So How Do I Reply To This?

I need some help with a Facebook debate that began with a guy from my old hometown posting this link: Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures


I said: 

Odd how that article doesn't mention that Reagan ended up raising taxes 11 times. Because after his initial tax decrease on the rich from 70% to 28% - by 1983 the debt, skyrocketed from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Have you read Douglas Brinkley's Reagan bios? I have. As Brinkley says, "Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes.", "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false." The 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare (So Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care)

 In the end, Reagan's tax increases didn't completely wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. He wasn't happy about raising taxes, and part of the reason was to work with a non-compliant Congress - but Reagan did what was right to help. He swallowed his pride, and he compromised. Trickle down economics trickled down alright on the poor and working classes except it wasn't with jobs or wealth - it just felt wet.

Then he said:

He had to fight the liberals in congress at the time so a compromise was necessary. A president doesn't raise taxes, congress does and he had a boatload full of ignorant liberals to fight. As for Brinkley. Good God man, he he helped an idiot like Carter win a Nobel prize. That alone should qualify him as a fool. Not to mention his dalliances with Kerry. Keep dreaming your dreams David, your party is full of idiots. As for the debt increase. Quantify the debt. Did it help destroy the Soviet Union. The beloved homeland of your party? How did the Poor pay? Your party has caused more destruction of minorities and the impoverished than anyone. 

Then my reply:

‎"the Soviet Union. The beloved homeland of your party" O_o I thought the Democratic party was established in America by Martin Van Buren and a bunch of anti-whig politicians, farmers, urban laborers, and Irish Catholics in support of Andy Jackson? If I had been living in the 1870s to 1910 with the same sensibilities and beliefs as I do now, I'd have been a Republican.

You're right Congress levies taxes, but the pres. budget's suggested them, Reagan and Tip O'neilll had beers together, found common ground - staff, committees and Congress battled it out - then Reagan signed them. I guess the main crux of my point wasn't so much the taxes, as the system of communication and compromise that just doesn't exist anymore - grinding the gears of democracy to a halt. Both parties are to blame. 

THEN his reply:

Well over 50% of the democrats that held appointed office during the 40's and 50's were mentioned in KBG reports as associates of the Communist party. i.e. McCarthy was right. Bush tried to communicate and reason with liberals but they turned on him as they seem wont to do.The democrats of today are turd kickers. They have no values. None. The evisceration of a fetus is their primary plank. Want to see a picture?

This is my shocked response:

 

McCarthy was a discredited paranoid. Where are you getting your facts? I mean. I just... I'm speechless. I don't have anything to say. There is nothing to say. You can't honestly believe these things. I mean, no offence, but I mean these are things that an expositional character in a Brad Metltzer pot boiler would espouse or Mel Gibson's character in that 90s movie Conspiracy theory. I just don't understand what you are saying. This is akin to me debating whether the style of a door is art nuvo or Arts and Crafts and then getting back as a response the dimensions of a window in the Vatican in ancient Etruscan. I'm truly stunned.

Ok. So, what should I have said? How do I reply to something like that? What do I say?