[general_re]

It's only rational if we agree with you, obviously.

No, it would be more rational if this weren't a simple rewrite of the same overwrought screed that's been posted a thousand times or so over the last year. Why it suddenly becomes thoughtful because it comes from someone touted as one of the shining members of Congress - surely one of the lowest hurdles one can clear in contemporary society - is beyond me.

[LibertarianInExile]

Wow, you've got me on the ropes now, Clarence Darrow.

Let's try a simple multiple choice test. I'll even give you some big hints and the answers first.

A) It's an overwrought screed

(insult the statement, do not argue the point)

B) The arguer is a lower life form

(insult the arguer, do not argue the point)

C) The General's statement of refutation includes at best, only an attack implying guilt by association, and just plain ignores the point of the original argument. Therefore, General Nuisance can't logically argue his own way out of a paper bag with a sharp knife and a blowtorch at his disposal.

Which one of these statements follows the notion of providing a reason for a conclusion, i.e., basic logic? You may argue with the point, but at least attempt to do so instead of just being insulting.

Is this your day for pretending to be a liberal or something?