What happened to this forum?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Maybe if we somehow discouraged the fluff?  Started killing/culling threads that are retreads or useless maybe?

I've long said Dave and the mods needs to clamp down on stupid threads and blatant inflammatory remarks, but oh no, then the usual suspects would be screaming bloody murder.

Censorship does not increase the 'quality' of speech, Gabu, as much as you may love to shut up those with whom you disagree.

Well said!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Regarding the possible candidates on each side.  Despite what you may claim their really is no GOP front runner after each state the front runner changes.  McCain is the only candidate who is competitive against Obama or Clinton, some polls ahve him up slightly others have him down slightly.  Every poll has both Obama and Clinton trouncing Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani.

Right. Guiliani is dead in the water, Huckabee just lost the one state he should've won before Super Tuesday and won't be competitive outside the South on February 5th, and Romney has won one state where the candidates competed (MI) and lost the other three. Check some state polls for February 5th and compare McCain and Romney. If you're not seeing McCain as the clear front runner, see an eye doctor.

And the GOP front runner from NH to now has been McCain (through results in MI, NV, and SC - two McCain losses).

Romney has 3 golds, 2 silvers, and a bronze.

Even Romney himself made fun of Wyoming...the only real state Romney has won is Michigan and there is a lot that indicates that it was home state advantage which helped him there.

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

[CARLHAYDEN]

(sigh) This place has just gone to crap since dazzleman left.

Welcome back.

Yeah, I miss Dazzleman as well.

The 'progressives' have really run wild the past couple of years here.

[CARLHAYDEN]

(sigh) This place has just gone to crap since dazzleman left.

Welcome back.

Yeah, I miss Dazzleman as well.

The 'progressives' have really run wild the past couple of years here.

So, Carl, are we to expect an apology to Gustaf any time soon for your previous post in this thread?

Because Gustaf doesn't believe a state is real unless it votes for McCain?

Not hardly!

Gustav has gone far left wing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me repeat, there is no basis for an apology.

Gustaf is trying to tell Americans which states are "real," based it seems on whether they supported the stooge of the New York Times.

Perhaps you too wish to read states out of the union?

No apologies are do, and none will be offered!

[CARLHAYDEN]

It may come as a suprise to you, but, Wyoming IS a real state!

No apologies from me are appropriate nor will they be offered.

Now, just what other states doesn't Gustaf consider to be real?

He was wrong, and you are wrong.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Aren't those almost all caucus states?  Romney's home states of Massachusetts and Utah aside.

Yes, and they are "real," states. Gustaf and his cronies notwithstanding.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So you're not going to even acknowledge your mistake here?:

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

I am truly shocked that I'm having to re-iterate the same point again, but few people consider Wyoming to have been a serious contest, given that none of the major candidates even visited it, and Mitt Romney himself even ignored the result.  Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

You've made at least two mis-apprehensions here, and have doled out insults to people based on those mis-apprehensions.  You're digging yourself even deeper into a hole.

\
First, if you bothered to read Gustaf's assertion, its was that "the only real state that Romney has won is Michigan."

Now, at the time he posted his statement, Romney had won Wyoming.

Gustaf, and you, to the contrary, Wyoming is a real state.

I'm not suprised you are unable to understand this fact.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe, I provided the exact quote from Gustaf.

He DID say that Wyoming was not a "real" state,

Stop trying to spin this.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

I prefer to note what he actually said, not what you, with your "flexible semantics" interpret him to have meant.

Oh, and my point citing the other states was to ask if whether the criteria Gustaf was applying to Wyoming being not a "real" state applied to them as well.

That you are unable to understand this does not suprise me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

You assumed (I guess its all that "flexible semantics') that I was asserting that the states I listed had voted before Gustaf posted his statement.

Note, I asked if he considered those states to also be not "real," as opposed to assuming that was what he meant.

I wanted to see if anyone would bother to actually read what was posted rather than jumping to ill-founded conclusions.

Oh, and BTW, Gustaf has never bothered to answer the question.

Are you his spokesman?

If so, would you be so kind as to explain whether the states I listed are "real" states.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, if you notice, Gustaf made that remark back before Super Tuesday and before the Nevada caucuses, when Romney had only won Wyoming and Michigan. I'm pretty sure the "real state" comment, he meant that the Wyoming state convention was pretty insignificant in the eyes of the media and wasn't even really reported as a victory, which is true.

Now, I have my share of disagreements with Gustaf, but you are being a bit obtuse here.

You really need to reread.

I did NOT allege that the states I cited had voted prior to Gustaf's comment, (as you seem to assume) but I did ask, since they seemed to share the characteristics of Wyoming, if they were not  "real" states in his definition.

While you may like to assume, as you incorrectly assumed I was asserting that the states I listed had voted prior to Gustaf's comment,  for me when a poster's comments are unclear, I seek clarification, hence my question.