🚀 go-pugleaf

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

You're lying that you were thinking of a time before Andrew Jackson's
campaigning created the first popular elections for president. You
failed to make your point that incumbents didn't campaign in any era
for reasons of dignity. You made an absurd comment several articles
back and you've gone to absurd lengths to defend it, except that you
never even bothered to tell us what dignified incumbent re-election
you were even thinking of. But lame insults fly out of your mouth
fast and thick, about all you're good for.