Dear Turfprint:
Thank you for playing.
Your final supposition, while it may be right, is not the whole story.
Happy Investigating,
ww

I was going to "Jump right in" to the above topic then I got the following notice:??

IMPORTANT: It's great to see you jumping into the conversation! Before you do, please consider the following:

1. Ad hominem (attacking a person) is grounds for banning.
2. While discussing antithetical ideas and questioning the basic tenets of Objectivism is expected, advocating antithetical positions is grounds for banning.

By clicking the button below, you are again agreeing to the Galt's Gulch Terms and Conditions and indicating that you have read and understand the Galt's Gulch Code of Conduct.
I really agree with number 1 attacking a person rather than the position they are maintaining is such a widely used liberal policy that it make me see red. Whenever. However it seems like commenters could self regulate anyone advocating antithetical positions, Whatever those are?
Antithetical positions? As in ??? Murdering babies and selling their parts?? Or legalizing drugs?? (Which to some degree I do advocate.) Or starting a foundation to to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and so on...and then funnel money to myself and family through thinly disguised distributions?? How about ordering federal agencies to audit political opposition??

I think I have it, the mediators don't want politicians contributing to this comment community.