Tiger Changes Course

Tiger Changes Course

Don’t you think Tiger would get a full endorsement from Larry Craig and David Vitter for starters?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Tiger Changes Course

  1. Tiger was with a beyond sexy porn star. The count is up to 7. This is getting worse by the moment. It’s also good cover for Climategate.

    Rutherford, that Live Traffic Feed is way off. It has me in a small town in Western Michigan, over a hundred miles away. Weird.

  2. Rutherford, 😆

    Sometimes, and not as often as you’re capable, you are still funny. A liberal with a sense of humor that doesn’t have to be vulgar to get there – a real rarity.

    I shouldn’t be laughing about this Tiger Wood’s swinging meat fiasco. But I have to admit, I now do have to raise a few questions about: (1) His taste in women – some of these look like backwater tramps; come on Tiger, Tex could do better than that; (2) what I thought was a mistress is turning out to be a concubine of many. I should have known Tiger didn’t have better taste when he endorsed Buicks. He’ll probably just switch over to Lexus or Porsche now.

    Tiger would hammer me on the golf course by three strokes a hole, but I would beat him in the number of strokes in the bedroom it looks like. 😉

  3. DR,

    Ripping on myself…minimal strokes per hole.

    Speaking of interesting, check out this link sure to chap the ass of every progressive besides Rutherford. I don’t think he cares much about this issue, but you might DR.

  4. Hey Tex, I actually once spent a week in Zurich many moons ago. I remember being shocked over the fact that the tiny European nation was made up of gun owners. The entire male population basically serves as a militia.

    I also remember seeing trenches they dug during World War II. While the bankers might have been in league with Nazis, the people weren’t convinced that Hitler would leave them alone.

    Other things I remember about Zurich:

    Expensive Hookers
    Expensive everything else
    Just as many Italian and French speakers as German.
    I was terribly under dressed for everything, even soliciting prostitutes.

  5. Editors note: The Dead Rabbit is ashamed of 75% of his past and is due in the Confession Box next week so that he can receive communion on his sons Baptism Day, Dec 20th.

    The Dead Rabbit only frequented whore houses during his 4 year stint in the Navy.

  6. From what I hear on the grapevine Tex, you’re right. You would probably low-score Tiger in a bedroom competition. Let’s just say that one of Tiger’s text msgs supposedly said “I will wear you out”. LOL

    The verdict in the Lawson household is that he will probably check himself into sex rehab ala David Duchovny.

  7. BiW, I know “lawyering” can be a depressing business but lighten up for goodness sake. Yes you’re right, I left out Dem’s but in all honesty not deliberately. Some of the most recent examples have been from the right side of the aisle. As of today (late breaking news) I could’ve added Max Baucus.Also John Ensign would have been a better choice than Larry Craig who is kinda old news at this point. But of course when it comes to old news, man did you throw out some old chestnuts. And who the heck is Wade Hayes? All I can figure out is that he’s a country singer. 🙂

  8. Well I can’t say I’ve visited Swiss prostitutes but I have been on the passenger side of a car going down the Alps back when I was a kid. My dad was driving and as I recall our lane was on the cliff side of the mountain. I remember a bus coming up as we were going down and we inched past each other. Scared my poor mom half to death.

  9. Hey “R”,

    I have another ‘serious’ question for you – this one concerning the incomparably stupid Harry Reid – hard to believe, but Harry has pulled away in my Top 10 list of ignorant politicians, blowing right by Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Jolting Joe Biden in one fell swoop.

    On a side note, when you think the top three ranking Democrat house members are Reid, Biden and Pelosi, you can somewhat sympathize why Obama is doing so miserably – with this team of moronic horse’s asses, Obama never stood a chance to begin with.

    I assume by now that you’ve heard Reid’s analogy about my lack of support for PelosiCare the equivalent to my forefather’s ‘support’ of slavery?

    How can anyone of sound mind equate lynchings, draggings, beatings, cheatings, rape, family separation, and being treated worse than beasts of burden even be mentioned in the same breath as a disagreement concerning the financing and administration of public policy?

    I hope as an intelligent and educated black man, you can at least understand why I think many of these so-called historical sympathizers to the black cause, who just happen to parade around with white skin and call themselves Congressional Democrat, are phony as hell. They use you my friend – and I hope you are seeing right through this bullshit.

  10. I believe it was Curator who was in here a couple of weeks ago challenging Conservatives with the “Bush” budget vs. the “Obama” budget, and was misleading as usual.

    To set the record straight about our projected shortfalls thanks to President Obama and that find band of thieves known as the Democratic Majority, I think Curator and Co. would now need to review their original statement:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0418093920091204

    The great thing about progressives, liberals, socialists, or whatever they choose to call themselves today to make people forget their tainted history, all one really has to do is wait a couple of weeks…

    Obama is an obvious failure of Carteronian proportions. 😦

  11. BIC,

    Actually, R, our nation’s history with sex scandals is good reading.

    I tried to read the Bill Clinton version of War & Peace (and other Love Affairs in the Oral Office), but the list became too long. 😉

  12. Now maybe I misunderstood the Reuters article but it seemed to me, lower revenue was the major problem, not spending:

    Receipts totaled $132 billion in November, the CBO estimated, down 9 percent from the same month last year. That was partly due to new legislation that gives increased tax write-offs to corporations.

    Outlays were down $23 billion from a year earlier, the CBO estimated, as the government spent less on federal programs to stem the financial crisis.

    More unemployment = less tax revenue.

    Sorry Tex, I don’t think you’ve proven a damn thing.

  13. Tex several pundits have correctly pointed out that you don’t compare anything to Nazi Germany or American slavery. Dumbass move by Reid.

    But worry not Tex, the GOP gives as good as it gets. I’m sure you’ve seen this ad where they confront the racism charges head on.

  14. Sorry Tex, I don’t think you’ve proven a damn thing.

    Well, I didn’t prove a damn thing if you are to believe revenue isn’t part of a balance sheet/budget. I thought we spent the stimulus money to create jobs, therefore revenue?

    Only a mindless lib could make your above response that many magnitude orders of stupid. Rutherford, what did you learn at that overrated Ivy League you attended besides how to mismanage finances?

    Do me a favor. Don’t take an accounting job anytime soon.

  15. Now Tex, I won’t deny that the polls are important to the pols but notice:

    “The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.”

    And guess what? He’s back up to 50% today. Funny though that you should bring this up tonight because I just saw a great analysis of this same polling data:

    — George W. Bush, 86 percent (9/11 support) Elected to term 2
    — Bill Clinton, 52 percent — re-elected
    — George H.W. Bush, 71 percent — not re-elected
    — Ronald Reagan, 49 percent — re-elected
    — Jimmy Carter, 57 percent — not re-elected
    — Gerald Ford, 52 percent — not re-elected
    — Richard Nixon, 59 percent — re-relected
    — Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent — not re-elected (didn’t run)
    — John Kennedy, 77 percent — N/A (assassinated)
    — Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent — re-elected
    — Harry Truman, 49 percent — re-elected

    The point here being that 50+% popularity in the first year is not an indicator of the likelihood of a second term, nor is a 49% or less a signal of doom for a second term.

    So Tex, there’s a good chance that old Obama will be around until 2016. Oh by the way, Sarah Palin floated today the possibility of an independent run for Pres. ROTFL …. giving her the benefit of the doubt to actually attract voters, she will be the Ross Perot of 2012 and guarantee Obama term number 2! Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!
    🙂 🙂 🙂 😀

  16. Rutherford,

    I’ll make you a prediction. If Obama is lucky enough to get hammered in next year’s elections, and he will assuming nothing changes, then has the good sense to do what Clinton did and let the new party make the necessary changes, go with the flow and take the credit, then maybe Obama wins in 2012. However, if you were a betting man, I would take your bet and give you some odds to boot.

    And your counter point might be legitimate except your memory is fogged from secular humanism. Like Obama, Reagan inherited a poor economy (it actually was worse in 1982 than now if you ask me as I was there), inherited hyperinflation, and unlike Obama inherited a military that was gutted and had to be recreated and rearmed.

    Now here is the interesting point and the failure of your argument. I will grant that Obama has had only eleven months to turn the economy around as it took Reagan a full two years into his term to do so. However, almost to the day that Reagan took office, the economy begin to make a recovery – albeit slowly but without government intervention. If government intervention were the answer, we should have seen a quick recovery as assets allocated to combat the problem. We haven’t and the results continue to get worse. And Reagan took exactly the opposite approach that Obama has. You know this because you were there too. Reagan didn’t make the government larger – he made it smaller.

    One other thing. Reagan started under the premise from the corrupt media of the Hollywood actor, empty shirt and over the years convinced even his staunchest critics that he was a solid, decisive leader. Only the loons ignorant of history deny that anymore.

    Obama started under the premise as a brilliant, highly skilled orator, a magna Harvard graduate, the world his stage and a charismatic leader. Since then, the majority of Americans have decided Obama is a weak leader, not near as bright as they were led to believe, and way more liberal than Obama cared to admit during the campaign. I think what you fail to recognize because of your bias is you believe Obama is still popular – I say he is not. I think many people have changed their mind not just about Obama’s policies, but the man himself.

    Hope is a good thing. And right now Rutherford, that’s all you’ve got. If I would you, I would start praying to that nebulous, little god liberals worship called self. 😉

  17. Rutherford,

    How come it is that you parrot what you heard on MSNBC TV tonight (your reply from above) with your canned response, but when I ask you a question that requires some original thought and response from you (see Harry Reid), you avoid it? You have been doing it for months now.

    Cat got your tongue since it doesn’t meet your notion of why the Democratic party superior for black America?

  18. This one is especially for Rutherford and his small diety The Man of Hope & Change. This is great stuff…. 😆

    The last paragraph actually is very true and why I think Obama will leave office in 2012 as one of the most despised leaders America has ever had. – forgetting for the moment Tiger actually is talented. A few excerpts explaining what Tiger shares with Obama . 😆

    Note that this industry-wide coverup of Woods’ cheating (and apparently his personal nastiness, arrogance, and general non-cuddly nature) is not a small, secret plot by dedicated fanatics. Rather, it is a set of interlocking self-interests manifested in sustaining the pristine image of this one sports icon to keep cash coming in.

    But enough about Tiger the man, who is, after all, only a golfer. Let’s move on to Tiger the metaphor. Because anyone with four functioning brain cells gets that if this comprehensive a charade can be sustained for a decade as Woods and those around him amassed billions, it can happen elsewhere. It can happen right in front of our eyes.

    If I were watching the public’s disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I’d be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments, and the public’s willing suspension of critical evaluation of his résumé allowed his handlers and the media to project whatever they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow.

    Ironically, the parallels have nothing to do with race. The Obama campaign did explicitly attempt to borrow the from the then-universal Tiger Woods appeal to allay any discomfort voters might have had with a mixed-race politician. They constructed a persona that would make the American electorate comfortable with a barely-known, first-term senator with a left wing voting record, a deliberately obscured personal and professional past, and no traditional qualifications for high office.

    After a year in the spotlight, Barack Obama, hailed as a brilliant man and a creature of destiny who would heal us all, is himself falling rapidly to earth. (Thankfully, his family life remains above suspicion.) The flaws that were airbrushed out of the candidate photos are becoming glaringly obvious under day-to-day scrutiny of his public performance in the White House.

    And while it doesn’t matter if another athlete is an adulterer, it matters a lot if the president is revealed to be an inexperienced, excessively ideological, and weak man who is naïve about the world and uncomfortable exercising American power during a time of war. It matters if nothing in his training would have equipped the president to understand what it takes to stimulate job growth, or ameliorate a recession, or to end an overseas conflict successfully. It matters that he is uninterested in the science behind global warming — and wishes to use the issue to amass power and reorder society. It matters that he has no interest in the construction of policy.

    Ultimately, Woods is an exceptional golfer with a character problem. Barack Obama, by contrast, is not an exceptional, or even particularly competent, leader. But because so many politicians, interest groups and factions have an interest in his continued presence, no one is ready to reveal the man behind the curtain just yet.

    But many voters from both the center and the far left who believed in the Obama magic are increasingly dismayed by watching the human god fall to earth. This is a major problem because, as Shafer notes, the impulse of the betrayed is to tear their fallen deities to shreds.

  19. but when I ask you a question that requires some original thought and response from you (see Harry Reid), you avoid it?

    That’s odd. I thought comment 18 not only answered your question but conceded the point to you.

  20. A few excerpts explaining what Tiger shares with Obama.

    First, could you provide a citation? I’m very curious who wrote this attempt at clever analysis.

    The comparison fails for a very simple reason. Tiger did not run for office. He had a skill and an industry eager to exploit that skill for profit (theirs and his … I am NOT calling him a victim by any stretch). That industry helped to create the “Tiger persona” for merchandising purposes. Who wants to buy golf clubs endorsed by a talented scumbag? So they sweep the slightly nasty philanderer under the rug. It would have been in poor taste for Phil Mickelson or any other number of golfers to “out” him. (And by the way, it is coming to light that Tiger’s sexual habits were known on the tour, just not discussed.)

    Now let’s move to Barack. Unlike Tiger, Barack had a huge contingent in whose best interests was his utter failure. This is why the Rev Wright videos were in constant rotation. To claim that Obama had smooth sailing from Senator to President is to ignore recent history. Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, secretly born in Kenya, voted “present” all the time while in IL, etc etc Politics is an ugly business and it was no less ugly for Obama whether it was Clinton or McCain attacking him.

    Say what you like about Obama, he was an excellent politician. Tiger is not an excellent politician and in times like this he needs to be. David Letterman is an excellent politician.

    I appreciate the author’s explicit rejection of comparison based on race and I do believe race did not influence his comparison. Still (s)he misses the mark.

  21. Let’s talk about Reagan a bit. Now I was in college at the time and not the least bit interested in politics when Reagan took office. But I’ve heard recent analysis and as you say Reagan was in the crapper economically in 82, more than a year into his presidency. I seem to recall reading that Reagan relied very heavily on advisors. He may have been an excellent communicator but I think the jury is out on his independent decision making abilities.

    When it came time for him to testify on Iran-Contra, he seemed old and feeble (granted nothing to do with economics but with his leadership ability). With that said, interestingly, the movement in the White House right now is for Obama to emulate Reagan’s “morning in America” sunny outlook. That’s why you’re gonna see more of Obama on the road talking about jobs. Obama himself has said (to Bill Clinton’s chagrin) that Reagan was a transformative leader.

    I’d have to read up on it some more but I would have to wonder whether historians give Reagan credit for the fall of the Berlin wall and the USSR or whether they think Ronnie was just in the right place at the right time.

  22. Rutherford, I’m not sure I ever said this here and will probably never say it again, but “I’M SORRY!”. I think I have provided a few tepid sorry statements, but this one is actually oops, how did I miss that??? sorry.

    But you didn’t really answer the question honestly – you gave your standard esoteric retort by thinking if you show one form of bad behavior, it can justify the other – and by the way, I thought the video great in response to how baseless the stupid charges. We know Reid is a dumbass as he has demonstrated time after time. Say bye bye to Harry because he is as good as gone after next year.

    My question to you much deeper, so I’ll rephrase this question never expecting a real response. Do you think the Democratic party uses black America when convenient and can you point me in the direction of what the Democratic party has done positively for the majority of black America since the Civil Rights Act?

  23. I’d have to read up on it some more but I would have to wonder whether historians give Reagan credit for the fall of the Berlin wall and the USSR or whether they think Ronnie was just in the right place at the right time.

    Of course, there is that inconvenient matter of Ronaldus Maximus’ clear conservative record reaching back to his time in the SAG, and his governorship of California, so it isn’t like the portrayal is merely a matter of timing and circumstance alone.

  24. Well. BiW I never said that Reagan was ambivalent about the fall of the Berlin Wall and USSR. Heck, the man did say famously “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” I’m just more interested in the historical view of Reagan’s true influence on these events vs what might have been the inevitable internal disintegration within the Soviet Union.

  25. Do you think the Democratic party uses black America when convenient and can you point me in the direction of what the Democratic party has done positively for the majority of black America since the Civil Rights Act?

    Now I know this will bother your conservative black/white/no grey approach to the world Tex but the truth is more complex and more subtle than you’d like to paint it.

    Believe it or not your arguments of the past few months concerning Dem’s condescending to blacks without really helping them has not fallen on deaf ears. There is no doubt that the old maxim about teaching a man to fish vs giving him a fish has validity. One could argue that much of the Democratic agenda has involved giving the fish and not teaching. One could argue that this constant giving creates a dependent relationship that keeps the votes coming election after election. I can logically sign up for that argument to some extent. (Of course, Dem’s also support job training programs but that’s another story.)

    Here is where it gets complex. When Republicans say to blacks “we care about you and that is why we’re gonna show you some tough love, no welfare, no food stamps, you need to get up and get a job” it just doesn’t come across as caring. When you look at the Republican list of priorities the advancement of “colored people” simply is not there. We might be able to have a more reasonable argument if your party actively had an agenda to raise the standards in black communities that was different (perhaps 180 degrees different) from the Dem agenda. But I don’t see a Republican agenda for that.

    And that brings us back to the problem that I see with the Republican party as a whole right now. They don’t have solutions for anything and if they do, they are god-awful salespeople. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” and I so often wish 9/11 had not happened so we could see how his agenda would have played out. While I am not overly familiar with it, I know Bush did lots for Africa. It is conceivable that he would have advocated conservative social programs (if that is not an oxymoron) that truly helped the black community. We will never know.

    So maybe what it all comes down to is a problem of message vs method. Your message sucks so if you have a method, no one wants to give it a try. When the Republican party can demonstrate (as they once did a century ago) that they care about the poorest in our country (black and white), then we can have a conversation.

  26. You say Republicans do little or nothing for blacks, but that wasn’t the question that was asked. In fact, your answer did more to defend the why you teach a man to fish than anything I could have said.

    Throw good dollars at bad for some obviously ineffective job training programs and make it visible and advertised? That is considered compassionate? And that separates the parties, huh? I make you another challenge then.

    I believe there is no doubt that over the last 40 years, Republicans have been the biggest supporters of our military when it comes to federal monetary allocation. In fact, it was one of the biggest criticisms of Reagan. So here is the challenge.

    Can you tell me which job training programs are more effective than the training one receives in the military? When I was going to medical school, in my class there were two blacks (a married couple). Both had served and both were on the military training dole. Sounds like pretty effective “job training” support to me.

    You and I do think differently Rutherford, no doubt. I think educated, liberal blacks like you give Democrats a free pass and too much credit when little credit is actually due. There is still a large part of black America hopelessly lost.

    While I would be the first to admit there are more elected black officials in the Democratic party, mainly do to gerrymandered districts and white flight, the power base of the Democratic party is still overwhelmingly white. The party panders to poor blacks by subsidizing poor behavior. What I can’t figure out is why educated, middle class blacks like you who are smart enough to see thru the pandering don’t hold the party more accountable. Makes no sense to me and the only thing I can figure is that you are so far left concerning social issues, you simply turn a blind eye to the big lie of helping the little guy.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s