Is Tiger Woods 19 times as patriotic as Newt?

Tiger reportedly had 19 mistresses (although various tabloids have the number as high as 120).

Should a man as patriotic and hard-working as that be our next President?

We have the new pantheon of American heroes: Washington, Lincoln, and Wilt Chamberlain.

So are y’all saying that Charlie Sheen is just being ultra-patriotic?

Newt had 3 wives and had relationships with women when he was married… So the ratio is more like 6 to 1.

He only had two affairs (that we know about) making the ratio 9.5:1.

Excuse me, language clarification… do y’all count any woman a married man sleeps with as “a mistress” (other than his wife)?


Only if there’s an ongoing relationship between the two. I don’t think a girl a married man had a one-time fling with could be called his mistress.

A politician’s sex life has no impact on his fitness to be President.

Wait - is Woods a Democrat, or a Republican? It apparently makes a difference.


Well, do you believe that, Shodan? It shouldn’t matter to you what a bunch of dirty hippies think, what matters is what you think. So would you refuse to vote for a politician who had affairs, or would it not matter, or would it simply be one factor among many?

Newt Gingrich is indeed a jerk, and he’ DESERVES scorn and mockery for the way he’s treated his previous wives.

But he did NOT say that he played around because he was so devoted to his country. That was a stupid, dishonest summary of what he said.

How so? Let’s roll the tape:

That sets out a rather straightforward chain of events: I was so patriotic that I worked too hard and then “things happened in my life”. He does try to obfuscate it a bit by shifting to the passive voice, as if he were some sort of innocent bystander while malign forces took control of his body and caused it to do inappropriate things, but that changes neither the fact that he did them or that he is now attributing them to patriotism-motivated excessive hard work.

(Edit: I notice that you are disputing the statement “Gingrich fooled around because of his patriotism”, not the statement “Gingrich said that he fooled around because of his patriotism”. Your disputation is, of course, correct. [ /EMILY LATELLA ] Never mind… [ /EMILY LATELLA ])


I’m sure you’ll be happy to know it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to me.

I don’t think anyone here has actually said Gingich is not fit to be President, based solely on his sex life. I do think people are making fun of him for a statement that sounded very much like he was excusing infidelity on the grounds of how hard he was working on behalf of the country. What’s your feeling about that?

No, you are correct - nobody, or at least very few here, think he is unfit to be President based on his sex life. They think he is unfit to be President because he is a Republican.

My feeling is the same as it has always been. If he were a Democrat, like Clinton was, you would be excusing and minimizing the statement, and (as I implied above) saying that the topic should not be discussed at all, and that a politician’s sex life is private and all that.

But Gingrich is a Republican, so you are condemning behavior that you would excuse for anyone else.

Perhaps that clears things up.


I don’t think his shitty treatment of women and his risible defense of it as being a result of patriotic fervor makes him unfit to be President, I just think it makes him an asshole deserving of mockery and scorn.

To he OP, would Ron Jeremy be the most patriotic man in America?

Exactly. And if he were a liberal Democrat, and said and did exactly the same things, you would not think that.


Why are you so afraid to give an opinion of Gingrich’s excuse, Shodan?

There has to be a word for this kind of fallacy.

Well, I think actually, if anyone does think he’s unfit for President, it’s more because he’s Newt Gingrich than simmly being Repubblican. Being Republican is only one element of the whole shiny package.

What makes you think that people carry around the content of all your previous posts in their heads? Seems a bit arrogant to me.

You know, if you really want to waste your time with a trip down memory lane circa 2000, what you would most likely find is that I would be making fun fo Clinton for having made remarks equally as silly as those of Gingrich. I’m certainly not going to bother to go over that ancient history, though.

I haven’t condemned a goddamn thing here, and you have no standing to claim that I am excusing behavior of people that have not even come up for discussion.

Just as an aside, this penchant you have for incessantly trying to put words in other peoples’s mouth’s is transparent and does your already weak arguments no favors. It really would benefit you to find some other way to express you positions.