🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/21/2011 2:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/21/2011 12:39 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-21, Adam H. Kerman<ahk@chinet.com>   wrote:
>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/2011 5:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/20/2011 12:21 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you claim those times existed, without having known them, or knowing
>>>>>>>> anybody who knew them.
>>>>
>>>>>>> There's this thing called "history", which allows people to learn about
>>>>>>> the details and processes that existed in times other than their own.
>>>>
>>>>>> So you think history means misrepresentation and fiction.
>>>>
>>>>> So you're denying that incumbent presidents used to not campaign on
>>>>> principle?
>>>>
>>>>> Okay. Enjoy living with some past that never happened.
>>>>
>>>> Shithead, here's that quote of yours you keep denying:
>>>>
>>>>           We should go back to the old days where the incumbent didn't even
>>>>           campaign because it was considered beneath the office. You just
>>>>           voted on his record.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed campaigning was beneath the dignity of an incumbent. If the
>>>> incumbent was popular and had a good record, that's what he ran on.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way for you to be any more stupid?
>>>
>>> It is well documented that before 1824, the incumbent president did not
>>> campaign, period. The lack of true popular vote was contributing factor, to
>>> be sure, but it was just not done. Heck, even the opposing candidate tended
>>> to avoid campaigning, letting the public come to them. Again, this was to
>>> avoid sullying the grand office.
>>>
>>> I caught a fascinating exhibit on presedential campaigns at the Lincoln
>>> Museum in Springfield a few years back. This might have been the part that
>>> stuck with me the most.
>>
>> Sorry, Kristian, Adam says it never happened so... (note: later
>> incumbents also refused to campaign, but after 1824 it did become possible).
>
> Oh, you're so full of shit that that's what you were thinking of, given
> that I mentioned early presidents and you didn't even offer a hint that
> this was what you were thinking of.

PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE: HLAMOUAK has now decreed that we must provide 
motive and originating context with every post, just throwing a thought 
out there is no longer enough. OBEY, or the future of Usenet will be 
HLAMOUAK's shitty, desperately-in-need-of-a-resoling-boot stamping in 
your face, over and over, for all eternity.

Fuck off, retard.

-- 
smr