On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:49:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/1/2016 7:15 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 06:51:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/1/2016 6:15 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:38:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:36:14 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


Obviously your reading comprehension skills are about as bad as
CalifBill's, and you will be voting for Trump in the general.



Your debate skills suck. Interesting, is how low the Democrats are turning
out for the elections. Tells us, that not many are enthused about Hillary
and Berni.

Harry debates just like Trump. It is all "you are stupid, I am awesome
and I don't need to tell you anything else".


Ironic isn't it. I still say if Trump was running as a democrat, Harry
would love him.

You hit that nail right on the head.

In the futile interest of a reasonable debate, I don't think that is
true at all. Trump would have to change his colors and adopt most or
all of mainstream Democratic positions on issues in order to gain
Harry's approval.

Harry is a Social Democrat IMO and has outlined what he believes are the
important issues that need to be addressed and has offered ways of
accomplishing them. Not all agree with the priorities or methods with
the GOP and it's supporters being the primary opposition. Hillary
meets his standards as does Bernie, so he could accept or vote for
either of them. My personal opposition to Hillary isn't necessarily her
(changing) positions on issues but rather on my strong belief that she,
more than most, is a deceitful, lying and selfishly motivated politician
and has been for all of her professional and political career. Even if
I agreed with everything she spouts, I could never vote for her.
There's a limit to what can be overlooked, IMO.



Greg made two comments. You didn't disagree with the first, so I assume you'll let it
stand.


My post was in response to the second comment by Greg. The first was
just routine, rec.boats insult slinging.


I agree with Greg's comment on Trump running as a Democrat and
getting Harry's
support. Hillary has Harry's total support. Why? Because she's a Democrat, amen.

That may be your opinion or your interpretation but it is not supported
by what Harry has actually said. On numerous occasions he has justified
his support of Hillary based on her positions as a Democrat on many
social issues. To say he supports her simply because she's a Democrat
just gives him the ammo to fire back with his opinions of
"conserva-trash".



IMHO, Harry's position revolves not around the beliefs, attitudes, goals, etc, of the
Democrats, but simply a position *against* Republicans, regardless of their
platforms. You see the same attitude here, as Greg mentioned. Harry's 'debating
strategy' consists of name-calling and patting himself on the back. His 'claims to
fame', when questioned, receive no answer...a lack of 'entitlement'. Harry had very
little going for him, in the way of integrity, before his 'Vietnam service' story.
Now he has none.

I agree that Harry has adopted a certain style of debate in rec.boats
but I don't think it's a general attitude he has elsewhere. A lot of it
is due to assumptions like you made (above) where you ignore his reasons
and focus on "being a Democrat". The issues are lost in the insults.

Personally, I don't agree with most of what Harry spouts here because
it's mostly a reaction to what he is accused of being without much
thought put into the discussion. I suspect that an adult, one on one
reasonable discussion with him outside of rec.boats would be very
different, much like the ones I've had with my Democratic Socialist
lawyer friend. We disagree on many subjects related to politics but
remain respectful of each other's positions and never resort to slinging
insults.


Have you had to accuse your Democratic Socialist lawyer friend of lying?

His lying and the continuous name-calling (of everyone who is right leaning) are my
big hangups with the guy.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!