[DBeers]

I suggest you compare the following two statements and see where your dilemma may lie with both my statement and your inability to recognize the 'anti-American' tone of the article in question:

ME: "Yet more of John Rao's anti-American drivel..."

YOU: "Whenever you're ready to explain why the author's work is just a whole lot of drivel, I'd be happy to hear it.

In addition to not being pleased with the authors attempted disparaging of Cardinal Ratzinger. The premise of the article itself disparaging Cardinal Ratzinger in 'guilt by association' methodology self-evidently must be anti-American in presupposition.

My opinion is in the broad sense and not as you apparently believe an attempt to discount any specific and or obvious Truth interweaved with the opinion the article contains.

[pascendi]

"I suggest you..."

No.

I'm asking you to flesh out what you said. This couldn't be more simple. If an article is "anti-American", and therefore "drivel", then I want to hear in principle how it is that you have come to associate these two ideas.

Now that's some genuine guilt-by-association right there: "drivel" and "anti-American". So flesh it out.