Fine. Believe what you want. It's still drawn from emotion. I have no problem with anecdotes unless you try and draw broad conclusions from then. At that point they need to backed up with some facts so we can debate the issue based on whose facts better support the assertion. On this particular thread, the providing of facts has been a one-way street.
You can trust the reports if they suit you, but when someone tells you that they do not trust your source, you best accept it as a fact that they do not believe the conclusions drawned from your statistics.
Fine again. Feel free to offer any sources that prove I am wrong. I have no problems admitting that, it's just going to take more than feelings to do so.
If you want to pursuade you have best find clearer evidence and a better presentation.
You mean like trying to prove that Reagan didn't really mean what he said about free trade?
I think Reagan was the kind of man who said what he meant and meant what he said. Gorbachev would probably back me up on that.
You still want to make an argument that Reagan, Buckley, Friedman, all the folks at Heritage, Hoover and Cato are useful idiots?
Whose assertion do you think Mona Charen (she wrote the book) would support, your or mine?