Sorry, but he's taking it one step too far. I don't have the same love of divisive politics, or politics for that matter, and I don't even know whether the guys he's trying to smear was involved in the PS. But if he wasn't here, he's dead wrong in lecturing us on wether there was, or wasn't a perceived value.

The PS was a liability, before it was an asset, and there is no question the reps were skewered over it. I don't know how to determine whether PD has no credibility on this topic because the truth doesn't fit his views, or because he just wasn't here, without asking if he was here. What's your diplomatic non-divisive suggestion for answering an offensive or ignorant argument?