"Obviously you are a twit."
You must be leading with the argument which defines your approach to discussion.
["Obviously you are a twit."
You must be leading with the argument which defines your approach to discussion. ]
Actually, no. I am leading with a factual statement, "You are a twit", which is obvious from the fact you can't discern the difference between freedom of religion (a Constitutional right), and being forced to ignore the religious beliefs of candidates (not to be found in the Constitution). In other words your being a twit stands on the broad shoulders of your Constitutional error, but that error stands naked for all to see whether you were involved or not.
That is, they are two separate issues.