🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.

because you're secretly 75 years old?

In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
> > Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.
> 
> because you're secretly 75 years old?

Because I want to get into the mind of the angry old man so I don't 
become one myself one day.  I can't stomach Hannity or Limbaugh who 
cater to ignorant angry old men.  

What also fascinates me is why someone like Milt Rosenberg, who is an 
academic himself, thinks Sarah Palin, a woman who barely graduated from 
college with a sports journalism degree, is intelligent.  My theory:  
Angry old men get turned on by a pretty face, thin waist, and big boobs 
like everyone else.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
>> > Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.
>> 
>> because you're secretly 75 years old?
>
> Because I want to get into the mind of the angry old man so I don't 
> become one myself one day.  I can't stomach Hannity or Limbaugh who 
> cater to ignorant angry old men.  
>
> What also fascinates me is why someone like Milt Rosenberg, who is an 
> academic himself, thinks Sarah Palin, a woman who barely graduated from 
> college with a sports journalism degree, is intelligent.  My theory:  
> Angry old men get turned on by a pretty face, thin waist, and big boobs 
> like everyone else.

I don't start lying to myself and telling myself that the pretty face, thin
waist, and big boobs is intelligent when she's a moron

On 9/17/2011 7:09 AM, Geoff Gass wrote:
> Mark Anderson<mea@nospambradnylion.com>  wrote:
>> In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
>>>> Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.
>>>
>>> because you're secretly 75 years old?
>>
>> Because I want to get into the mind of the angry old man so I don't
>> become one myself one day.  I can't stomach Hannity or Limbaugh who
>> cater to ignorant angry old men.
>>
>> What also fascinates me is why someone like Milt Rosenberg, who is an
>> academic himself, thinks Sarah Palin, a woman who barely graduated from
>> college with a sports journalism degree, is intelligent.  My theory:
>> Angry old men get turned on by a pretty face, thin waist, and big boobs
>> like everyone else.
>
> I don't start lying to myself and telling myself that the pretty face, thin
> waist, and big boobs is intelligent when she's a moron


Sure, but you know countless other guys are using that as an excuse when 
they feel a stirring in their groin.

Michele <really@areyoukiddingme.net> wrote:
>On 9/17/2011 7:09 AM, Geoff Gass wrote:
>>Mark Anderson<mea@nospambradnylion.com>  wrote:
>>>glg@tanzenmb.com says...

>>>>>Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.

>>>>because you're secretly 75 years old?

>>>Because I want to get into the mind of the angry old man so I don't
>>>become one myself one day.  I can't stomach Hannity or Limbaugh who
>>>cater to ignorant angry old men.

>>>What also fascinates me is why someone like Milt Rosenberg, who is an
>>>academic himself, thinks Sarah Palin, a woman who barely graduated from
>>>college with a sports journalism degree, is intelligent.  My theory:
>>>Angry old men get turned on by a pretty face, thin waist, and big boobs
>>>like everyone else.

>>I don't start lying to myself and telling myself that the pretty face, thin
>>waist, and big boobs is intelligent when she's a moron

>Sure, but you know countless other guys are using that as an excuse when 
>they feel a stirring in their groin.

I was briefly amused, if not stimulated, when McCain announced her as
his running mate. It shook up the campaign during a period in which the
presidential race had become dull and complacent. For a few days, she
really did make things exciting.

I have no idea how any man would find her intelligent at any point,
unless she's some sort of female Clinton.

Quite frankly, I found Michele (hah! she spells her name like you) Bachman
to be intelligent for a brief period after she came on the national stage,
but that wore off very quickly. Now that she's serving up junk science
in debate versus Rick Perry on the malicious lie about the HPV vaccine,
she makes me long for the intelligence of Sarah Palin.

Can someone explain to me how being against disease isn't good politics
and isn't pro life?

Can I get a vaccine against Republicans who make me sick?

On 9/17/2011 1:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> I was briefly amused, if not stimulated, when McCain announced her as
> his running mate. It shook up the campaign during a period in which the
> presidential race had become dull and complacent. For a few days, she
> really did make things exciting.

Here's part of our problem in a nutshell: people want our presidential 
election to be entertainment. So we get entertainers; Obama's handsome 
young Hope & Change show, Dubya's "Not too smart to scare ya" faux 
cowboy shtick, Clinton's insanely powerful charisma...

And then we wonder why this country sucks shitcock now.

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.

-- 
smr

On 9/17/2011 1:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Michele<really@areyoukiddingme.net>  wrote:
>> On 9/17/2011 7:09 AM, Geoff Gass wrote:
>>> Mark Anderson<mea@nospambradnylion.com>   wrote:
>>>> glg@tanzenmb.com says...
>
>>>>>> Don't ask why I'm listening to Milt Rosenberg right now.
>
>>>>> because you're secretly 75 years old?
>
>>>> Because I want to get into the mind of the angry old man so I don't
>>>> become one myself one day.  I can't stomach Hannity or Limbaugh who
>>>> cater to ignorant angry old men.
>
>>>> What also fascinates me is why someone like Milt Rosenberg, who is an
>>>> academic himself, thinks Sarah Palin, a woman who barely graduated from
>>>> college with a sports journalism degree, is intelligent.  My theory:
>>>> Angry old men get turned on by a pretty face, thin waist, and big boobs
>>>> like everyone else.
>
>>> I don't start lying to myself and telling myself that the pretty face, thin
>>> waist, and big boobs is intelligent when she's a moron
>
>> Sure, but you know countless other guys are using that as an excuse when
>> they feel a stirring in their groin.
>
> I was briefly amused, if not stimulated, when McCain announced her as
> his running mate. It shook up the campaign during a period in which the
> presidential race had become dull and complacent. For a few days, she
> really did make things exciting.
>
> I have no idea how any man would find her intelligent at any point,
> unless she's some sort of female Clinton.
>

Mom and I had a conversation about H. Clinton and how old she's looking. 
  I theorized that she's letting herself look like that so as to be not 
as threatening to the male heads of state she deals with.  The 
combination of being unattractive and intelligent is much less 
threatening than drop dead looks and brains.  See:  Madeline Albright.

I'd hazard a guess and say that the combination of dumb and hot is what 
gets Palin and Bachmann airtime.

> Quite frankly, I found Michele (hah! she spells her name like you) Bachman
> to be intelligent for a brief period after she came on the national stage,
> but that wore off very quickly. Now that she's serving up junk science
> in debate versus Rick Perry on the malicious lie about the HPV vaccine,
> she makes me long for the intelligence of Sarah Palin.
>
> Can someone explain to me how being against disease isn't good politics
> and isn't pro life?
>
> Can I get a vaccine against Republicans who make me sick?


Well, you know, it's SCIENCE.  And all SCIENCE is anathema to the 
current crop of Republicans that are running.  It's dangerous, don't you 
know.  Look to the bible!  It cures all!

Oh, and fuck Karl Rove.  With a 10" spiked dildo.

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/17/2011 1:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>I was briefly amused, if not stimulated, when McCain announced her as
>>his running mate. It shook up the campaign during a period in which the
>>presidential race had become dull and complacent. For a few days, she
>>really did make things exciting.

>Here's part of our problem in a nutshell: people want our presidential 
>election to be entertainment. So we get entertainers; Obama's handsome 
>young Hope & Change show, Dubya's "Not too smart to scare ya" faux 
>cowboy shtick, Clinton's insanely powerful charisma...

>And then we wonder why this country sucks shitcock now.

>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.

Uh, when George Washington ran? Travel sucked hugely in those days.

In the 1800s, parties had their own newspapers. It's how campaigning was
done. After railroads, campaigning was done in whistle stops as an example
as transportation sucked less. JFK demonstrated the effectiveness of
television, and LBJ created the most blatant attack add of all time. Since
then, we've been doomed to sound bites.

Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
long before your parents were born.

On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
> long before your parents were born.

Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to 
spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good 
thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>long before your parents were born.

>Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to 
>spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good 
>thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.

Nice straw man, shithead.

I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
problem fixed.

On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>> long before your parents were born.
>
>> Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>> spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>> thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.
>
> Nice straw man, shithead.
>
> I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
> lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
> problem fixed.

That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that 
it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and 
let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put 
them through instead.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>>On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>long before your parents were born.

>>>Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.

>>Nice straw man, shithead.

>>I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>problem fixed.

>That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that 
>it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and 
>let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put 
>them through instead.

Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
informed choice and have higher expectations.

Good one.

What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
antics in Springpork every year?

On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>> long before your parents were born.
>
>>>> Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>> spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>> thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.
>
>>> Nice straw man, shithead.
>
>>> I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>> lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>> problem fixed.
>
>> That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>> it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>> let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>> them through instead.
>
> Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
> informed choice and have higher expectations.
>
> Good one.
>
> What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
> antics in Springpork every year?

So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it 
impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>>On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>>>On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>>>long before your parents were born.

>>>>>Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>>>spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>>>thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.

>>>>Nice straw man, shithead.

>>>>I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>>>lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>>>problem fixed.

>>>That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>>>it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>>>let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>>>them through instead.

>>Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
>>informed choice and have higher expectations.

>>Good one.

>>What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
>>antics in Springpork every year?

>So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it 
>impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.

I have no objection to those who strive for political reform. I think
it's absolutely wonderful. My objection was to your remembrance of a time
that generally didn't exist.

On 9/19/2011 4:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>    wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>>>> long before your parents were born.
>
>>>>>> Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>>>> spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>>>> thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.
>
>>>>> Nice straw man, shithead.
>
>>>>> I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>>>> lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>>>> problem fixed.
>
>>>> That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>>>> it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>>>> let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>>>> them through instead.
>
>>> Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
>>> informed choice and have higher expectations.
>
>>> Good one.
>
>>> What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
>>> antics in Springpork every year?
>
>> So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it
>> impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.
>
> I have no objection to those who strive for political reform. I think
> it's absolutely wonderful. My objection was to your remembrance of a time
> that generally didn't exist.

I never claimed personal remembrance, you lying cunt. Fuck off.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/19/2011 4:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>>On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>>>On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>>On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>>>Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>>>>>long before your parents were born.

>>>>>>>Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>>>>>spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>>>>>thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.

>>>>>>Nice straw man, shithead.

>>>>>>I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>>>>>lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>>>>>problem fixed.

>>>>>That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>>>>>it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>>>>>let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>>>>>them through instead.

>>>>Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
>>>>informed choice and have higher expectations.

>>>>Good one.

>>>>What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
>>>>antics in Springpork every year?

>>>So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it
>>>impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.

>>I have no objection to those who strive for political reform. I think
>>it's absolutely wonderful. My objection was to your remembrance of a time
>>that generally didn't exist.

>I never claimed personal remembrance, you lying cunt. Fuck off.

To set up your straw man, you cut your own incriminating words from
the quotes:

	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.

What you wrote was objectionable. It's still objectionable. Do you even
fool yourself claiming you didn't write it?

You don't remember such times. Your parents did not live in such times.
Your grandparents did not live in such times.

No shortage of corrupt politicians have been elected over the years
because the voters were appeased or held their elected officials to
extremely low standards. Incumbents won, rarely on their records, more
typically on the basis of "what have you done for me lately?"

I don't know of any large number of politicians who didn't campaign
because it was undignified. Sure, some who were considered shoe ins
had low-key campaigns, but that's not because campaigning is undignified.
It's because of the power of incumbency.

On 9/20/2011 7:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/19/2011 4:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>    wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>     wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>>>>>> long before your parents were born.
>
>>>>>>>> Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>>>>>> spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>>>>>> thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.
>
>>>>>>> Nice straw man, shithead.
>
>>>>>>> I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>>>>>> lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading comprehension
>>>>>>> problem fixed.
>
>>>>>> That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>>>>>> it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>>>>>> let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>>>>>> them through instead.
>
>>>>> Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
>>>>> informed choice and have higher expectations.
>
>>>>> Good one.
>
>>>>> What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
>>>>> antics in Springpork every year?
>
>>>> So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it
>>>> impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.
>
>>> I have no objection to those who strive for political reform. I think
>>> it's absolutely wonderful. My objection was to your remembrance of a time
>>> that generally didn't exist.
>
>> I never claimed personal remembrance, you lying cunt. Fuck off.
>
> To set up your straw man, you cut your own incriminating words from
> the quotes:
>
> 	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.
>
> What you wrote was objectionable. It's still objectionable. Do you even
> fool yourself claiming you didn't write it?
>
> You don't remember such times. Your parents did not live in such times.
> Your grandparents did not live in such times.

I did not claim to remember those times, nor did I write anything that 
should be construed as such.

So fuck off, you tiresome dickbag.

-- 
smr

smr  <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/20/2011 7:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2011 4:03 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 9/19/2011 1:16 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/19/2011 12:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>> smr<me@shawnritchie.com>     wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2011 8:57 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take off the rose colored glasses, because you are speaking of a time
>>>>>>>>>> long before your parents were born.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Adam. And fuck you, too. You think having the incumbent have to
>>>>>>>>> spent a THIRD of his fucking term worrying about reelection is a good
>>>>>>>>> thing? Great, you're a dumbass. I'm not, and think it sucks.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nice straw man, shithead.
>>
>>>>>>>> I said you speaking speaking of politics that you never saw in your
>>>>>>>> lifetime, and that your parents never saw. Get that reading
>comprehension
>>>>>>>> problem fixed.
>>
>>>>>>> That it hasn't happened in my lifetime doesn't invalidate my belief that
>>>>>>> it would be better to have the incumbent focus on his fucking job and
>>>>>>> let folks vote to that, rather than the carnival of retardation we put
>>>>>>> them through instead.
>>
>>>>>> Oh! You want better politicians AND better voters who make an
>>>>>> informed choice and have higher expectations.
>>
>>>>>> Good one.
>>
>>>>>> What will you ask for next, an electorate that won't tolerate the
>>>>>> antics in Springpork every year?
>>
>>>>> So, what, we can't even discuss better ways now because you've deemed it
>>>>> impossible? Fuck off, shitbag, if I want to pipedream, I fucking will.
>>
>>>> I have no objection to those who strive for political reform. I think
>>>> it's absolutely wonderful. My objection was to your remembrance of a time
>>>> that generally didn't exist.
>>
>>> I never claimed personal remembrance, you lying cunt. Fuck off.
>>
>> To set up your straw man, you cut your own incriminating words from
>> the quotes:
>>
>> 	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.
>>
>> What you wrote was objectionable. It's still objectionable. Do you even
>> fool yourself claiming you didn't write it?
>>
>> You don't remember such times. Your parents did not live in such times.
>> Your grandparents did not live in such times.
>
>I did not claim to remember those times, nor did I write anything that 
>should be construed as such.

So you claim those times existed, without having known them, or knowing
anybody who knew them.

Got it.

>So fuck off, you tiresome dickbag.

No, thank you, not while you're still being highly amusing.

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.

> No, thank you, not while you're still being highly amusing.

And I'll play all day with your lying ass, fuckface. Bring it.

-- 
smr

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.

>>No, thank you, not while you're still being highly amusing.

>And I'll play all day with your lying ass, fuckface. Bring it.

"Bring it" is pathetic.

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.

>>> No, thank you, not while you're still being highly amusing.
>
>> And I'll play all day with your lying ass, fuckface. Bring it.
>
> "Bring it" is pathetic.

Your entire life is the Platonic ideal of pathetic, so I'll defer to 
your judgment on this one.

-- 
smr

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?

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.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

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).

-- 
smr

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.

You still sticking with dignity as the reason, shit for brains, and not
extremely difficult transportation and communication? Are you going to
deny that the Electoral College never worked the way the Founding Fathers
expected it to work and that every decision they made post-Washington
was based on what party they were a member of?

Please, please keep up your humorous take on American political history.
I just cannot get enough.

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

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...

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

Kristian M Zoerhoff <kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

went there this summer, excellent museum.

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.

On 9/22/2011 8:59 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> You're lying that you were thinking of a time before Andrew Jackson's
> campaigning created the first popular elections for president.

Seriously, I'm gonna knock you outta your shitty, threadbare coat at the 
next gather. Where the fuck do you get off claiming to know this and 
accuse me of lying, you ginormous asshole?

> 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.

Here, you fucking cunt:

"It's hard to imagine nowadays, but there was a time when it was 
considered poor form for a candidate to campaign openly for the 
presidency. They did not even attend their own nominating conventions. 
Historian Alan Brinkley explains how, in the nineteenth century, "The 
public aloofness of most presidential candidates gave an aura of 
nonpartisan dignity to the election process and kept alive the vision of 
the nation's founders of a political world free of parties and 
factions." Indeed,

As late as 1900, when William McKinley ran for reelection as president, 
it was possible for a candidate to remain almost entirely out of view 
during the national campaign and allow other party leaders to do 
virtually all the work of mobilizing voters. Successful presidential 
candidates in the nineteenth century accepted election almost as if it 
were a gift of the people -- a gift that they pretended never to have 
sought and that they had made no active efforts to accept (although of 
course they had almost always worked incessantly if quietly to obtain 
it).[1]

The custom was so powerful that an orator the caliber of Abraham Lincoln 
adhered to it -- even in 1864, when the nation was at war, and even 
though the president was driven to serve a second term. As David Herbert 
Donald explains,

There was little that Lincoln could do openly to promote his 
renomination and reelection. Custom prohibited him from soliciting 
support, making public statements, or appearing to campaign for office. 
But as the nominating season approached, he made a point of hosting 
numerous social activities at the White House ... which could only boost 
the president's hopes for a second term.[2]

This custom of imposed restraint affected much American political life. 
Indeed, one pretext for drawing up articles of impeachment against 
Andrew Johnson was that he "disgraced" Congress by openly, unabashedly 
campaigning; not for himself, mind you, which was considered beyond the 
pale even for him -- but for his supporters. After Congress slapped 
Johnson down, presidential aspirants dared not openly campaign for 
another three decades."

NOW EAT EIGHT DICKS AND FUCK RIGHT OFF.

-- 
smr

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>On 9/22/2011 8:59 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>You're lying that you were thinking of a time before Andrew Jackson's
>>campaigning created the first popular elections for president.

>Seriously, I'm gonna knock you outta your shitty, threadbare coat at the 
>next gather. Where the fuck do you get off claiming to know this and 
>accuse me of lying, you ginormous asshole?

Because you're being such a defensive douchebag and making such a
racket over nothing. Because you've painted yourself into a corner
and keep right on painting.

>>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.

>Here, you fucking cunt:

>"It's hard to imagine nowadays, but there was a time when it was 
>considered poor form for a candidate to campaign openly for the 
>presidency. They did not even attend their own nominating conventions. 
>Historian Alan Brinkley explains how, in the nineteenth century, "The 
>public aloofness of most presidential candidates gave an aura of 
>nonpartisan dignity to the election process and kept alive the vision of 
>the nation's founders of a political world free of parties and 
>factions." Indeed,

>As late as 1900, when William McKinley ran for reelection as president, 
>it was possible for a candidate to remain almost entirely out of view 
>during the national campaign and allow other party leaders to do 
>virtually all the work of mobilizing voters. Successful presidential 
>candidates in the nineteenth century accepted election almost as if it 
>were a gift of the people -- a gift that they pretended never to have 
>sought and that they had made no active efforts to accept (although of 
>course they had almost always worked incessantly if quietly to obtain 
>it).[1]

>The custom was so powerful that an orator the caliber of Abraham Lincoln 
>adhered to it -- even in 1864, when the nation was at war, and even 
>though the president was driven to serve a second term. As David Herbert 
>Donald explains,

>There was little that Lincoln could do openly to promote his 
>renomination and reelection. Custom prohibited him from soliciting 
>support, making public statements, or appearing to campaign for office. 
>But as the nominating season approached, he made a point of hosting 
>numerous social activities at the White House ... which could only boost 
>the president's hopes for a second term.[2]

>This custom of imposed restraint affected much American political life. 
>Indeed, one pretext for drawing up articles of impeachment against 
>Andrew Johnson was that he "disgraced" Congress by openly, unabashedly 
>campaigning; not for himself, mind you, which was considered beyond the 
>pale even for him -- but for his supporters. After Congress slapped 
>Johnson down, presidential aspirants dared not openly campaign for 
>another three decades."

>NOW EAT EIGHT DICKS AND FUCK RIGHT OFF.

You're quoting an article without citing it, going so far as to provide
footnote references without the footnotes? That's hysterical.

Again, let's remind shawn of the bullshit he uttered so many precursor
articles back:

	Here's part of our problem in a nutshell: people want our
	presidential election to be entertainment. So we get entertainers;
	Obama's handsome young Hope & Change show, Dubya's "Not too smart
	to scare ya" faux cowboy shtick, Clinton's insanely powerful
	charisma...

	And then we wonder why this country sucks shitcock now.

	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.

According to your uncited quote, it wasn't beneath the dignity of the
office to seek it behind the scenes, and it wasn't beneath the dignity
of the office to have your partisans campaign on your behalf.

So where the fuck did you get "You just voted on his record" from?

Obama lacked a record; he couldn't run for his first term like that.
For his second term, well, unemployment is still hideously high, so
running on his record won't work too well.

On Sep 13, 11:18 pm, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> Milt Rosenberg is giving a dry smack down of Fermi Lab right now by
> interviewing a PR person and some scietnist, both who make no sense.
>

Did they have soviet accents ??