I didn't find a lot of his arguments that bad, but I think the level of game he is looking for isn't covered as well by the "standard" 4e format. In general, I don't find 4e is made for the "gritty" settings he seems to prefer. In 4e, you are heroes. Not zeros. If you are playing an aging veteran, he was the kind of guy who was awarded the Victoria Cross, or Medal of Honor. Twice. He wasn't the guy who just made it through on the tails of those around him. I remind my players of that often - that just because I describe a NPC as "bad ass," it doesn't mean he is better than they are - they are special - they are the heroes of the story. They can do stuff normal people can't. 4e isn't about playing the simple farmer who actually has no ability.
You can make the character in a variety of ways and have them be less than ideal, mechanically, but you can "nerf" a character in most systems if you wanted to.
I find his arguments are like a lot of peoples' views on the various games; you can support any argument with a specific enough scenario.
And how the hell does he know which sock is the "left" one?