Whether you like tennis, football, basketball, or any other sport, these guys are surrounded by women, money, and vices all the time, and they are ALL egotistical and consider themselves as gods. You have to assume that there's a strong possibility that the image they project is not true.
Tiger Woods Groveling on Every Channel
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
I guess what I'm pissed about is that celebrities need to have PR firms managing their image and "projecting" one that benifits the sponsor coorporations behind them. That's the real deception -- I think. Why can't we just see a good actor, or a good football player or a great golfer?
whos defending him? there is nothing to defend, its between him and his wife. Bells do you think Bob hawk should have resigned because he had an affair or was that his wifes problem and the problem you and i needed to worry about was wether he was good at running the country?
Bells
Staff member
Let me ask you a question..
Would you trust a leader who lied and cheated on his wife? If his wife can't trust him, can his country?
Bob Hawk should have resigned because he was a joke of a leader. His infidelity was only proof of just what kind of man he was.
What is going on now with Tiger Woods is between himself and his wife.
Maybe someone should tell him that since he and his mistresses keep dragging it out in public constantly.
Now we have the next phase of the sorry saga. His sad, sad face on TV, with his mother standing proudly by, saying how sorry he was he had sex with nearly a dozen other women.. Seriously.. he's humiliated his wife as it is. He's just dragging it out some more.. 'I'll humiliate you some more in public because I love you dear!'.. All to save his sorry backside with his sponsors.
I am sooooo sick and tired about how yet another one has come out of the woodwork (no pun intended) that it is not even funny anymore. It has gotten to the point where I change channels on the TV each time I so much as hear his name.
I agree with all that except it is not him creating the saga. The media & public crave it and it's up to them to switch off The TV or stop buying the tabloids.
Well, I do. Or more like trying to explain that 90% of males would have fallen too in his place, so let's try not to use average standard when people are put into special circumstances.
The other point is why he is judged more harsh, because he is an industry himself, basicly a company, a brand. Lots of advertisers depend on his clean cut image, and now that image is gone, so is the dollars from the companies sponsoring him....
Otherwise we are interested in the story, because it is just excellent soapopera and it is nice to know that rich people's lifes aren't a cakewalk either...
Kennedy and Clinton lied to their families. Most of the rest of the POTUS lied to the people of America.
“There is no love without forgiveness, and there is no forgiveness without love.”
Bryant H. McGill
“To forgive is the highest, most beautiful form of love. In return, you will receive untold peace and happiness.”
Robert Muller
“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Bryant H. McGill
“To forgive is the highest, most beautiful form of love. In return, you will receive untold peace and happiness.”
Robert Muller
“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Mahatma Gandhi
If it's revenue is based on a person's image, the short answer is yes.
It's a hard fact of public life.
Ladies, a poll: Who wouldn't have sex with him?
Me...I wouldn't
If you wanna screw around like he did DON"T GET MARRIED.
Don't drag a wife and innocent children into the mix.
I bet you a lot of the women on this board have had numerous encounters when they could have cheated.
Do you think just because you can, means you should? You make it sound like men don't have a moral bone in their body, and their dick makes all the decisions for them. Surely a man can control himself, when put in a situation if he truly does love his wife and children, as much as he claims too.
Last edited:
He's a primate he did what primates do no big
So if it was his wife who did what he did.....would you have the same answer?
Or would you call her a whore? slut? etc
He definitely is not someone who should be a role model for anyone esp young kids.
there is no connection between the 2. just because he slept around has zero influence on the rest of his actions
um no female primates are coded for 1 partner. though I still wouldn't have given a fuck. what someones does with their genatalia is only theirs and their partners concern no one elses.
No
HAHA! So let me get this straight. Women are to be faithful to their man because they are "coded" to be with only one partner.
Men however are supposed to spread their seed around, so it is accepted that they can't keep their zippers shut?
did you read the post. I said its not our business what people do with their sex organs. but biologically speaking men are hard coded to mate with as many people as possible while woman are hard coded to mate with one the best.
If I was his wife...I wouldn't care as long as he doesn't bring home some STD, and as long as it was only "sex". I mean..I really understand that it's hard to resist when you're so famous and all the chicks are swarming around you. I mean..I would say that it's forgiveable.
A Pony In There, Somewhere, or, Ted Kennedy's Pants
Here's the thing I don't get: hypocrisy.
Now, let's just stop and think for a minute.
A Republican politician, an advocate of the "family values" platform, a member of an organization that is now tied ideologically to an overseas bill that prescribed the death sentence for those who violate "family values", a former U.S. Representative who was a loud voice in support of the Clinton Stain Inquisition, uses state money to maintain an extramarital affair in South America and, as it turns out, refused to even pledge fidelity to his wife on their wedding day, and people's interest is, as one of my conservative associates puts it, unfair.
But a pro golfer, a man whose value orbits his ability to hit a small white ball over and over again—apparently for our entertainment—becomes one of the most recognizable faces on the planet and, in the course of his fame, happens to get laid a lot, and we're supposed to somehow be upset?
Perhaps the greatest farce in all of this was when FOX News' Brit Hume explained that Tiger should convert to Christianity in order to deal with his difficulties.
Jeff Danziger, January 6, 2010
I mean, come on. Surely we get to laugh at Sanford, Haggard, Vitter, and others now, right? When America's sex-scandal industry leaders—the conservative Christian faction—are the rememdy to a sex scandal?
One sees in this episode the whole ugly anatomy of American conservative hypocrisy. From the associates who are so offended that people noticed Stanford but have no need to tell their right-wing counterparts to knock it off and stop behaving like the immature liberals to the self-righteous alleged Christians who dance with glee any time one of the dark figures from their pantheon of evil culture screws up or demands to be taken seriously as a journalism while preaching the very hypocrisy that makes Christians so entertaining. And, certainly, therein we find a testament to something important, as well; that we have reached a perspective amid our cultural outlook when we are no longer appalled by the basic violations of human decency and social value that are the building blocks of the conservative outlook, but find those malignant components merely humorous—since we're all going to burn, anyway, for accommodating their sick needs, and thus might as well at least enjoy the ride despite the chorus of wailing, infantile demons that make sure they can always complain about the lack of progress in our nation by doing everything they can to sabotage or distract from it—probably tells us much about how deeply the American malady reaches.
I mean, look at the pathetic topic post:
What we see here is nothing more than a Christian following biblical faith. The lesson of Eden is that we are all born into sin, and require Christ to cleanse us, and that cleansing cannot happen until our judgment. It's a wonderfully convenient theology because it means one need never strive to be a better person; sola fide, by faith alone, are we saved.
And so she presumes the worst. It's always strange to me to watch a public drama carry out. One crowd asks, "What were they thinking?" while another waits for an answer. What was he thinking? Well, Tiger Woods shouldn't have told us the answer to that question, because the only thing he could possibly accomplish by answering a pressing question that the public has decided to spend some energy on is "whining about how he felt 'entitled' to do what he did".
Hey, you know, some people actually appreciate the explanation of what happened. And some of them will actually leave the judgment part to God.
This is how it happened. You know, when you plead guilty in American court, you are obliged to describe how you committed the crime°. And yes, it is important to understand state of mind. I would find it ironic in court to be compelled to dismiss the contents of a confessor's mandatory statement because one believed the confessor was simply making excuses.
In the court of public opinion, it's not so even an expectation. Yes, confusion is possible, but one need only pay attention and genuinely care about some reason why they are paying attention°. And sentiment does count, too. Many people explored for the first time in their lives the boundaries of justice and evidence because it hurt them so much to accept that a childhood hero had murdered his wife. And even that guy, had he gone through certain acts of contrition, could have recovered in the public eye.
Politicians perform their acts of contrition mechanically, with detachment. They confess, they give as mundane and easily accepted an explanation of how they went astray, they promise to recover, they set out to earn people's trust again. Nobody believes a damn word of it, but if you have the stones to walk those flaming coals, you earn the right to try again. It's a ritual.
In the case of the wife killer, he bucked the ritual entirely. Back of his ungloved hand. The heel of his new Bruno Magli. That's what the hounds of judgment got, so there was no sympathy, no genuine opportunity to earn another thirty-three million, so he went bitter and fought every step of the way until he cracked under the unbearable weight of disappointment and, really, for what he actually did to get sent up, he still could have won that out if not for the back of his ungloved hand.
In the case of the wife cheater, however, people are just confused. Tiger Woods is performing the appropriate stations of the cross, but not quickly or publicly enough for the court of public opinion. For instance, he put the police off long enough that everyone figured out what happened. To the other, he didn't put out a false statement that ran until some paparazzo got good enough fake evidence of the lie to make him confess. He didn't go on an attack against the media to rally a political base. He didn't really ask anyone to throw in with him on anything.
Think of it this way: If the Clintons weren't the First Family of the United States at the time, would it have mattered whether or not the story about her throwing the White House kitchen at him was true or not?
Tiger Woods is even more famous than the Clintons. And he's going through the steps, but at this weird pace that nobody seems to know what to think of. As a case study, this will be an interesting one to learn about ten or fifteen years from now in university public relations and sports management classes.
It seems to me that if we are to have such bizarre public relations rituals in the culture to begin with, we ought to at least make an effort to learn something from them. But it can sometimes be difficult for people to reconcile a Buddhist worldwide golf celebrity seeking therapy for banging women other than his wife to the one, and a disgraced preacher still to this day trying to explain how he's cured of snorting meth and banging men ... well, other than his wife, who is actually a woman, and is rumored to ... er ... never mind.
The broader point being that nothing about this thread's approach to the issue makes any sense whatsoever. Think about how many aspects of human being are involved in poor Tiger's "sex addiction". When this is over, and his wife is gone, he's going to go back to being the best golfer in the history of the world, and he won't have a wife to cheat on. Everything is for show, at this point, including the plastic outrage coming from certain quarters most kindly described as lacking.
And the real, human issues are hidden away.
I mean, it's like Jenny Sanford. She put on a great performance. But she knew from the day she married him at least, what she was getting into. We are so far removed from the deeper, individual considerations involved in any high-profile microdrama. Perhaps the only real glimpse we have comes in observing how one goes about the ritual.
Let us stop fulfilling an ill-intended myth. If someone writes a story suggesting even a whiff of that perception of privilege? Bonfires of the Vanities? Less Than Zero? Even Catcher in the Rye.
And what are our realistic glimpses of it? Clueless employees bringing a jar of Vaseline to where a sweaty, shirtless Michael Jackson is shacked up with a twelve year-old boy? The idea of Ted Kennedy, running around drunk and pantsless? Brangelina?° Phil freaking Spector?
Tiger still has this deer in the headlights look about him. Most revealing thus far is how unsettled he is by his own mortality.
All of which should explain in perfect detail why, no matter how valid the arguments of my fellows from across the Pond, Candlebox still sucks way worse than Oasis, even though Oasis is a genuine scourge against humanity.
Ted Kennedy. No pants.
____________________
Notes:
° how you committed the crime — Although irrelevant to our purposes here, it should be mentioned that no, it is not unheard of that a guilty plea be rejected because the confessor's description of events simply did not match the real crime; and I would remind of the infamous John Mark Karr as a spectacular example.
° why they are paying attention — Yes, it is possible that one's reason for paying attention is in order to be a narrow, judgmental, laser-straight twat about it, but in such cases, the presentation of judgment is usually restrained and, in that most American way, often focused on overtly disclaiming judgment. In other words, we're not even getting that effort out of the topic starter.
° Brangelina — What are people supposed to think? Um, "Hey, I wish I could afford to send my bitch wife in a separate car so I can be driven somewhere in peace!" I mean, really? It's no prettier than Ted Kennedy without pants. And if for the rest of your life when you see Angelina Jolie you think of Ted Kennedy without pants, I will have done the world a service. (Ted Kennedy. Pants-free since fifty-three.)
Here's the thing I don't get: hypocrisy.
Now, let's just stop and think for a minute.
A Republican politician, an advocate of the "family values" platform, a member of an organization that is now tied ideologically to an overseas bill that prescribed the death sentence for those who violate "family values", a former U.S. Representative who was a loud voice in support of the Clinton Stain Inquisition, uses state money to maintain an extramarital affair in South America and, as it turns out, refused to even pledge fidelity to his wife on their wedding day, and people's interest is, as one of my conservative associates puts it, unfair.
But a pro golfer, a man whose value orbits his ability to hit a small white ball over and over again—apparently for our entertainment—becomes one of the most recognizable faces on the planet and, in the course of his fame, happens to get laid a lot, and we're supposed to somehow be upset?
Perhaps the greatest farce in all of this was when FOX News' Brit Hume explained that Tiger should convert to Christianity in order to deal with his difficulties.
Jeff Danziger, January 6, 2010
I mean, come on. Surely we get to laugh at Sanford, Haggard, Vitter, and others now, right? When America's sex-scandal industry leaders—the conservative Christian faction—are the rememdy to a sex scandal?
One sees in this episode the whole ugly anatomy of American conservative hypocrisy. From the associates who are so offended that people noticed Stanford but have no need to tell their right-wing counterparts to knock it off and stop behaving like the immature liberals to the self-righteous alleged Christians who dance with glee any time one of the dark figures from their pantheon of evil culture screws up or demands to be taken seriously as a journalism while preaching the very hypocrisy that makes Christians so entertaining. And, certainly, therein we find a testament to something important, as well; that we have reached a perspective amid our cultural outlook when we are no longer appalled by the basic violations of human decency and social value that are the building blocks of the conservative outlook, but find those malignant components merely humorous—since we're all going to burn, anyway, for accommodating their sick needs, and thus might as well at least enjoy the ride despite the chorus of wailing, infantile demons that make sure they can always complain about the lack of progress in our nation by doing everything they can to sabotage or distract from it—probably tells us much about how deeply the American malady reaches.
I mean, look at the pathetic topic post:
Sandy said:
What we see here is nothing more than a Christian following biblical faith. The lesson of Eden is that we are all born into sin, and require Christ to cleanse us, and that cleansing cannot happen until our judgment. It's a wonderfully convenient theology because it means one need never strive to be a better person; sola fide, by faith alone, are we saved.
And so she presumes the worst. It's always strange to me to watch a public drama carry out. One crowd asks, "What were they thinking?" while another waits for an answer. What was he thinking? Well, Tiger Woods shouldn't have told us the answer to that question, because the only thing he could possibly accomplish by answering a pressing question that the public has decided to spend some energy on is "whining about how he felt 'entitled' to do what he did".
Hey, you know, some people actually appreciate the explanation of what happened. And some of them will actually leave the judgment part to God.
This is how it happened. You know, when you plead guilty in American court, you are obliged to describe how you committed the crime°. And yes, it is important to understand state of mind. I would find it ironic in court to be compelled to dismiss the contents of a confessor's mandatory statement because one believed the confessor was simply making excuses.
In the court of public opinion, it's not so even an expectation. Yes, confusion is possible, but one need only pay attention and genuinely care about some reason why they are paying attention°. And sentiment does count, too. Many people explored for the first time in their lives the boundaries of justice and evidence because it hurt them so much to accept that a childhood hero had murdered his wife. And even that guy, had he gone through certain acts of contrition, could have recovered in the public eye.
Politicians perform their acts of contrition mechanically, with detachment. They confess, they give as mundane and easily accepted an explanation of how they went astray, they promise to recover, they set out to earn people's trust again. Nobody believes a damn word of it, but if you have the stones to walk those flaming coals, you earn the right to try again. It's a ritual.
In the case of the wife killer, he bucked the ritual entirely. Back of his ungloved hand. The heel of his new Bruno Magli. That's what the hounds of judgment got, so there was no sympathy, no genuine opportunity to earn another thirty-three million, so he went bitter and fought every step of the way until he cracked under the unbearable weight of disappointment and, really, for what he actually did to get sent up, he still could have won that out if not for the back of his ungloved hand.
In the case of the wife cheater, however, people are just confused. Tiger Woods is performing the appropriate stations of the cross, but not quickly or publicly enough for the court of public opinion. For instance, he put the police off long enough that everyone figured out what happened. To the other, he didn't put out a false statement that ran until some paparazzo got good enough fake evidence of the lie to make him confess. He didn't go on an attack against the media to rally a political base. He didn't really ask anyone to throw in with him on anything.
Think of it this way: If the Clintons weren't the First Family of the United States at the time, would it have mattered whether or not the story about her throwing the White House kitchen at him was true or not?
Tiger Woods is even more famous than the Clintons. And he's going through the steps, but at this weird pace that nobody seems to know what to think of. As a case study, this will be an interesting one to learn about ten or fifteen years from now in university public relations and sports management classes.
It seems to me that if we are to have such bizarre public relations rituals in the culture to begin with, we ought to at least make an effort to learn something from them. But it can sometimes be difficult for people to reconcile a Buddhist worldwide golf celebrity seeking therapy for banging women other than his wife to the one, and a disgraced preacher still to this day trying to explain how he's cured of snorting meth and banging men ... well, other than his wife, who is actually a woman, and is rumored to ... er ... never mind.
The broader point being that nothing about this thread's approach to the issue makes any sense whatsoever. Think about how many aspects of human being are involved in poor Tiger's "sex addiction". When this is over, and his wife is gone, he's going to go back to being the best golfer in the history of the world, and he won't have a wife to cheat on. Everything is for show, at this point, including the plastic outrage coming from certain quarters most kindly described as lacking.
And the real, human issues are hidden away.
I mean, it's like Jenny Sanford. She put on a great performance. But she knew from the day she married him at least, what she was getting into. We are so far removed from the deeper, individual considerations involved in any high-profile microdrama. Perhaps the only real glimpse we have comes in observing how one goes about the ritual.
Let us stop fulfilling an ill-intended myth. If someone writes a story suggesting even a whiff of that perception of privilege? Bonfires of the Vanities? Less Than Zero? Even Catcher in the Rye.
And what are our realistic glimpses of it? Clueless employees bringing a jar of Vaseline to where a sweaty, shirtless Michael Jackson is shacked up with a twelve year-old boy? The idea of Ted Kennedy, running around drunk and pantsless? Brangelina?° Phil freaking Spector?
Tiger still has this deer in the headlights look about him. Most revealing thus far is how unsettled he is by his own mortality.
All of which should explain in perfect detail why, no matter how valid the arguments of my fellows from across the Pond, Candlebox still sucks way worse than Oasis, even though Oasis is a genuine scourge against humanity.
Ted Kennedy. No pants.
____________________
Notes:
° how you committed the crime — Although irrelevant to our purposes here, it should be mentioned that no, it is not unheard of that a guilty plea be rejected because the confessor's description of events simply did not match the real crime; and I would remind of the infamous John Mark Karr as a spectacular example.
° why they are paying attention — Yes, it is possible that one's reason for paying attention is in order to be a narrow, judgmental, laser-straight twat about it, but in such cases, the presentation of judgment is usually restrained and, in that most American way, often focused on overtly disclaiming judgment. In other words, we're not even getting that effort out of the topic starter.
° Brangelina — What are people supposed to think? Um, "Hey, I wish I could afford to send my bitch wife in a separate car so I can be driven somewhere in peace!" I mean, really? It's no prettier than Ted Kennedy without pants. And if for the rest of your life when you see Angelina Jolie you think of Ted Kennedy without pants, I will have done the world a service. (Ted Kennedy. Pants-free since fifty-three.)