I think the people that commented on that post did a pretty good job of refuting that sad excuse for an author's jumble of misquotations and misrepresentations.
And numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are just the author stating RP's stance on policy and then just saying "isn't he nuts for this?" when there are other people out there that have cogent analyses of not only why they're wrong morally, but why they're ineffective. He doesn't even present the possibility of there being another side to the argument, and that is shitty writing.
