I disagree, UT's first comment was something I'd hear in the street any day of the week, "Whatever happened to the England I used to know?". Now, obviously, the correct answer is 'You are living in it', but it's not like it is a particularly un-educated or stupid comment, merely a 'rose tinted spectacles' one. Had you simply replied that the America now is the same America of 50 years ago, that would have been fine, instead you made a whole load of confrontational statements and implied that UT was naive for making the comment.
There are ways of disagreeing that don't involve semi-attacking those you disagree with, for example.
1: "Are you naive?" - "It's not as simple as that"
2 "Can you read?" - "I think you've misinterpreted what I said".
They may seem like simple platitudes, because that's what they are, but it's not just a question of what you say, it's how you say it, that's why I compared you to Kazan, because he also used to attack any point of view that either did not match his own or that he was better informed in by berating the person that said it. It wasn't about whether he was right or wrong, it was about the way he chose to communicate his thoughts.