Escort guys like to say that paying dancers is stupid, but reading this thread makes it seem not so stupid. At the strip club, there is no phone or ID or anything involved, just cash. And you get to see the selection and make an informed choice. And even if someone actually sees you walking in the door, you can say that you were just meeting a buddy for a drink, it is not such a big deal as an escort agency on your phone bill.
Please no more tiger threads!!!!
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
$20M to construct a 10,000 foot house is $2,000 per foot, not including land. That is pretty expensive.
I love privacy, if I were a celebrity, I would never live on the water, as he is planning to do. Fans and photographers can sail right up to the beach and camp out staring at you. Better to be in a giant forest, preferably with a mountain, with the adjoining properties owned by your posse.
I love privacy, if I were a celebrity, I would never live on the water, as he is planning to do. Fans and photographers can sail right up to the beach and camp out staring at you. Better to be in a giant forest, preferably with a mountain, with the adjoining properties owned by your posse.
So let me get this straight......
You can buy this phone without any kind of ID, or credit card, or anything to tie you to the phone. Just pay the fees and you're off to the races.
I'm not married, but I don't like the idea of using my work cell phone. On the off chance that someone at work gets very nosy about the numbers I call, or a working girl starts calling me.
This "7-11" phone presents the perfect alternative.
Just don't get caught by the wife with the second phone....
You can buy this phone without any kind of ID, or credit card, or anything to tie you to the phone. Just pay the fees and you're off to the races.
I'm not married, but I don't like the idea of using my work cell phone. On the off chance that someone at work gets very nosy about the numbers I call, or a working girl starts calling me.
This "7-11" phone presents the perfect alternative.
Just don't get caught by the wife with the second phone....
Where are you guys hiding your hobbying phone when it is not in use? At the office, in your car?
I only see one indy at the moment. I just hide her number inside another listing. Most phones let you store multiple numbers for each contact. So, she is my buddy's office number.
Yes, I realize that if she ever dialed it, I would be fucked, but I would also be fucked if she found me with a second cell phone that I had no legitimate reason to have.
I have my invoice e-mailed to me, without detailed billing.
I only see one indy at the moment. I just hide her number inside another listing. Most phones let you store multiple numbers for each contact. So, she is my buddy's office number.
Yes, I realize that if she ever dialed it, I would be fucked, but I would also be fucked if she found me with a second cell phone that I had no legitimate reason to have.
I have my invoice e-mailed to me, without detailed billing.
True, a strip club isn't as bad as an in call agency, but some women would still lose their toboggan over it. ;-)
For me, it's value for money. The last time I went, I think my buddy and I were paying $20 per round for two coors lights, including tip. A few rounds, and a few lap dances later I had spent more than half what I would have if I had visited an SP.
I'd rather go to a normal bar and enjoy the eye candy. To each their own though.
Charles Pierce on Tiger
Is This the End of Tiger Woods?
As we knew him, yes. Because before Friday's accident, we knew him only from outside a cocoon. Now the writer who peeled away its first public layer considers what the Escalade and the Enquirer hath wrought on the fate of America's most unlikely of punch lines.
By Charles P. Pierce
[more from this author]
PrintEmailRSSShare
Barry King/WireImage.com
THE SCULPTURE CRUMBLES /// Woods was vulnerable precisely because he was built not to be, even if everyone knew about his hound status way back when.
Tiger Woods and I go back a long ways. A little bit over twelve years, truth be told. Back then, I wrote a profile of him just prior to his winning the 1997 Masters, the first major accomplishment of his professional career. Over the course of a day's worth of interviews, which were themselves the result of negotiations with his People at the International Management Group that were so protracted they should have been moved to Panmunjom, Tiger made some distasteful remarks and told some puerile and sexist jokes. Seeing as how they occurred during my limited interview time, I included them in my story, along with some not-overly-subtle intimations that Tiger had a reputation even among golfers as something of a chaser. The quotes were a Media Thing for a brief time, and the ensuing dust storm looks positively charming compared to what's certainly coming after the events of this past weekend, which already appears to be something between Al Cowlings on the highway and an episode of The Real Housewives of Gated Communities. Back then, all that happened was that Tiger's People at the International Management Group accused me of wiretapping a limo driver. (Me and Gordon Liddy!) And that Tiger's father, Earl, whom I still miss, told Charlie Rose he hoped my story wouldn't do permanent damage to his son's career, and that Charlie Rose waved a copy of the magazine and told Earl he intended never to read the story. This is why Earl was an entertaining con man and Charlie Rose is a salon-sniffing Beltway yahoo.
Anyway, the story gradually faded away. (It returned, briefly, when the PGA whacked Fuzzy Zoeller for saying some marginally racist things about Tiger, who, back then, skated on things he'd said to me.) Tiger went on to become the best golfer who ever lived, and a towering corporate brand — good friend, valued confidant, and treasured commodity to every unsavory plutocrat on the planet, from the leaders of Chevron to the oil-sodden sultans of the Persian Gulf.
Until, of course, this weekend, when Tiger ran his Escalade over a hydrant and into a tree, and his reputation squarely into a ditch. He then produced a cover story that smacked of implausibility, when it didn't smack of utter science fiction. Listening to Tiger explain how he'd managed to hit two stationary objects within thirty yards of his driveway — and how his plucky wife pulled him from his non-burning vehicle by smashing the back window with a golf club — was like listening to Peter Lorre telling Bogart in The Maltese Falcon, "I certainly wish you would have invented a more reasonable story. I felt distinctly like an idiot repeating it." He then produced a statement on his Web site that said even less, which didn't seem possible.
What he didn't produce was himself.
Three times, the Florida cops turned up at Tiger's house. Three times, they were turned away. Though he was well within his rights to do so, and the Florida Highway Patrol is no field of daisies itself, this was not a great visual in terms of his credibility, and led to speculation that, had he been little Ricky Woods from Overtown, and he'd hit a hydrant and a tree with his '66 Impala, the FHP might not have been quite so scrupulous in their observance of his civil liberties.
Then, of course, there was the Woman Thing. The National Enquirer had already reported that Woods had been having a fling with a New York society hostess. (In earlier days, and in rougher tabloids, she likely would have been called a "party girl." Christine Keeler, please call home.) Thus, one dot was connected to another at almost the same time as the SUV connected with the tree. Something had gone badly wrong at the Woods household over the holidays, perhaps to the point at which golf clubs were used for a purpose for which they were not designed. (I'd go for the lob wedge myself. But, whatever you do, don't use the 2-iron because Tiger's the only one alive who can hit anything with a 2-iron.) It was at about this point that Tiger and his Escalade erupted from Media Thing into full-blown modern media hail.
I can't say I'm surprised — either by the allegations or by what's ensued since Friday's wreck. Back in 1997, one of the worst-kept secrets on the PGA Tour was that Tiger was something of a hound. Everybody knew. Everybody had a story. Occasionally somebody saw it, but nobody wanted to talk about it, except in bar-room whispers late at night. Tiger's People at the International Management Group visibly got the vapors if you even implied anything about it. However, from that moment on, the marketing cocoon around him became almost impenetrable. The Tiger Woods that was constructed for corporate consumption was spotless and smooth, an edgeless brand easily peddled to sheikhs and shakers. The perfect marriage with the perfect kids slipped so easily into the narrative it seemed he'd been born married.
Anything dissonant was dealt with quickly and mercilessly. Tiger's caddy, an otherwise unemployable thug named Steve Williams, regularly harassed any spectator who Williams thought might eventually harsh his man's mellow. The IMG handlers differed from Williams only in that they were slightly more polite. The golfing press became aware that stories about Tiger's temper, say, or about his ties to unsavory corporate grifters, would mean the end of access to the only golfer in the world who matters. There is a quick way to tell now which journalists have made this devil's bargain and which ones haven't — the ones insisting that this "accident" is somehow "not a story" are the sopranos in the chorus.
But the more impenetrable Tiger's cocoon was, the more fragile it became. It was increasingly vulnerable to anything that happened that was out of the control of the people who built and sustained it, and the events of last week certainly qualify. Now he's got one of those major Media Things on his hands, and there is nothing that he, nor IMG, nor the clinging sponsors, nor anyone else can do about it. He is going to be everyone's breakfast for the foreseeable future. (Among his many headaches, there is absolutely no way that the Enquirer quits on this story. See Edwards, John.) And he's going to be some kind of punch line for the most of the rest of his public career. There is some historical irony in all that, and not just for myself.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opi...-updates-legacy-120109?click=pp#ixzz0Yj71dJGw
Is This the End of Tiger Woods?
As we knew him, yes. Because before Friday's accident, we knew him only from outside a cocoon. Now the writer who peeled away its first public layer considers what the Escalade and the Enquirer hath wrought on the fate of America's most unlikely of punch lines.
By Charles P. Pierce
[more from this author]
PrintEmailRSSShare
Barry King/WireImage.com
THE SCULPTURE CRUMBLES /// Woods was vulnerable precisely because he was built not to be, even if everyone knew about his hound status way back when.
Tiger Woods and I go back a long ways. A little bit over twelve years, truth be told. Back then, I wrote a profile of him just prior to his winning the 1997 Masters, the first major accomplishment of his professional career. Over the course of a day's worth of interviews, which were themselves the result of negotiations with his People at the International Management Group that were so protracted they should have been moved to Panmunjom, Tiger made some distasteful remarks and told some puerile and sexist jokes. Seeing as how they occurred during my limited interview time, I included them in my story, along with some not-overly-subtle intimations that Tiger had a reputation even among golfers as something of a chaser. The quotes were a Media Thing for a brief time, and the ensuing dust storm looks positively charming compared to what's certainly coming after the events of this past weekend, which already appears to be something between Al Cowlings on the highway and an episode of The Real Housewives of Gated Communities. Back then, all that happened was that Tiger's People at the International Management Group accused me of wiretapping a limo driver. (Me and Gordon Liddy!) And that Tiger's father, Earl, whom I still miss, told Charlie Rose he hoped my story wouldn't do permanent damage to his son's career, and that Charlie Rose waved a copy of the magazine and told Earl he intended never to read the story. This is why Earl was an entertaining con man and Charlie Rose is a salon-sniffing Beltway yahoo.
Anyway, the story gradually faded away. (It returned, briefly, when the PGA whacked Fuzzy Zoeller for saying some marginally racist things about Tiger, who, back then, skated on things he'd said to me.) Tiger went on to become the best golfer who ever lived, and a towering corporate brand — good friend, valued confidant, and treasured commodity to every unsavory plutocrat on the planet, from the leaders of Chevron to the oil-sodden sultans of the Persian Gulf.
Until, of course, this weekend, when Tiger ran his Escalade over a hydrant and into a tree, and his reputation squarely into a ditch. He then produced a cover story that smacked of implausibility, when it didn't smack of utter science fiction. Listening to Tiger explain how he'd managed to hit two stationary objects within thirty yards of his driveway — and how his plucky wife pulled him from his non-burning vehicle by smashing the back window with a golf club — was like listening to Peter Lorre telling Bogart in The Maltese Falcon, "I certainly wish you would have invented a more reasonable story. I felt distinctly like an idiot repeating it." He then produced a statement on his Web site that said even less, which didn't seem possible.
What he didn't produce was himself.
Three times, the Florida cops turned up at Tiger's house. Three times, they were turned away. Though he was well within his rights to do so, and the Florida Highway Patrol is no field of daisies itself, this was not a great visual in terms of his credibility, and led to speculation that, had he been little Ricky Woods from Overtown, and he'd hit a hydrant and a tree with his '66 Impala, the FHP might not have been quite so scrupulous in their observance of his civil liberties.
Then, of course, there was the Woman Thing. The National Enquirer had already reported that Woods had been having a fling with a New York society hostess. (In earlier days, and in rougher tabloids, she likely would have been called a "party girl." Christine Keeler, please call home.) Thus, one dot was connected to another at almost the same time as the SUV connected with the tree. Something had gone badly wrong at the Woods household over the holidays, perhaps to the point at which golf clubs were used for a purpose for which they were not designed. (I'd go for the lob wedge myself. But, whatever you do, don't use the 2-iron because Tiger's the only one alive who can hit anything with a 2-iron.) It was at about this point that Tiger and his Escalade erupted from Media Thing into full-blown modern media hail.
I can't say I'm surprised — either by the allegations or by what's ensued since Friday's wreck. Back in 1997, one of the worst-kept secrets on the PGA Tour was that Tiger was something of a hound. Everybody knew. Everybody had a story. Occasionally somebody saw it, but nobody wanted to talk about it, except in bar-room whispers late at night. Tiger's People at the International Management Group visibly got the vapors if you even implied anything about it. However, from that moment on, the marketing cocoon around him became almost impenetrable. The Tiger Woods that was constructed for corporate consumption was spotless and smooth, an edgeless brand easily peddled to sheikhs and shakers. The perfect marriage with the perfect kids slipped so easily into the narrative it seemed he'd been born married.
Anything dissonant was dealt with quickly and mercilessly. Tiger's caddy, an otherwise unemployable thug named Steve Williams, regularly harassed any spectator who Williams thought might eventually harsh his man's mellow. The IMG handlers differed from Williams only in that they were slightly more polite. The golfing press became aware that stories about Tiger's temper, say, or about his ties to unsavory corporate grifters, would mean the end of access to the only golfer in the world who matters. There is a quick way to tell now which journalists have made this devil's bargain and which ones haven't — the ones insisting that this "accident" is somehow "not a story" are the sopranos in the chorus.
But the more impenetrable Tiger's cocoon was, the more fragile it became. It was increasingly vulnerable to anything that happened that was out of the control of the people who built and sustained it, and the events of last week certainly qualify. Now he's got one of those major Media Things on his hands, and there is nothing that he, nor IMG, nor the clinging sponsors, nor anyone else can do about it. He is going to be everyone's breakfast for the foreseeable future. (Among his many headaches, there is absolutely no way that the Enquirer quits on this story. See Edwards, John.) And he's going to be some kind of punch line for the most of the rest of his public career. There is some historical irony in all that, and not just for myself.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opi...-updates-legacy-120109?click=pp#ixzz0Yj71dJGw
There is no perfect option, that is true. The strip club is not the place to go looking for value, as you say. To each their own is exactly right.
Jason Whitlock on Pierce
Tiger's real crime? Not playing the media's game
by Jason Whitlock
You lied to yourself. Tiger Woods never feigned perfection on or off the golf course. He demanded privacy. He refused to bow to the whims and desires of the media.
The latter is the crime he is paying for today. His "mistreatment" of the media is fueling the hysteria over his private transgressions and the casting of Woods as the second coming of Barry Bonds, an arrogant, insufferable jerk unworthy of his perch atop the sports world.
Yes, the greatest golfer of all time made the same mistake as the greatest slugger: Tiger failed to show the proper amount of deference to the mainstream media.
I have no gripe with the blogs and the gossip rags. Paying for and printing gossip for profit is what they do. The tabloids prey on the rich and famous. TMZ, Us Weekly and the National Enquirer are not lying to their readership that they're going after Tiger because he's a role model, a teacher or a squeaky-clean product pitchman.
They're making it rain on bim-hos solely for profit and titillation. I respect that. They're journalistic strippers shaking their moneymakers. I'll gladly tuck a dollar in Us Weekly's g-string and the National Enquirer can join me in the champagne room for the next song.
My problem is with the ax-grinding alleged journalists who are pretending Tiger has committed some crime against humanity and/or exposed himself as a fraud, less fit to shill for AT&T, American Express or Nike.
These hypocrites want a level of transparency from a golfer they don't remotely approach as journalists.
You don't really believe all the mainstream-media righteous indignation and cries for a detailed explanation of Tiger's Thanksgiving-night driving are because the media suspected Tiger committed a serious crime?
No, you don't.
Tiger's critics — read them here, here, here, here, here, here and here — want the man publicly flogged and embarrassed, and they want him to beg the media to fix his public-relations problem. More than anything, the media, especially the print media, want to be needed. We're an insecure lot, dealing with festering childhood insecurities about popularity and sexuality.
If you're offended by that statement, you're exactly who I'm talking about.
I wish I had the time to individually dissect the disingenuous ramblings of Rick Reilly, Sally Jenkins, Jay Mariotti, Mike Lupica and all the rest. But I don't.
I will, however, make time for Charlie Pierce, the acclaimed sports writer who began his pursuit of Tiger in 1997 and returned this week to gloat about it at Esquire.com. Pierce, if you remember, is the writer who made national headlines in 1997 by getting the then-21-year-old Woods to consent to an interview and building a story around hilarious and immature jokes cracked by Woods and Tiger-is-a-messiah hyperbole spewed by Earl Woods.
Pierce's latest offering is an I-told-you-so column. He rages that Tiger's puritan image is phony and points out that he wrote in great detail in 1997 that Woods was a scandalous, tail-chasing hound.
I don't know how many rich, famous and good-looking 21-year-old athletes/men Charlie Pierce has interviewed. The ones I've met have all been scandalous, tail-chasing hounds. No different from the frat boys I met in college or the corner boys hustling on the block.
What sports world has Charlie Pierce been covering? The Tim Tebows are a rarity. Athletes — male and female — are, generally speaking, some of the most sexually aggressive people on the planet. They have perfectly sculpted bodies they love to show off. They have a self-confidence about their sexuality non-athletes generally don't have.
But this is deeper than just athletes. Has Pierce ever spent time at a wealthy golf country club? Men (and women) with money are, generally speaking, the second-most sexually aggressive people on the planet. Who the hell does Pierce thinks flies women like Rachel Uchitel around the globe to party?
Tiger, like all men and women, needs to be judged by his peers, not angry, 60-year-old virgins.
Pierce should've opened his column by admitting he dislikes Woods and his opinion is skewed by that bias. We're journalists. We're supposed to be transparent. Two weeks ago on Deadspin, Pierce trashed Bill Simmons and his New York Times-bestselling book. In that hit piece, Pierce failed to mention that he tried to befriend and mentor Simmons at the beginning of the decade and that in 2002 Simmons told Pierce to go (expletive) himself. That little nugget of information would've been very enlightening when reading Pierce's Deadspin take.
I'm sharing this because it's important for the public to know that the media act dishonestly all the time. We're far more phony than Tiger Woods ever could be.
Let me give you another example. Reilly, the millionaire columnist for ESPN, wrote a damning piece for Sports Illustrated in 2004 about then-Colorado football coach Gary Barnett and a female kicker who claimed she was raped by a couple of her teammates. Reilly blasted Barnett, saying the coach didn't properly monitor the more than 100 players on his team. Reilly never mentioned that just weeks before police investigated a sexual-assault allegation that stemmed from a high school party at Reilly's Denver home. Reilly was not at home at the time. But his children allegedly hosted a party at his home and a 14-year-old girl claimed she was assaulted by two high school football players.
This is the moral high horse Tiger's critics ride on. These are the people shouting on TV and whining in print that Tiger, in his last public statement, had the audacity to mildly criticize the way the mainstream media handled this controversy.
And Tiger never lied to us. Oh, he might have lied to himself, his wife and his kids. But he never lied to the public. From what little we know about Woods, his running buddies off the course are Jordan, Barkley and Ken Griffey Jr.
You know what they say about birds, feathers and flocks.
If you saw me at a strip club with Ronald McDonald, would you be shocked to see me at a drive-thru ordering a Big Mac at 3 a.m? Hell, no.
So why are we feigning shock that Tiger likes side dishes? Jordan and Barkley don't? PGA stands for Pussy Galore Association.
The media are lying to you. They won't tell you their real agenda.
This isn't about Tiger being a spokesman for major companies. He replaced Michael Jordan as the top product pitchman because he's the greatest golf champion we've ever seen. If a squeaky image led to endorsements, Billy Graham, TD Jakes and The Pope would all be pushing Tide, Gatorade, Crest and gym shoes.
The same clowns promoting the Tiger-image theory would tell you that Allen Iverson won endorsements with his bad-boy image.
People are attracted to greatness, and they'll enthusiastically embrace it as long as the owner of the great skill doesn't commit a heinous criminal act.
The worst anti-Tiger argument being made is the one about Tiger disrespecting the police by refusing to be interviewed. This is Sally Jenkins' pathetic argument in the Washington Post.
Newspapers are supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy. Journalists should know what separates us from the oppressive countries/governments we invade and/or despise. We're not a police state. We have a right to remain silent. We have the freedom to avoid self-incrimination and/or incriminating our spouse.
We have teenage boys and girls dying in foreign countries just so the police can't barge through our doors, detain us and force us to talk.
But Tiger is evil for exercising the most fundamental right we enjoy? He's stupid because he wants to deal with his marital problems in private? He owes the public an apology for promises he broke to his wife?
This is all a bad joke. This whole affair highlights why the mainstream media have lost the public's trust. We don't deserve it. We're controlled by hidden agendas.
Tiger won't invite us to his private party. And now that we've been given this slight opening, we're going to try to convince you that he's a horrible person, morally unfit to wear Jack Nicklaus' crown.
Tiger's real crime? Not playing the media's game
by Jason Whitlock
You lied to yourself. Tiger Woods never feigned perfection on or off the golf course. He demanded privacy. He refused to bow to the whims and desires of the media.
The latter is the crime he is paying for today. His "mistreatment" of the media is fueling the hysteria over his private transgressions and the casting of Woods as the second coming of Barry Bonds, an arrogant, insufferable jerk unworthy of his perch atop the sports world.
Yes, the greatest golfer of all time made the same mistake as the greatest slugger: Tiger failed to show the proper amount of deference to the mainstream media.
I have no gripe with the blogs and the gossip rags. Paying for and printing gossip for profit is what they do. The tabloids prey on the rich and famous. TMZ, Us Weekly and the National Enquirer are not lying to their readership that they're going after Tiger because he's a role model, a teacher or a squeaky-clean product pitchman.
They're making it rain on bim-hos solely for profit and titillation. I respect that. They're journalistic strippers shaking their moneymakers. I'll gladly tuck a dollar in Us Weekly's g-string and the National Enquirer can join me in the champagne room for the next song.
My problem is with the ax-grinding alleged journalists who are pretending Tiger has committed some crime against humanity and/or exposed himself as a fraud, less fit to shill for AT&T, American Express or Nike.
These hypocrites want a level of transparency from a golfer they don't remotely approach as journalists.
You don't really believe all the mainstream-media righteous indignation and cries for a detailed explanation of Tiger's Thanksgiving-night driving are because the media suspected Tiger committed a serious crime?
No, you don't.
Tiger's critics — read them here, here, here, here, here, here and here — want the man publicly flogged and embarrassed, and they want him to beg the media to fix his public-relations problem. More than anything, the media, especially the print media, want to be needed. We're an insecure lot, dealing with festering childhood insecurities about popularity and sexuality.
If you're offended by that statement, you're exactly who I'm talking about.
I wish I had the time to individually dissect the disingenuous ramblings of Rick Reilly, Sally Jenkins, Jay Mariotti, Mike Lupica and all the rest. But I don't.
I will, however, make time for Charlie Pierce, the acclaimed sports writer who began his pursuit of Tiger in 1997 and returned this week to gloat about it at Esquire.com. Pierce, if you remember, is the writer who made national headlines in 1997 by getting the then-21-year-old Woods to consent to an interview and building a story around hilarious and immature jokes cracked by Woods and Tiger-is-a-messiah hyperbole spewed by Earl Woods.
Pierce's latest offering is an I-told-you-so column. He rages that Tiger's puritan image is phony and points out that he wrote in great detail in 1997 that Woods was a scandalous, tail-chasing hound.
I don't know how many rich, famous and good-looking 21-year-old athletes/men Charlie Pierce has interviewed. The ones I've met have all been scandalous, tail-chasing hounds. No different from the frat boys I met in college or the corner boys hustling on the block.
What sports world has Charlie Pierce been covering? The Tim Tebows are a rarity. Athletes — male and female — are, generally speaking, some of the most sexually aggressive people on the planet. They have perfectly sculpted bodies they love to show off. They have a self-confidence about their sexuality non-athletes generally don't have.
But this is deeper than just athletes. Has Pierce ever spent time at a wealthy golf country club? Men (and women) with money are, generally speaking, the second-most sexually aggressive people on the planet. Who the hell does Pierce thinks flies women like Rachel Uchitel around the globe to party?
Tiger, like all men and women, needs to be judged by his peers, not angry, 60-year-old virgins.
Pierce should've opened his column by admitting he dislikes Woods and his opinion is skewed by that bias. We're journalists. We're supposed to be transparent. Two weeks ago on Deadspin, Pierce trashed Bill Simmons and his New York Times-bestselling book. In that hit piece, Pierce failed to mention that he tried to befriend and mentor Simmons at the beginning of the decade and that in 2002 Simmons told Pierce to go (expletive) himself. That little nugget of information would've been very enlightening when reading Pierce's Deadspin take.
I'm sharing this because it's important for the public to know that the media act dishonestly all the time. We're far more phony than Tiger Woods ever could be.
Let me give you another example. Reilly, the millionaire columnist for ESPN, wrote a damning piece for Sports Illustrated in 2004 about then-Colorado football coach Gary Barnett and a female kicker who claimed she was raped by a couple of her teammates. Reilly blasted Barnett, saying the coach didn't properly monitor the more than 100 players on his team. Reilly never mentioned that just weeks before police investigated a sexual-assault allegation that stemmed from a high school party at Reilly's Denver home. Reilly was not at home at the time. But his children allegedly hosted a party at his home and a 14-year-old girl claimed she was assaulted by two high school football players.
This is the moral high horse Tiger's critics ride on. These are the people shouting on TV and whining in print that Tiger, in his last public statement, had the audacity to mildly criticize the way the mainstream media handled this controversy.
And Tiger never lied to us. Oh, he might have lied to himself, his wife and his kids. But he never lied to the public. From what little we know about Woods, his running buddies off the course are Jordan, Barkley and Ken Griffey Jr.
You know what they say about birds, feathers and flocks.
If you saw me at a strip club with Ronald McDonald, would you be shocked to see me at a drive-thru ordering a Big Mac at 3 a.m? Hell, no.
So why are we feigning shock that Tiger likes side dishes? Jordan and Barkley don't? PGA stands for Pussy Galore Association.
The media are lying to you. They won't tell you their real agenda.
This isn't about Tiger being a spokesman for major companies. He replaced Michael Jordan as the top product pitchman because he's the greatest golf champion we've ever seen. If a squeaky image led to endorsements, Billy Graham, TD Jakes and The Pope would all be pushing Tide, Gatorade, Crest and gym shoes.
The same clowns promoting the Tiger-image theory would tell you that Allen Iverson won endorsements with his bad-boy image.
People are attracted to greatness, and they'll enthusiastically embrace it as long as the owner of the great skill doesn't commit a heinous criminal act.
The worst anti-Tiger argument being made is the one about Tiger disrespecting the police by refusing to be interviewed. This is Sally Jenkins' pathetic argument in the Washington Post.
Newspapers are supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy. Journalists should know what separates us from the oppressive countries/governments we invade and/or despise. We're not a police state. We have a right to remain silent. We have the freedom to avoid self-incrimination and/or incriminating our spouse.
We have teenage boys and girls dying in foreign countries just so the police can't barge through our doors, detain us and force us to talk.
But Tiger is evil for exercising the most fundamental right we enjoy? He's stupid because he wants to deal with his marital problems in private? He owes the public an apology for promises he broke to his wife?
This is all a bad joke. This whole affair highlights why the mainstream media have lost the public's trust. We don't deserve it. We're controlled by hidden agendas.
Tiger won't invite us to his private party. And now that we've been given this slight opening, we're going to try to convince you that he's a horrible person, morally unfit to wear Jack Nicklaus' crown.
Tiger story goes on
I wonder if his wife knows how to use google.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...iger-woods-offered-mistress-jaimee-grubbs-job
Rachel Uchitel, the first woman publicly named as Tiger Woods' mistress, told friends that she did drugs with the golfing legend before they had sex, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively.
VIDEO INTERVIEW: Tiger Offered Mistress Job
That's the second too-close drug mention for one of America's perceived squeaky clean sports idols. RadarOnline.com reported exclusively Thursday that another of Tiger's women, Jaimee Grubbs worked at a medical marijuana "pharmacy" at least until a month ago.
Now we've learned that Uchitel told friends that she and Tiger liked to have sex while taking the drug Ambien. Uchitel told one pal, 'You know you have crazier sex on Ambien - you get into that Ambien haze. We have crazy Ambien sex.'"
PHOTOS: See Sexy Pics of Jaimee
Ambien is a sedative used for short-term treatment of insomnia. Many people claim it enhances sexual experience dramatically immediately after ingesting it.
I wonder if his wife knows how to use google.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...iger-woods-offered-mistress-jaimee-grubbs-job
Rachel Uchitel, the first woman publicly named as Tiger Woods' mistress, told friends that she did drugs with the golfing legend before they had sex, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively.
VIDEO INTERVIEW: Tiger Offered Mistress Job
That's the second too-close drug mention for one of America's perceived squeaky clean sports idols. RadarOnline.com reported exclusively Thursday that another of Tiger's women, Jaimee Grubbs worked at a medical marijuana "pharmacy" at least until a month ago.
Now we've learned that Uchitel told friends that she and Tiger liked to have sex while taking the drug Ambien. Uchitel told one pal, 'You know you have crazier sex on Ambien - you get into that Ambien haze. We have crazy Ambien sex.'"
PHOTOS: See Sexy Pics of Jaimee
Ambien is a sedative used for short-term treatment of insomnia. Many people claim it enhances sexual experience dramatically immediately after ingesting it.
Maybe I am miising something but if a person causes property damage ie: fire hydrant,which I assume is city owned property why CAN'T the Police go and arrest him for careless driving? Why are they put off three times etc. for wanting to investigate the accident?? Guess he and the Mrs. wanted to get the story straight BEFORE talking to the Police.
If that had been Joe the Plumber they'd have hauled his ass crack outa there in a flash!!!!!!
If that had been Joe the Plumber they'd have hauled his ass crack outa there in a flash!!!!!!
1. I agree with Jason Whitlock's take on this story. It annoys me to have CTV news quote TMS or the National Enquirer as their sources.
2. I think the fire hydrant was on a gated community and therefore private property. Same as if you hit the pole coming out of a condo garage.
2. I think the fire hydrant was on a gated community and therefore private property. Same as if you hit the pole coming out of a condo garage.
Of course, they can arrest him. But first, they need a warrant. For that, they need probable cause. For that, they need evidence, which - in a free country - they have to gather without help from the arrestee, if the arrestee chooses not to give it.
It has zero effect on my life. I just know that people are screaming 'poor wife'. All I am pointing out is that the wife is not in it for Love, but for money. And, therein maybe lies the problem.
I think you may be mistaken. She had two children in 4 years with him. And
she would not have gone beserk if she did not think it was a real marriage.
Jesper is right.
