Oh, no wonder you're so upset
I finally read that link you pointed me to. Looks to me like Bill refused to accept your requirement of stating a binary position. When he insists on a nuanced position you accuse him of weasling. When he acceptsyour proposed binary deinition for the sake of argument, you accuse him of a binary worldview and shoot down your own straw man.
You: "I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive."
Bill: "By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive.
However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I?"
See? He uses your definition for the sake of argument, then points out that it was, in fact, your argument, not his.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]