I didn't take that as toomuchtodo trying to make an argument personally.
toomuchtodo pointed out that they were illegal in the past, and shared a statement from a politician who wants to outlaw them again. Both of these are direct responses to mjburgess. That stock buybacks were illegal in the past is a relevant factual statement, as is a politician having a platform (seemingly) aligned with the wishes of mjburgess.
It's an interesting tidbit and gives a jumping off point for the person who was asking about it to research further if they want. I wouldn't have guessed that they were illegal once, but after toomuchtodo's comment I looked it up. Now I know more!
One shouldn't assume that just because someone chimed in with a fun fact they're an expert on it or have some opinion they want to push for unless they said or implied otherwise, which toomuchtodo didn't do.
As an example: I have minimal interest in anything related to stocks or finance. My only interest here was your response seeming a bit out of place :)