🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/21/2011 3:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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...

I didn't lie at any point in this thread, so, again, go throw yourself 
under the Red Line, rail bum. Here's the fucking timeline, shitdick:

me: let's go back to when incumbents didn't campaign at all
dickhead: NEVER HAPPENED UNLESS LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON WHY ARE YOU 
CLAIMING THAT YOU OR MAYBE YOUR FOLKS OR GRAMPS REMEMBERS THIS ERA YOU LIAR
me: um, never claimed any personal experience with this, and referred to 
it as "old times" in the first place, so what the fuck is your problem, 
asshole?
dickhead: LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!!

Repeat ad nauseum, including insane accusations that if I really had 
been thinking that far back I'd have explicitly mentioned it (serioulsy, 
wth?)...

You're fucking insane, Kerman. Get help.

-- 
smr