David Brooks sarcastically applauds the Obama administration’s willingness to cavalierly order banks, auto manufacturers, and health care providers around. And it appears that, in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Obama was doing more than finding an Hispanic woman to balance out the court. He was finding someone sympathetic to the idea that government should be able to push around private businesses and property owners.
As Richard Epstein, the nation’s preeminent scholar on property rights and the Fifth Amendment, writes in Forbes, Sotomayer has even less sympathy for property rights than the justices who voted for the Kelo decision. In 2006, Sotomayer was on a panel that reviewed a case known as Didden vs. the Village of Port Chester, New York.
Like the Kelo case, Didden dealt with an urban redevelopment district. But Didden, says Epstein, “involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.” A man named Bart Didden wanted to build a pharmacy on land he owned in the village. As the Institute for Justice describes the case,
viagra sales on line Price and Performance Erectile dysfunction is a problem characterized by the inability to achieve and or maintain an erection. It is estimated that about a third of the current 15.5 million survivors were diagnosed less than five tadalafil india online years ago. levitra generic cheap After the first cholecystectomy; gallbladder removal that was performed in Berlin in 1882, this surgery became very common in Europe. Anything that tadalafil 10mg avoids surgery and the risk of erectile dysfunction is often the one which attacks the problem at its root using naturally available ingredients. “With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, a politically connected developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property — land the developer coveted for a Walgreens — the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him ‘go away’ or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.”
As Epstein points out, in his Kelo opinion Justice John Paul Stevens at least made the excuse that the city of New London had prepared a comprehensive plan finding that replacing Susette Kelo’s home with a new development would be in the public interest. But the village of Port Chester had not offered any reasons why a Walgreens was more in the public interest than a CVS.
Nevertheless, an unsigned Second Circuit opinion found “that [Wasser’s] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants’ demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.” Sonia Sotomayer sat on the panel that reached that decision.
For decades, Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities have suffered when the government has taken their homes and businesses for “urban renewal.” Apparently, being an Hispanic woman and a federal judge has not provided Sotomayer with any empathy for businesses in that position.
How about Koch Oil giving you $50,000 in the past?
You’re by no means inoccent of not doing any political dirty work for others.
The point of the above information is somewhat vague
(forgive me for not understanding).
However, the point of Kelo is to take private property for other than “public use.”
The interpretation change in the Constitution is to “public benefit”.
BTW, those lots where houses were torn down for Kelo are vacant.
Should one business be preferred over another
(ie drug or dept store)?
Is that gov’s job?
Is this a question of tax deductions?
Who’s gonna pay the difference?
Hey, RDAs are inherently bad, due to taking taxes from normal/basic services.
Most decisions by the Pres, BO are bad.
(Not because of his ethnicity. I’d gladly see Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby or Shelby Steele as Pres.)
BO is taking us down the path of disaster:
lowering defense,
creating more of a welfare state,
increasing public debt (to be 100% of GDP by 2011),
reducing motivation for excellence (ie less $),
heavy taxes on many items (ie energy),
heavy regulation,
and so forth.
How can there be so much confidence in this guy taking over our lives?
Many people are diluted, & ignorant of facts, history & principles.
Anybody hear BO’s interview in 2001 about how he thought the Justices should have “re-interpreted the Constitutions” in the 60s to be more redistributive?
Is it fair for people of lower skills to profit off of others’ higher production?
Is the new court justice going to uphold the Constitution?
Unlikely.
She’ll probably rule in favor of taking from the producers & giving to the non-achievers.
H-man: What the hell does Koch Industries have to do with anything?
If you have a point (you don’t), please make it.
You are always very weak in implications, ad hominem & other invalid pseudo-arguments.
H-man: Since you get paid by Burger King & like little boys, should that be taken into account for your one-sentence rants?
Never mind, you never have any substance, & make no points.
This is a time when euthanasia should be allowed: I’ll distract the nurses, in the hospital where you reside, so that you can go through w/ending your miserable life.
Get literal! What “political dirty work”?
Is Koch a bad company?
Do you understand business?
A company survives by providing a product or service that others desire (ie oil, TV, toaster, accounting, painting), & are willing to pay for. It’s called the profit motive. That’s not true for gov.
Exceptions are being made now with banking & US autos.
JK
the highwayman,
Who is paying you to disrupt this blog by posting your crap?
Thanks
JK
Hey, how do I get Koch Oil to give me $50K?
C’mon Scott and JK admit it, you (and I) come here to read the post and the flaky comments. I like lefty comments – quite the windows into their minds (stuffed full of cant and gibberish and regulated by all of the errors of logic so well known to the Romans) and their souls (empty).
I’m still not sure about the hostile commenters here – are they lefty or not?
I’m still not sure about the hostile commenters here – are they lefty or not?
Jim Karlock and Scott don’t appear lefty to me…
JK and Scott,
Your opposition to the journalistic standard of a full disclosure for Randal speaks volumes about what this blog really represents to you: since it’s a day of referencing NYTimes columnists, how about some Kristof.
are they lefty or not?
Simpleminded binary thought processes aside, this isn’t the URL for porcine bombast.
Nonetheless, we saw the whisper campaigns against Sotomayor weeks before the announcement. The campaign is just more blatant now, and let the struggle for power begin. But you have to think that blatant minority party campaigning against her will secure their minority status for at least two election cycles…
DS
JK
the highwayman,
Who is paying you to disrupt this blog by posting your crap?
Thanks
JK
Mike: It’s gotta be someone, that’s for sure. That goes for Dan S. and D4P as well. I’ve heard of playing the devil’s advocate, but nobody has posting frequency like theirs using Saul Alinsky-esque verbage like theirs as consistently on-message as they are unless they’re shilling for someone… or themselves. Seriously: NOBODY advocates government planning that consistently unless they are in on the hustle. This is because anyone with eyes and a brain can see what happens to “projects” and other planning boondoggles in even the best of demographic areas.
Whatever: it’s a free country; they can say what they want. They just need to not be surprised when people react to them the same way the other Dunder Mifflin staff react to Dwight Schrute’s shenanigans. I imagine “D4P” to stand for “Democrat for Planning,” though of course it may be totally innocuous.
In 1998, Yale University invited me to teach environmental economics to its forestry students. The fellowship was funded by local patrons of Yale.
In 1999, UC Berkeley invited me to do a similar teaching program at its school of natural resources. The Koch Foundation funded it. There were no strings attached about what I would teach and they never gave me any more money.
I later taught at UC Berkeley two more semesters, this time funded by the Scaife Foundation. Scaife also provided the funds for the first two Preserving the American Dream conferences. Hillary Clinton once called Richard Mellon Scaife a leader of “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” but later made up with him when she was running for president.
Koch and Scaife may have given me money because they believe in my work. But they have never asked me to take any particular stand and I would not do so if they did if I did not already believe it. In the past, both libertarian and environmental groups have asked me to take positions that I disagreed with and I refused, which cost me some money.
I am glad DS and D4P post on here because they keep me honest and often offer useful information. I am glad THWM posts on here because he proves over and over again that people like him are bereft of any real arguments and so they simply engage in ad hominem attacks.
Dear Antiplanner,
I guess I have too much time on my hands, and access to Lexis, too. I read the Didden case. The appeals court, like the lower court before it, dismissed plaintiff’s case because he filed it beyond the relevant three-year statute of limitations. Epstein somehow missed that salient fact in his Forbes polemic against Sotomayer.
In what lawyers call dicta, the appeals court panel further explained that were it to reach the merits of plaintiff’s case, it would dismiss because its hands are tied by the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. A more conservative opinion would be hard to find; i.e., we are bound by the precedent set by a superior court.
The opinion is also unpublished, which means the authors thought of it such little consequence (and the lawsuit of so meritless) that the panel deemed the opinion to be without any value as precedent.
If this is the best opponents of Sotomayer can come up with, she’s a shoo-in for confirmation (as she was in her two previous Senate confiromations).
O’Toole you’ve done more ad hominem attacking then I’ll ever do.
Wendell Cox dose the same tricks as you too.
I’m a pro commerce conservative and a defender of civil liberties.
Though when you make stuff up and work against the civil liberties of others, then there’s a problem!
The Antiplanner wrote:
> I later taught at UC Berkeley two more semesters,
> this time funded by the Scaife Foundation. Scaife also
> provided the funds for the first two Preserving the
> American Dream conferences. Hillary Clinton once
> called Richard Mellon Scaife a leader of “the vast
> right-wing conspiracy,†but later made up with him
> when she was running for president.
>
> Koch and Scaife may have given me money because they
> believe in my work. But they have never asked me to
> take any particular stand and I would not do so if
> they did if I did not already believe it. In the
> past, both libertarian and environmental groups have
> asked me to take positions that I disagreed with
> and I refused, which cost me some money.
Apparently you share something in common with former
President Bill Clinton, if this upcoming article in
the N.Y. Times Magazine is correct, and I quote:
Yet if Clinton has a powerful memory for slights, he also has a remarkable capacity for reconciliation. He is likelier to find peace with people who hate him the most than with friends who betray him. He focuses his considerable charms on seducing the person in the room he finds most resistant. Among those he has been friendly with lately is Christopher Ruddy, a conservative journalist who was a chief proponent of cover-up theories involving the Clintons during the 1990s.
Ruddy today is the founder and chief executive of Newsmax, a conservative news-magazine. He told me he came around on Clinton after Ed Koch, the former New York mayor, introduced them. That led to lunches and more contacts, and now Ruddy says he was wrong about Clinton. “I do consider Bill Clinton a friend, and I think he would consider me a friend,†Ruddy said. “And to think of all the wars we went through in the ’90s, it seems almost surreal.â€Â
With the passage of time, Ruddy said he came to believe that Clinton was much less liberal than his enemies thought. After all, Clinton overhauled welfare, tamed the deficit and promoted free trade. While still a proud “Reagan conservative,†Ruddy said he now thinks the attacks on Clinton in the 1990s went too far. “Did we like and enjoy all the salacious reporting and all the stuff going on in the ’90s?†he asked. “I guess we thought, This is just politics. But looking back at my role, I was probably over the top. And if I knew then what I know today, I wouldn’t have pursued some of that stuff as aggressively as I did. I did an honest reporter’s job. But I have a different take on it now.â€Â
Ruddy also attributes his change of heart to Clinton’s foundation, which has impressed him and other onetime foes. Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire publisher who financed Ruddy’s investigations and other anti-Clinton activities, is now a contributor to the foundation.
[emphasis added above]
Mike posted:
> Whatever: it’s a free country; they can say what they want.
> They just need to not be surprised when people react to
> them the same way the other Dunder Mifflin staff react to
> Dwight Schrute’s shenanigans. I imagine “D4P†to stand
> for “Democrat for Planning,†though of course it may
> be totally innocuous.
Mike, as I have said here before, I am generally in agreement
with Randal’s postings here, and regard him as a friend.
I also just happen to be a lifelong registered Democrat. And I regard myself as a pretty
liberal one, too.
I am glad DS and D4P post on here because they keep me honest and often offer useful information.
I appreciate you saying that. It makes me feel that our “e-lationship” isn’t completely adversarial, which is a good feeling.
C. P. Zilliacus said: I also just happen to be a lifelong registered Democrat. And I regard myself as a pretty liberal one, too.
THWM: Though that means nothing.
Mike: Seriously: NOBODY advocates government planning that consistently unless they are in on the hustle. This is because anyone with eyes and a brain can see what happens to “projects†and other planning boondoggles in even the best of demographic areas.
THWM: I don’t advocate government planning, there is a need for government planning to a point, though I’ve seen private sector boondoggles that citzens pay a big price for too.
Freeways are a great example of government planning as well, along with zoning that makes automobiles the only viable option to get around.
I fight against the government on bad projects, transportion wise the problem with most DoT’s is that they just want to pave every thing over.
Like what Henry David Thoreau wrote 150 years ago:”Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst..”
So by all means have a drink, but don’t drink to get drunk & drive over every body else.
THWM: I don’t advocate government planning, there is a need for government planning to a point, though I’ve seen private sector boondoggles that citzens pay a big price for too.
Freeways are a great example of government planning as well, along with zoning that makes automobiles the only viable option to get around.
Mike: Freeways are great examples of government planning if what you mean is a cautionary example. The privatization of roads argument has been made better than I can make it here, but suffice it to say that the “lane-mile” of freeway is just another rationed government resource… and every traffic jam, every collision involving a motorcycle or a tractor-trailer, and every over-schedule road construction project is further evidence.
As to your other point: If it’s a private sector project, TRULY private sector without government interference, then nobody should be paying any “price” for it except its investors.
Your Thoreau example lacks a critical fact: Who owns the land? If it is my land and I wish for an inviolate grove to remain, a proper government that protects individual rights will also protect my property rights and the grove will remain thus. I am not suggesting that any present-day country adequately protects individual rights as it should. That is, in fact, at the heart of the problem.
I guess in the end God owns every thing, every one & every thing/body we know is just borrowed.
THWM: I guess in the end God owns every thing
Mike: Some of us do not believe in mystical, supernatural beings and instead embrace a rational philosophy for living here on Earth. If you want to believe in “God” and offer tributes from among your possessions, be my guest. Just leave me and my property alone.
Hey, BTW the point of this is suppose to be property rights & the Supreme Court nominee.
What’s w/these other points, not even tangential?
But, I’m game; I’ll play.
blacqu___: You’re right. It’s ~funny to see how leftists try to substantiate their point, when they have no validity or substance & don’t even make a point.
Big gov for them, paid by others.
tg: What’s this “opposition to journalistic standards”?
Are you talking about motivation or source of income?
Look at content & please stop ad hominemisms (ie attacking the person).
Dan: You continue to appear almost eloquent, by looking up words, without saying anything.
Mike: Good point about those who seem to whine (ie H-man posting crap) against liberty & for big-gov, but don’t logically support whatever they’re trying to say.
Sure, one’s welcome to an opinion & O’toole doesn’t practice censorship.
These people don’t have anything concrete to say.
Bring on the opposition.
However, they surrender whatever their stance is, by skirting, non-sequitors, non-arguments, distraction, etc.
They cannot support anything & just seem to complain & be against others & for their self, while claiming equity or some abstract thing which… blah
Open invitation to those for big gov:
Why?
What should be provided?
Who will pay?
Should the GDP be 1/2 composed by public spending (it’s ~40% now)?
H-man: How have libertarians used ad hominem attacks?
As normal w/ leftists, having no substance, you’re twisting & self projecting.
CPZ: You admit that you are are a “Lifelong Dem”.
So, you’re immoral; That means redistribution.
Does that philosophy transfer to your behavior?
For example, do you rob people, because they are more successful than you?
The Dem ideology of “being for the little guy” is so whacked.
What that means is, “taking from producers, & giving to those who have not yet developed highly-productive skills.”
Repubs have many problems & inconsistencies too.
(see the Nolan chart, 2-dimensional spectrum on freedom for econ & social).
H-man: Are you really so brainless that you cannot elaborate beyond 1-2 sentences on some kind of point that you are trying to make?
How does zoning “force” car use?
When you have 1-4DU/acre, of course transit can’t be prevalent.
High density is needed for mass transit. Get it!
And, go ahead & believe in your magical being in the sky; it won’t help your infrastructure wishes. Although, many do gain strength in faith for a false deity.
I am glad DS and D4P post on here because they keep me honest and often offer useful information…
I appreciate you saying that. It makes me feel that our “e-lationship†isn’t completely adversarial, which is a good feeling.
I have a lot of respect for Randal allowing my comments to continue. Our adversaries sharpen our wits.
———–
Nonetheless, the campaign by special interest groups against Sotomayor IMHO will fail. The opposition has sh*t for facts. There have been numerous failures by marginal interest groups lately and the coattails are dragging in the dirt these days. The conservatarians have a long way to go to dig out of that hole, legitimate or not.
DS
I agree that it is great the Antiplanner allows the comments to go uncensored. But as a non-planner who reads the blog often, I am getting bored with the repitive debate.
Can you please just (1) tone down the personal attacks and (2) don’t make the same general comments on planning ever day. I like to read both sides of an issue, and a blog is an opportunity to focus on a narrow issue. I hate it when the comments jump to broad issues, which are only interesting for a few days.
The Antiplanner poses a story and comment every work day. Can we debate the daily issue narrowly, so that we explore the nuances of the particular issue?
Though, most these guys might as well be saying “Heritage, not hate”.
Dan, you can’t really use logic or reason with sociopaths.
They don’t give a shit about other people.
Borealis said: I agree that it is great the Antiplanner allows the comments to go uncensored. But as a non-planner who reads the blog often, I am getting bored with the repitive debate.
Can you please just (1) tone down the personal attacks and (2) don’t make the same general comments on planning ever day. I like to read both sides of an issue, and a blog is an opportunity to focus on a narrow issue. I hate it when the comments jump to broad issues, which are only interesting for a few days.
The Antiplanner poses a story and comment every work day. Can we debate the daily issue narrowly, so that we explore the nuances of the particular issue?
THWM: You might not have noticed, but this is a war to no where!
Do you think O’Toole or Cox are going to stop bashing railroads & transit?
The car haters make just as much sense as most of you. http://www.carfree.com/
Since you enjoy fighting here is their forum.
http://www.carfree.com/forum/index.html
I agree that many things get OT, if this is a concern maybe ROT could make certain topics “open” and others to remain on the topic. This is just more management for him, though.
H-man: Who are referring to about “those who don’t ~care for others”?
H-man: Why do you use the terminology, of “bashing transit”?
If transit was “okay” & cost-effective, there wouldn’t be this resistance.
I’ll “bash” kerosene lamps, swamp-coolers, manual transmission & other obsolete technologies because they are not convenient & return smaller results than other options.
The main point about transit is that it is:
expensive & basically (98%) paid by non-users.
Additionally, it takes money away from where people prefer: roads.
High-man: What should there be?
More buses, running with 4 passengers?
Who! Who! Who’s gonna pay?
Get the hell off the “road subsidy” dialogue (slim, anyway); 85% of workers drive.
Highwayman: pathetic. Just pathetic.
the highwayman [sic] claimed:
> Though that means nothing.
I agree. Coming from you, it does mean absolutely nothing.
You guys are real hard core assholes!
Stop throwing them bait if you don’t want thrashing around. Come now.
DS
Scott,
re: #21.
As The AP graced us with a full disclosure, I hereby submit that you
STFU.
Re: the past 5 posts, you have no substance or point.
Please,
if you really have a valid idea,
state it coherently, w/support.
Flowery vocabulary or vague ~philosophical notions don’t help.
tg: I’m not sure what you are referring to (please forgive my ignorance).
I’m guessing that you talking about an article by the Associated Press (you say AP). For what issue/topic?
Demanding that I be quiet is not productive, & is indicative of the left wanting to “quiet” the logical/reasoning/factual opposition.
Do you really want to “play”?
You will be buried in logic, facts, morals & such.
Highwayman wrote:
“The car haters make just as much sense as most of you. http://www.carfree.com/”
The web site isn’t about hating cars. It merely observes that most people would willingly live in a car free city if they didn’t need a car themselves. It’s about squaring that particular circle.
King F: WTF does “squaring that particular circle” mean?
And do believe people don’t want cars?
You said “willingly live in a car free city”
People do not desire that. Get real!
You live in your very dense city & take transit, w/limited options.
Don’t force others to have less freedom.
Scott said: And do believe people don’t want cars?
You said “willingly live in a car free cityâ€Â
People do not desire that. Get real!
You live in your very dense city & take transit, w/limited options.
Don’t force others to have less freedom.
THWM: How about a place like Mackinac Island MI?
http://www.mackinacisland.org/gettingaround.html
highwayman: What does just quoting me, & some falsely, have to do w/anything?
How does a little part of UP MI (upper peninsula Michigan), in the Great Lakes, have any impact ?
Is the toll on that bridge (almost biggest in the US) up to your standards of, “whatever”; you have no consistency or morals or basis.
If you claim a place is great, like your island, then it should have millions of people.
Are you advocating that many people should move to MI?
There’s been a mass exodus there, esp. Detroit, (in CA too), mainly because of unions & public expenditures driving up costs.
Mackinac Island is just an example of a small town that happens to have no cars.
I’m not against cars, though we as a society need more mobility options.
Freedom comes with a price.
Scott wrote:
“King F: WTF does “squaring that particular circle†mean?
And do believe people don’t want cars?
You said “willingly live in a car free cityâ€Â
People do not desire that. Get real!
You live in your very dense city & take transit, w/limited options.
Don’t force others to have less freedom.”
Many citizens of the USA lives in the suburbs. Their ideal is to live in a cul-de-sac, where there are very few cars going past their front door, fewer cars than living on a main road. But they demand access for their car, since living in a dormitory town a long way from work demands this. Hence they have one or more cars. This is the essence of the cul-de-sac.
Squaring the circle means dealing with the fact that people really don’t want cars around, except of course, their own.
Venice is car free, and very popular as a result. Mussolini thought that Venice was backward, as you do, and starting filling in the canals so that cars could be brought into the city. Yet, even he stopped after the first canal was filled in. What could he see that you can’t?
I know that some people in the USA banter the word ‘freedom’ around casually. Cars are freedom! Buy your freedom fries here! Real freedom is about freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to withhold labour, and so on. Car manufacturers in the USA, losing money hand over fist, together with unscrupulous politicians, may want to appeal to freedom and patriotism, but I hope that the contributors to Antiplanner’s web-site can see beyond that.
I don’t know why you can’t get my name right. You, and only you, always seem to write it backwards for some reason. My given name is ‘Francis’. I post under my real name, since I have seen how ill-tempered things get when people post under a made-up name.
Scott wrote:
“You live in your very dense city & take transit, w/limited options.”
I live in Bath UK, which isn’t that dense. I rarely use transit.
I usually walk. The distance into the city centre is about two miles each way. By the time the bus arrives, you’re most of the way into town, anyway.
I would cycle except that a) walking is better exercise, and b) some car drivers don’t treat cyclists well. I put b) down to ignorance on their part. It is ex-cyclists in front of them which is causing the traffic jams.
Much of the congestion in Bath would vanish if the junctions were sorted out, and if more people walked and cycled.
Unfortunately, I do most of my planning work outside of Bath. So all I can do is smile sweetly on my way home.
“Don’t force others to have less freedom.” – Highwayman
I agree. Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand what constitutes force.
prk166 said: “Don’t force others to have less freedom.†– Highwayman
I agree. Fortunately you seem to understand what constitutes force.
THWM: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force
Main Entry: 1force
Pronunciation: \ˈfȯrs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *fortia, from Latin fortis strong
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power (2)capitalized â€â€used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale b: moral or mental strength c: capacity to persuade or convince
2 a: military strength b (1): a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2)plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation) c: a body of persons or things available for a particular end d: an individual or group having the power of effective action eoften capitalized : police force â€â€usually used with the
3: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
4 a: an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects b: any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe
5: the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech
Scott (re: #34 & #33)
AP = AntiPlanner.
In comment #21 you wrote “Are you talking about motivation or source of income? Look at content & please stop ad hominemisms (ie attacking the person).”
It is well understood that source of income can influence motivation. This is why it is a journalistic standard to disclose any possible conflicts of interest. In this case, the content of the argument was inherently ad hominem, because it was the character of the individual that was in question.
My telling you to STFU was not to silence argument, but to silence you. That the Antiplanner graciously provided that disclosure was evidence (to me at least) that asking for such a disclosure was not an unusual request, as you
and Karlock seemed to imply.
I had hoped to suggest, by the supplied link of Kristof’s article, that it is the pro-government individuals on this site who are listening and engaging outside of their politics. We, the “left” (your term, I prefer ‘non-christian Catholic revolutionary’ for myself), are not in an echo chamber here. It is the antiplanners like yourself who are safely reassuring themselves on here with the things they already feel to be true and good.
So when you write that one has “no substance or point” and a few lines later suggest that the left wants “to ‘quiet’ the logical/reasoning/factual opposition”…well, I must confess, the only recourse is not logic, which you have obviously already renounced, but a swift and hearty dose of ol’ fashioned rhetoric: STFU.