Nathan Newman wrote:
>But the point is one Carroll brought up, the fact that you were mentioning
>ED is because you were following the talking points of the rightwing that
>want to make ED the main topic of public debate.
-You know, it's not enough to discredit an idea by saying it's -"rightwing." You have to engage the idea on its merits.
But even you said that having state laws strip local governments of power over eminent domain was not the policy you favored. What you refuse to hear is that I agree that abuses to eminent domain and have REPEATEDLY listed alternative policy goals that would rein in eminent domain abuses by corporations, yet you keep ignoring that the policy being debated is state governments stripping local governments of power.
Stripping local governments of power is the the rightwing idea, not criticism of eminent domain per se, criticisms which I said had validity in some cases, but piling onto the rightwing campaign RIGHT NOW where the options are these state bills is a rightwing intervention in the debate. You aren't intervening to promote an alternative set of policies to address those abuses -- you just keep repeating the horror stories -- so objectively you are doing nothing but support their rightwing campaign since you aren't presenting a progressive alternative for reforming eminent domain.
Nathan newman