There's a argument that Archangel didn't actually understand what I wrote and thus in his normal kneejerk reaction called everything I wrote "stupid" "factless" and "ignorant." However, his deliberate avoidance of just admitting he did this would seem to indicate that he indeed mean that all of my arguments were "stupid" "factless" and "ignorant."
Since as you stated that I summed up my argument well and that AA called those arguments ""stupid" "factless" and "ignorant" my point is correct that he is indeed making a false accusation.
And he didn't refute anything. He was quite wrong on numerous parts, particularly arguing that Reagan taxed the rich more, along with alleged repeal of non-existent taxes, and the extent of volcker's war on inflation.
I entirely disagree with this. If that was true, he would have not only mentioned he never meant that in the thread where Daewoo is currently grinding AA into powder, but he would have stated so the first time I asked him that question.
true example of someone who might of misunderstood your position and you just never tried to clear the water.
He DIRECTLY stated that my position of Reagan's fiscal policies and how they related to inflation were wrong.
How is that wrong to assume that since he stated my position was wrong that the opposite is true?
"You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus