m haze are you sure,are you sure it is us not you that are dolts
Do you understand the things Trump has done to help business but murder the environment
Did you ever look at the page after page set up on the internet telling how many lies he has told
Count for me his fallen/removed/resigned staff
Tell me what other POTUS ever had such lists
What did you think about his buy Greenland thing
His love of North Korea's Dictator
His belief in Putin [quote he told me he never did I have no reason not to believe him]

mhaze inferred that we see Republican Presidents
as being Hitlers?

No. not at all.

Ronald Reagan couldn't get his work done on
one occasion because as he explained -"the film
"The Sound of Music was on that evening.

cont'd ...

Poor Reagan. His principal biographer Lou
Cannon has written that President Reagan -
"May have been the one President in the
history of the Republic who saw his election as
a chance to get some rest. He spent nearly a full
year of his tenure not in the White House but at his
Rancho del Cielo in the hills above Santa Barbara.

He was described by many as "ämiable."

I'll repeat my previous story - on the day before a
summit meeting with world leaders - about the
future of the economy Reagan was given a briefing
book. The next morning his Chief of Staff asked him
why he hadn't even opened it.

"Well Jim,"the President explained.
"The Sound of Music was on last night."

The man was certainly not a Hitler. Not even close.

Foxy the man may have shared an illness with Trump Dementia
M Haze and those like him, use truly extreme insults to try to convince us having a different opinion is a crime
Too to infer we are of little worth mentally and morally, for holding those views
Such insults *highlight* a problem with the poster not us
History will be unkind to Trump, and baffled by his supporters

"Sure. Lol."

Oh well, SR, if you're gunna laugh out loud, that changes everything. How can I ignore such cogent argument and insightful analysis. I'll go and rethink everything.

Struth!

Foxy,

" inferred that we see Republican Presidents
as being Hitlers?"

You need some history to remember it. But generally people are very good at dis-remembering that which suits.

See here but also plenty of other examples...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262157/every-republican-presidential-candidate-hitler-daniel-greenfield

Re your Reagan story, its rubbish. It has one source but is repeated often because its what those of a certain bent want to believe. James Baker, who was the person Reagan supposedly spoke those words to, has specifically denied the story.

Here's another story. First some background. In the 1950s Reagan was not a member of any party. He was hired by GE Corp to travel the country making speeches to their staff about any topic he wanted. He wrote the speeches himself and did all the research himself.

So 1983. A young White House staffer is tasked with writing a policy document on Federal forestry policy. He spends 6 months researching and writing it up. It then makes its way up the chain to Reagan. It comes back the next day with Reagan's tick and nothing else. It is nowhere near enough time for Reagan to have considered the issue and there's little indication that he gave it a moment's thought. The staffer is shattered and thinks that all the stories about a figure-head president must be true. Then one of Reagan's senior advisers gives the staffer a copy of a speech Reagan had written and delivered in 1956. It covered all the same points as the staffer's document and reached the similar conclusions. That's why it simply had a tick.
The intern went away and read all of Reagan's 1950's speeches.

Reagan was one of the two or three greatest presidents of all time. But you'll only understand that if you look at results and not over-the-back-fence gossip.

Belly,

I'm gunna try one more time.

You, and others, were clearly misled on issues such as Russian-Trump collusion. Your sources constantly told you thingswhich were clearly false. They made up stories of insiders who didn't exist . They believed and caused you to believe stuff that was just rubbish. eg the Steel Dossier.

So to my way of thinking, that requires that those who were misled ought to re-evaluate their sources and, as an absolute minimum, be much more sceptical of sources that so misled them in the past.

I find it unfathomably incredible that you wouldn't do that.

But instead you and Foxy et al have simply decided to forget that past 'unpleasantness' and to continue to believe 100% those people who previously so wantonly lied to you.

I just don't understand that thinking.

Michael Chrichton told a parable on this issue. A man opens his favourite newspaper and sees a story on a subject he's very familiar with. And as he reads it he realises that the story is utter rubbish, full of lies, misunderstandings and ignorant of the facts. He is disgusted that his favourite source could get it so wrong. Then he turns the page and sees a story on a subject on which he has no expertise...and believes every word of it.

Belly, I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on this or that. I'm simply pointing out that, in your case, believing everything the SMH tells you about Trump when that same paper so grievously lied and misled you about Trump in the past, is just bonkers.

If I didn't like you and feel that you are genuine in your passion, I wouldn't bother, as I don't bother with the likes of Mr O. I bother because I see you making errors that will leave you disappointed and bewildered down the track.

So have your different opinions. I want different opinions. But base them on something other than childlike faith that those who misled you in the past aren't doing it now as well.