🚀 go-pugleaf

smr  <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>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.

Now that you've thrown your hissy fit and had a complete breakdown, you
want to rewrite what you wrote earlier? Because in the precursor followup,
you're still lying...