has opened himself up to public scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Understandable? Have you read everything he said? I don't see how you could say that those comments were understandable. He openly talked about slicing his ex-wife's throat. In a divorce, that is understandable? Not in the least. Now someone could say that they empathize with him, but in no way, shape or form could somebody say that it is "understandable" and attempt to justify his comments. (in my opinion)


Because words and actions are two wholly different things. How many times in your life have you heard someone say to another "I'm going to kill you?" More than likely the person saying that has absolutely no intention on fulfilling that threat. It's idle and just blowing off steam.

I read everything he said and I still say that it is understandable considering the circumstances. A person can be frustrated. Now being frustrated and angry doesn't equate to being a murderer. Most likely after the divorce and things calm down to a new normal the things Hogan said will never come to fruition. It's venting frustration, being angry is a normal emotion, people when angry may say things they never intend to act upon. I believe this is the case here.


Originally posted by whatukno
One cannot blame Hulk Hogan for being upset.



Originally posted by chissler
Nobody is blaming him for being upset. But what he is taking heat for are his ridiculous comments. Nobody cares that he's upset, what people care about are his references to what he "could" have done.

It's not like I'm rounding up a mob of people or boycotting anything that Hulk Hogan has to do with. I just genuinely feel that those comments were out of line and completely inappropriate. He doesn't deserve to face further punishment based on the comment, but he has opened himself up to public scrutiny.


Yes I agree the comments made by Hogan were out of line. But I understand the frustration that caused those comments to be made in the first place. Divorce is not only a contractual battle, it is an emotional one.

I don't know how many times I fell down crying during the four months that my ex wife hadn't let me see my son durring our separation. I don't know how many times I thought similar things to what Hogan said. Of course now after all has been said and done, I wouldn't harm a hair on my ex wife's .. But those feelings were there for a time.

"Could have done" and "Did Do" are completely different things.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Words and actions are two different things. Under the eye of the law, the only true difference is the length of the sentence. Intent is the underlying theme and whether my intentions are to hurt or threaten with actions or words, both are equally against the law. And like I said, the only difference is the length of the sentence.

So yes, you can try to explain where he is coming from and I agree with what you're saying. But under the eye of the law, even if those thoughts do exist, admitting to them is bordering on criminal behavior.

It is illegal to kill. It is not illegal to think about killing someone. However, it is illegal to say it out loud. Death threats are etched out in our books of law.

In interpersonal social situations, more often than not these offenses are not penalized. Mainly because it is something that people usually ignore or handle themselves. But when the law is brought on, it is something that is dealt with. Considering Hogan said this to the Rolling Stone magazine, it is not a stretch to think that something may come of this.

Thankfully he didn't come out and cleanly say what he was alluding to, which should keep him safe from the law with a good lawyer. However, had he came out and said it bluntly, he would be facing legal problems.

Whether he has issues or not stemming from this divorce, he should really zip his lips.



[edit on 4-17-2009 by chissler]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'm the last one to play holier than thou on this subject. My Ex didn't work for 15 years. She did keep a clean house, and is an excellent mother. That being said, she spent every penny she could find. Every time I turned around she was running up the credit cards and draining the bank account. She continually practiced verbal abuse, physical abuse, adultery, slander..... A true gem she was.
She has not ONE thing that wasn't given to her.
Now she get's my house (The home I've worked for since a teen), the shore house, the cars, the boat, most of my savings......the list continues.....

I've never, not once even considered raising my hands to her. NOT ONCE. Even when she hit me with an object, I just turned away.

I hope The Hulkster was just kidding. I've kidded as well, but would NEVER EVER really consider anything like that.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by lombozo]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lombozo
 


Like you I don't think that Hogan really considers doing what he has stated. I believe that he was frustrated at the time and was merely letting off a little steam. It is a normal reaction to a difficult situation.

Yes Chissler is correct, he was way out of line to say those things. But his reasoning is understandable. As long as he doesn't act on those threats I believe that no harm has been committed.

Like you Lom I have never raised a hand to my wife. I came close once, when she put my son in danger. I calmed down and did not act on my instinct. Thankfully so, as domestic violence is not tolerable under any circumstances.

When one is angry, sometimes we say things that we just don't mean. I believe that this is one of those instances where emotion got the better of someone and tempers caused some verbal diarrhea.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ughh, sorry to hear what you two guys went through. Hopefully you'll find some good ladies in the future (its gonna be hard for you lomb, cause I know you live in Philly :shk: haha). Just kidding, not all women in Philadelphia are snakes, just most.

I guess I can in some way sympathize with the Hulk. He's a big dumb mess, but she seems like a complete scumbag. Women like that are of no value unless they are rich in a material sense, and it seems they want it this way. I'll try not to go on a rant, but I feel this violent societal shift where love, trust and willpower are worth less than cars, makeovers, and condos.

Anyway, I've said stupid things on many occasions. He's a moron for letting those thoughts reach his lips but whatever. He was probably trying to be darkly funny and failed miserably.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Speaking from a female standpoint - I have to say I agree with you guys on the issue of unfairness.

For some reason our society conditions young girls and young ladies to adopt the belief that all they are required to do is look pretty, spend money, and keep house in order to obtain and keep a husband.

With such a foundation for a materialistic and domestic lifestyle, it's no wonder that after several years of "wifely duties" they eventually become bored, want MORE, or seek external partners - all the while knowing in the back of their minds that if anything goes wrong they'll automatically get half of a divorce settlement, child support and so forth.

It really sets the stage to make "the weaker sex" too comfortable in continuing the cycle of weakness of character.

I'm not saying that this is an across the board statement for ALL women, by any means - there are some relationships where the woman does bust her hump in the relationship and IS entitled to a half-split of resources accumulated...

But in the long run, and in light of the sudden wave of materialistic, shallow, self indulgent females out there - it's rewarding behavior that I simply find reprehensible.

I also find it somewhat disconcerting when men "buy" trophy wives (even when it's not a conscious action) just because they're pretty, or their spending makes him feel more powerful a provider, etc... but that's another issue in an of itself.

Not all men are like that, just as not all women are golddiggers.

Human realtionships are so damned complicated...

_____________

On the other side of this - I understand Hogan was blowing off some steam, and didn't nessecarily choose the best wording to vent his frustration - but also, the journalist/interviewer didn't HAVE to print those words. He/she was well within license to ask Hogan in retrospect if he really wanted that in print. But that just my ethics talking.

Who knows? Maybe he choose the intensity of his statements to attract attention to himself, open up that scrutiny and put himself back in the mental landscape of the public in order to steal the limelight away from his ex-wife and her new beau....hell, I don't know. That level of "fame" is full of weirdos anyway.

Long story short - I feel for the guy and human relationships and the law are in a weird state of affair these days. I agree it's unfair for her to be so rewarded while he's expected to completely rebuild.

Double standards stink!



*Edit : can't spell



[edit on 4/18/09 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The role of the woman in these cases seems to always be overlooked. Ok, so let's assume that the man provided all the money in the marriage. There's a whole lot more to a marriage than money, and I'll bet his wife contributed far more than her fair share for him to be able to live the life he lived.

Hmm... could it be that his non-recognition of her contributions in this marriage is the reason they're getting divorced in the first place??



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
What's funny about this whole scenario is the wife is banging a nineteen year old before their even divorced and still gets her way with Terry and the money, house, escalade etc... There's just something that's so wrong with that to me. Wait until the divorce is final and then you go and do your thing but to flaunt it in Terry's face was disrespectful. The Hulk ( Terry ) has another woman now, but Linda threw the first stone as far as adultery before divorce. I honestly wish them both well and I hope they learn that there is life after divorce.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
What's funny about this whole scenario is the wife is banging a nineteen year old before their even divorced and still gets her way with Terry and the money, house, escalade etc... There's just something that's so wrong with that to me. Wait until the divorce is final and then you go and do your thing but to flaunt it in Terry's face was disrespectful. The Hulk ( Terry ) has another woman now, but Linda threw the first stone as far as adultery before divorce. I honestly wish them both well and I hope they learn that there is life after divorce.


Well, if that's the case, if he'd of been smart he would have held off committing adultery and charged her with it. Guess he couldn't do that though.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


I regret you took my post as *waggin finger* at you or attacking you. It was not meant so in any way.
It was written as a general statement and I bombed it huh! lol
Anyway, my main point (and one I should have stuck to) was though I sympathize with the hell Terry is going through - that he verbally expresses the ability to do murder is beyond me - and - if it were anyone other than a mega star he’s probably be in deep doo-doo.
I do think the actions of his soon-to-be-ex are pretty reprehensible - but - in all fairness I can’t imagine the hell she must have lived through being the *Hulks* wife, and as no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors - I’ll keep my opinion to myself.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join