From: dene on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> On 2010-04-10 20:10:27 -0400, dene said:

> You pretty much summed it up in your last sentence: Ken is a lesser
> man and doesn't give a damn.

That's not what I said. Re-read. If TW was a lesser man, he wouldn't give
a damn. He would have divorced his wife and made no efforts to change.

> Go back and read what he's written over the years, dating all the way
> back to 1996 in the months leading up to when Tiger turned pro. Ken's
> dislike for Tiger stems from reasons that run deeper than merely
> Tiger's potty mouth, and Ken's own words provide clear evidence of
> this. You know it. I know it. Ken knows it.
> His dislike for Tiger began before Tiger ever played in a professional
> TOUR event, before he was ever caught uttering a naughty word on TV.
> He hated Tiger from the very day he signed that original $50-million
> endorsement deal in '96 before turning pro. He's admitted a resentment
> for Tiger earning so much money without so much as hitting a single
> golf shot in a TOUR event. He repeatedly remarked about "the ghetto
> element" that Tiger allegedly attracted to the game after winning the
> '97 Masters. None of these reasons for Ken to dislike Tiger have a
> thing to do with Tiger's verbal temper outbursts on the course. In
> fact, Tiger had not yet been caught uttering a single four-letter word
> on television. Ken already made it clear that he hated Tiger. Gee, I
> wonder why that might be. Think about it.
> Meanwhile, Ken has never so much as acknowledged any good that the
> Tiger Woods Foundation has done in mentoring underprivileged youth.
> Never mind the fact that Tiger, even with his temper tantrums, has
> lifted more young people than Ken ever will in a hundred Ken Pitts
> lifetimes.
> Ken simply doesn't like him. Do we really think that the only reason
> for this is that Tiger cusses?

Possibly. But tagging race to Ken's opinion is ridiculous and dishonest.

> C'mon Dene. You and I both know that's not a rational reason,
> especially considering that Kens display of blatant hatred toward the
> guy dates back to before the first time Tiger uttered a bad word on TV.
> So Ken's reason has to be something else.

I know that you have a Jones for Ken and will not leave him alone.


From: kenpitts on
On Apr 10, 10:01 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)> wrote:
> On 2010-04-10 14:07:46 -0400, kenpitts said:
> > On Apr 10, 12:35 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)> wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-10 11:08:10 -0400, kenpitts said:
> >>> On Apr 10, 9:10 am, BAR <sc...(a)> wrote:
> >>>> In article <2010041010002379981-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>,
> >>>> none_of_your_busin...(a) says...
> >>>>> On 2010-04-08 18:45:17 -0400, kenpitts said:
> >>>>>> Fred, Watson and Mickleson at the top of the leader board, with Tiger
> >>>>>> on the ourside looking in. Could we just take this to the back nine
> >>>>>> Sunday? I would take any of the three as winner right now.
> >>>>>> Ken
> >>>>> Your dream come true at Augusta would be for them to replace the Green
> >>>>> Jacket with a White Sheet.
> >>>>> Randy
> >>>> Why don't you give them yours, if you can part with it for any lenghtof
> >>>> time.
> >>> Brown is one of these bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden, urban, white
> >>> liberals. He can be sympathetic for radical causes like the rabble
> >>> that invade global economic summits but he would never (rightly so)
> >>> show anything but disdain for the Klan. His problem is that
> >>> conservatives like me and Laville must be marginalized and explained
> >>> away as members of the Klan or worse. Please refer to Saul Alinsky
> >>> here.
> >> No, actually, I don't believe I've ever said anything to indicate
> >> whether I believe David is a racist.  I have no reason to believe he is.
> >> You, on the other hand, have made statements here in RSG that give a
> >> pretty clear indication, starting with your 1996 diatribes about the
> >> desirability of keeping blacks out of private country clubs and your
> >> remarks about how Tiger Woods has only invited "the ghetto element"
> >> into golf.
> >> One needn't dig too deep to find such remarks from you.
> >>> I wonder how, with his Democratic alliances, he works it out that
> >>> Southern Democrats were the ones who stood in the school house doors
> >>> and tried to block he passage of the Civil Rights Act.
> >> George Wallace?  I don't think you'll find many Democrats who would claim him.
> >> Plus, it was the Republicans who turned to the "Southern Strategy" in
> >> '68.  Plus, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president in the
> >> very town where civil rights workers were killed.  It is Republicans
> >> who have opposed every "equal employment" initiative in the modern era..
> >>  And it was the Republican National Convention in 2008 that looked like
> >> a white supremacist rally.  You had to look pretty closely to spot even
> >> one person of color on the convention hall floor.
> >>> Rockefeller
> >>> Republicans pushed that over the top.
> >> Oh, really?  And who was the president who had to make back room deals
> >> to get it through?  That would be *Democratic* President LBJ.
> >> Besides, Nelson Rockefeller would be run out of the Republican Party
> >> today, and you know it.  Hell, even Barry Goldwater would be considered
> >> a flaming liberal by the standards of today's radical Republican party..
> >>  Hell, Goldwater's own descendents...and Republican President
> >> Eisenhower's descendents -- they're all Democrats now.  Why?  Because
> >> they've seen the Republican Party become a regional, racist,
> >> reactionary, radicalized party of a diminishing number of people.
> >> Randy- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > One other thing. I didn't say keep blacks out of country clubs.
> > Another distortion that you don't seem to mind making to villify me.
> > We had a number of black members at Woodhaven. I played with several
> > of them on a regular basis. Ask Chris Bellomy. He was a member there
> > right along with me. But, of course, you can't be confused by the
> > facts when it comes to attacking me.
> > What I did post is that we (the members of Woodhaven) were subjected,
> > as the surrounding area deteriorated, to armed robberies on the course
> > and in the parking lot. We also had groups of young toughs roaming the
> > course on foot and bicycle, without any regard to the notion that they
> > were trespassing. That was finally cleaned up by bartering with the FW
> > Police association and having armed officers in uniform patrol the
> > course at intervals the punks could not predict in exchange for
> > playing privileges. There were several arrests made including a punk
> > (WHITE) who was caught pouring acid on a green to spell out
> > profanities and another (WHITE) who was caught red-handed with
> > gasoline and a lighter about to commit arson on the toilet structure
> > on the back nine.
> And to hear you tell it, this was Tiger Woods' fault.
> You made it clear when you posted your remarks back then that this
> "ghetto element" that was showing up at golf courses everywhere was
> because Tiger had attracted an unseemly element to the game.  So
> clearly, you chose to project your fear, ignorance and hatred toward
> minorities on to Tiger.  Nice.
> But not at all unlike what I might expect from an unenlightened
> imbecile like you.
> > I resigned from Woodhaven in 2007 when I could not take the urban
> > blight any more. I may sign up for Trophy Club near Grapevine TX. A
> > number of the Pigeons have lighted there.
> I hate to be the bearer of news that will frighten you, but you may
> find some blacks out there, too.
> Radny- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

No problem with blacks. But of course, you don't believe me. I have a
problem with inner city mayhem like armed robberies, trespassing,
vandalism and arson. But, in your twisted world, I am supposed to deal
with it. Even encourage their questionable actions because they have
been subjected to such hardship and disadvantages.

Black members at Trophy Club? No problem. Vandals and trespassers? Big

From: Fred K. Gringioni on

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)> wrote in message
>>They'll pay a price in November, but not for the reason you state.
>>The reasons why they'll take a beating are:
>>1) the party which occupies the executive branch traditionally takes a
>>beating during midterm elections
>>2) the economy sucks and the party in power also traditionally takes a
>>beating when the economy sucks
>>The Democrats took a gigantic beating in 1994 and right wing ideologues
>>yourself would like to claim that it was because of Clinton's liberal
>>agenda. That's not what it was. The economy sucked, the Dems were the
>>in power so they lost control of both houses of Congress, but the economy
>>turned around by 1996 and Clinton go re-elected.
>>It's all about the economy.
> The U. S. economy in 1994 went gangbusters.


Ya, but it was still the tail end of the recession.

The economy's starting to grow right now too, but it doesn't feel like it
does it? Unemployment is still really high, etc. It's because even though
the economy is turning up, it's still near the bottom of the pit.

Same thing in 1994.

From: MNMikeW on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> On 2010-04-08 18:45:17 -0400, kenpitts said:
>> Fred, Watson and Mickleson at the top of the leader board, with Tiger
>> on the ourside looking in. Could we just take this to the back nine
>> Sunday? I would take any of the three as winner right now.
>> Ken
> Your dream come true at Augusta would be for them to replace the Green
> Jacket with a White Sheet.
> Randy
Stay classy Randy.