From your comment: You also made this ridiculous unsupportable statement I take it that you agree with me that Haywood isn't really Reagan. But that you don't think people here were treating him as if he had no flaws. But if that is ttue, why are you so upset that I pointed out the flaws that you seem to think everybody else is NOT ignoring?And your response to that post was to agree that Hayworth wasn't the 2nd coming of Reagan, but you did not say that I had correctly identified your complaint.
At least now you have done so. But that just brings me back to the question, if you don't think he's Reagan reborn, why were you so upset that I pointed out a few votes he had that pointed that out? You never said that my facts were wrong, you just seemed really mad that anybody would point out any flaws Hayworth might have.
That type of response to criticism is what is meant by the shorthand "2nd coming of Reagan" -- that just like Reagan, we don't cotton to any suggestions of imperfection.
Anyway, you obviously dislike what I am saying, and how I am saying it. And you don't think people are treating Hayworth like he can't be criticized, so we'll have a disagreement of opinion on that. But you haven't disagreed with the points made about Hayworth, so at some level we have agreement.
Unless of course you want to go back to the beginning, read what I said, and actually complain about my facts. In which case, my suggestion that you do so a while back would still be in effect.
It is getting rather difficult sometimes to have rational discussions here at FR, with people getting so sensitive that you can't mention things without people going off the deep end.
My posts don’t need explaining. Neither do yours actually. They are transparently dishonest.