Anti-Mormon sentiment wasn't mentioned in the story ( even the social conservatives quoted in the article weren't THAT dumb ) but, to discount it as a factor would be incredibly naive.

So, how does everyone on the board feel about this, particularly the board's conservatives/GOP ?



-- Modified on 1/5/2012 6:53:20 PM

That's what I think about it. Big surprise, an organization with the name Catholicvote.org wants what they consider a "true conservative" to be the nominee.

What you be real news is if they were supporting Romney. This is what is supposed to be happening during the primaries the important thing is, How far to the right will Romney have to go to win the nomination and can he come back far enough to center to win the GE? That is always the case in the primaries, with the exception of that idiot McCain who somehow won the nomination as a moderate and then went to the right in the GE. Dumb ass deserved to lose. lol

So far it looks as if thinks are going about as smoothly for Romney as possible, it looks very likely that he will win the nomination as unscathed as possible considering the power of the Tea Party and the religious right.

those six providers will not be dressed at all, much less conservatively. lol

and actually I may be in Ft Worth next week. hmmmmm, Me and six providers??? I can see it.lol

When I commuted to Dallas for business years ago, I would occasionally go to the one off of NW Hwy. I think they have one in Ft. Worth as well. I like to think Baby Dolls still does it better than anyone else. Start with a few whiskeys and finish it a great bone-in ribeye. Texas does certain things really really well. How's that for changing the topic?

-- Modified on 1/5/2012 7:12:34 PM

The one off the toll road, just a few exits from 635. That was the only one for years, now it appears they have expanded. I just may go to the one in Vegas for Super Bowl weekend.

Yes, I'm sure you can get a great steak in Nantucket, but it's the atmosphere. Whiskey, steaks, strip clubs.

So you didn't put your little brisket in either one (lol).

P.S. So what's the bet that McElroy gets waived, traded, or the shit kicked out of him for his comments about the Jets?

First off, the AP writers aren't "yahoo investment writers" as one said. Secondly, Phil incorrectly stated this is a poll/study;not true, it's an article.

Pw, kep this in mind : many Evangelicals who make up large swath of GOP, will NEVER vote for a Moromon; they consider it a "cult". Lastly, Romney only hits 25% in most polls, which means, at this point, 75% of GOP doesn't want him.

OTOH, all of this could be very minor, Romney wraps it up in South Carolina & I'm fulla shit.
Wouldn't be the first time & I would have many here to join me-----LOL !

Politics is one of the most unpredictable subjects around, despite massive amounts of polling. Remember when Hillary was "inevitable nominee" in '08 ?

Remains to be seen how this plays out.






-- Modified on 1/5/2012 10:01:44 PM

Romney has long been anathema to the Tea Partiers and evangelicals.  Now that he's looking more secure they are desperate to stop the ritual slaughter of one conservative candidate after another so they're rallying around Santorum.  But all the other remaining conservatives in the race have their knives sharpened for the new Conservative Hope.  Ain't it fun watching the Republicans eat their young.

The article starts out: "Prominent conservative leader want their rank and file to quickly get behind a single presidential candidate — Rick Santorum now seems the likeliest — fearful that persistent splits will help Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination."

Later in the article it mentions Gary Bauer quoting some statement. It never tells us who these so called "Prominent conservative leader" are or for that matter how many. The number eight was mentioned somewhere.

He close the article with:

""Many conservative leaders will have a chance to discuss how to proceed face-to-face next week at a meeting in Texas hosted by Bauer, among others. He said the meeting was planned weeks ago and emphasized that the goal is not to promote Santorum.

He added: "Nor is it a stop-Romney meeting.""

In off election years I think the Associated Press writers Philip Elliott in Manchester, N.H., and Shannon McCaffrey in Plymouth, N.H., write investment articles on Yahoo. You know like; Dow to close above 20,000 this year.

You boil it all down to hard fact: There is some fucking meeting in Texas next week.  Location or people meeting or numbers  weren't disclosed.

Which means it could be Santorum's campaign staff. Fuck it could be and GAGambler and 6 consrvative dressed providers in Fort Worth.

Fuck I'm still laughing.

That's the only way to eat a rib-eye/cowboy steak.  Hint: they feel better if they're raw when you stick your meat in.

My steakhouse was off the Miracle Mile, I think Hwy 178. Killer Porterhouse and Dry Martini with the beefsteak tomato, fetta and red onions salad.

They also know Bar-B-Q.

But also at the original Del Frisco's Double Eagle outside Dallas.  Didn't try to put my meat into either one.

You need to calm down & read the facts more carefully. This is what the article said : "There is movement, even members of Congress who are weighing this now who are looking to make a move," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who said he's spoken with more than eight leaders with conservative constituencies, including lawmakers. "

That doesn't mean that "only 8 people are showing up at the meeting" as you were implying. Just that one social conservative has met with 8 leaders with conservative constituencies prior to the meeeting.

There were numerous social conservative leaders who were mentioned & quoted in the article who are highly influential within GOP/conservative circles. You need to read & follow the news more carefully.

Like I said, you're------------







-- Modified on 1/6/2012 4:01:08 AM

If a poll or study is 100% at odds with my life experience, I have great doubts.  If you had an expert study that said every other car in L.A. was green, I would know it is flawed.
I remember a study that 20% of people did not believe in the holocaust. I knew it was false because I have spoken to thousands of people in my life and never met one who expressed any doubt. Surely, if this was valid, I would have seen someone I know who had that view.

Getting to this point, none of the conservaties I know are going to abandon Romney because of this.  If I hear 100 conservative talking, and none express this view, I have to think it is a small minority, regardless of what the experts say.

Hey. I remember the expert climate scientists saying the Ice Age was coming and we would run out of oil in 30 years from 1968.  Pollsters, studies, and experts. Interesting, but a huge grain of salt

As if I care.
PS: On Nantucket I have a purveyor of Chicago cowboy steaks two inches thick.  Throw them on the grill and sear the shit of of them but leave 'em bloody in the center.  Sometimes I don't know whether to eat 'em or fuck 'em.  Then I eat 'em.

Looks like they miscounted 20 votes.

A thought just occurred to me. What if the evangelicals rally around Santorum, and Santorum wins the nomination?

Now THAT would be a hiliarious GE.

Conservatives aren't crazy about Romney because of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts and his previous leaning to pro-choice.  Hell, he could be Catholic or Lutheran and they'd have the same opinion of him.

Bottom line is this. If Paul, Santorum and Gingrich are all still around when Florida votes at the end of the month, you can almost give Romney the nomination.

to quote you : "Getting to this point, none of the conservaties I know are going to abandon Romney because of this.  If I hear 100 conservative talking, and none express this view, I have to think it is a small minority, regardless of what the experts say."

Phil, you can't consider that an accurate, scientific, national poll sampling. I have many liberal friends that are going to vote for Obama. Does that insure his re-election ? Of course not.

However, the fact that politics is a highly unpredicatable subject is something we can definitely agree on.

My whole point of the post regarding the article was very simple:

It didn't say a fucking thing factual except for 1 mans name and the number 8. People read that kind of trash analysis and think it means something. "Meeting to stop Romney in Texas next week."

Well guess what there is meetings in every state in the union this week and next week to stop Newt, Perry, Romney and all the rest. The Dems are having meeting in the fucking White House to stop the Republicans in the election every fucking day.

Thats what campaing orginaziation do for a living.

If you read the article carefully it didn't say a fucking thing that was factual. Nothing.

"Getting to this point, none of the conservaties I know are going to abandon Romney because of this.  If I hear 100 conservative talking, and none express this view, I have to think it is a small minority, regardless of what the experts"

Phil, conservatives are not a monolithic group. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives & Libertarians. The latter 2 categories dislike Romney. When you spoke to all these conservatives did you get a fair sampling of the latter 2 categories ?

Happens all the time in journalism from sources to writers on the left & right sides of the political spectrum .

Jeez-----your hatred of Obama is clouding your judgment----take a shot of booze, or a joint, or a tranquilizer & calm down.

I'm sorry if you have problems with reading comprehension.

Lastly, your posts are riddled with grammatical & spelling errors. Is English your 2nd language or are you dyslexic ?




-- Modified on 1/6/2012 10:43:37 AM

You noted I "incorrectly stated this is a poll/study;not true, it's an article."

I admit I was speaking loosely, but I think it was clear that I was talking of generally questioning "those in the know."  It may be be a study or poll, per se.  But I assume (and hope) the author at least spoke to a bunch of people and compiled some information as a basis of his opinion.  

To say the underlying idea I was talking about is wrong because it is an article not a poll is a distinction without a difference.  Indeed, if anything, it bolsters my point.  Here is the expert espousing an opinion with a study or poll, which give it some reliability, in theory (note I said "in theory." I would still be skeptical.

You are right that politics is so unpredictable.  I remember "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."  Every person I ever heard of thought it was a political suicide speech because it was so blunt.  In fact, 30 years later I read an analysis that it was the start of his next campaign.  The Nixon "haters" immediately wrote him off because of it, but those who like him thought it showed Moxie that displayed a contempt to the other side that the deserved.  The next day he started a life that was a road to a political comeback.  

But every column ever written then said it was his swan song and he could never recover after a speech like that.

eat the steaks

you could hurt yourself sticking your dick in a tbone hot off the grill

leave the necrophilia to pri. lol

They've discovered errors going both ways.  I believe a full recount will be done.  Then we'll know for sure.

But liver is even better.  You should read Phillip Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint."  Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!
Then there's the infamous "Funkhouser joke" from "Curb Your Enthusiasm:
A young woman is about to be married and goes to her mother.
"Mom, I'm really big down there and I'm afraid the wedding night will be a disaster and my husband will divorce me."
"Don't worry," Mom says, "I'm that way, too.  All you need to do is go buy a pound of liver and put it up there before you make love.  Everything will be fine."
The young woman does so and she and her new husband make love all night long.  When she awakes her hubby is gone but has left a note.
"My darling dearest, last night was amazing.  Never have I known such bliss.  I have gone to work early so I can make even more money and buy you all the things you so richly deserve; a lovely home, a fine car, furs, diamonds and clothes.
PS: Your cunt is in the sink."

-- Modified on 1/6/2012 10:05:01 AM

He should tell her to grill it with some onions And then they can have it for dinner!!!

My point is not that my experience defines the exact status of things.  Of course, I don't consider my experience to be "an accurate, scientific, national poll sampling."   My point is when the experts are so out of tune with what I see, I question their conclusion, without any claim that mine is fool proof.

Let me give you an example I may have used before.  I once saw a study that said 20% (or so) of people did not believe in the Holocaust.  I knew it was flawed before I read past the headline.  I had lived, by then, 50-some years and I never met anyone who had that belief.  True, I didn't ask everyone I met, but out of the thousands of people I have spoken to, if 20% held that belief, it would have come up at least once.

Later, they re-examined the study and the question was something like, "Do you believe the Holacaust was to evil to hav happened?" (paraphrase from a 15 year old memory.)  That is a different thing. Many people thought it was too evil to have happened, but believed it did.

What I am saying is that if an article, study, poll, or other piece says a substantial number of people in a certain group feel X, and I am in that group and hear people talking all the time, it makes me question the reliability.  If a large number of people feel that way, it surely would come up at least once out of 100 discussions.

Your example has it backwards, with all due respect.  You said, "I have many liberal friends that are going to vote for Obama. Does that insure his re-election ?"  No, of coure not. Because other people beside liberals will be voting.  You are starting with a skewed group (one side of the aisle) and imposing that on the universe, the entire electorate.

If you were to say, "I have many liberal friends who are upset with Obama," that would not be conclusive either way, but it would indicate a danger for him.  That would be imposing the sample of the group on the group.

(If you saw a study that said all Obama supporters wear ravioli in their ears, you would now it was false, because I am guessing you know very few Obama supporters who do.)

I know they are not "monolithic."  (although I don't think Libertarians can be classified as conservatives, since I think they are a mix with a lot of liberal ideas - drugs, defense, sexual matters, etc.)

But I know many people and read more blogs and articles, both from fiscal and from social conservatives. (And many who are both.)

It doesn't matter if I got a "fair sampling" of the two groups, speaking with 26% representing social coservatives, etc, the 26% being the percent that group represents in the over all mix.  However, of all the people I speak to, it is just never raised as an issue.  

I am not saying that some people aren't concerned.  But if you look at a large random sample - which not to far from what happens when you just talk to 100 people with no specific pattern, and never see it, or very rarely see it, I can only conclude that the number has to be insignificant.

Final attempt to explain, and then I give up.  If someone tells me that 50% of the cars in L.A. are covered in purple polka dots, I would think it is flawed.  I am not saying there aren't any, and if you drive down Sunset in W. Hollywood, one is parked in front of a liquor store.  (It's their delivery car.)  But having driven around for 45 years, and seeing it three times, I would firmly believe that anyone who said there were a lot has a flawed basis for saying so.

There are no names in the article. Look what you quoted. Members of congress. leaders. What members of Congress, what leaders, WHO! Who is this guy talking about. Articles like this are called  "Plants". There are no facts you can check.

I don't care who the REP nominate as long as they remove Obama. What I'm trying to point out is the sucker plays the press pulls on people who read without thought, without common sense.

This is a horse shit article by a couple of political rag scribes. Get something on the net with negative content about this canadate. Both parties do it. All campaings do it.

To make a knowledgable decission you have to be smart enough to spot this stuff.

You should learn to read and think at the same time.

Interesting How do you decrythem on 1 hand and use them as sources in another

Hypocrite

Everyone here needs meds except you and willy... okay we get it

Or more commonly, "Sources familiar with the situation, but not authorized to comment". Often times it's a ploy because the writer doesn't have a credible, sourced story.

A "credible sourced story" in journalistic terms means "named" sources, usually two for each fact in the article, or one named source and confirmed by an unnamed source.

My dislike of Obama is neither here or there. As a matter of fact they print the same type of stories about him all the time. I can spot the BS on those also.

My grammatical and spelling mistakes, let me see, BFD. But it is amazing how one can have 6 years of college and 2 degrees (1 from UC, and 1 from UCLA) and can't spell. Neither degree were in English. But they did teach me how to read and think at the same time.

You really got a problem looking at things with a critical eye for facts and substance. I question everything I read.

It is a fact that people tend to believe anything printed over verbal. The less educated the more they believe. And really dumb people will believe almost anything if you can get it in front of them in some kind of printed form.