Take a look at post #1041 and tell me that he is an honest debater and not a disruptor who is disengenuous.
I saw that. However he did concede when his error was pointed out. That alone should at least put him in a separate class than Lewislynn. I would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was just posted too quickly without thinking about it than intentionally deceptive.
I'm aware you can glean a lot of good info from YN's arguments, even if his constant criticism of the FairTax without making the case of why another plan is better does get tiresome.
"Take a look at post #1041 and tell me that he is an honest debater and not a disruptor who is disengenuous."
Good point, Ray. You can add 1048 to that. He has studied the FairTax extensively, can cite chapter and verse from the bill itself, posts extensive exerpts from sources such as Brookings, the National Retail Federation and other staunch guardians of the status quo.
He says that he thinks there are other better proposals out there, which is why he constantly attacks the FairTax. When you ask him what proposal he likes better, his response is not a specific proposal, but a generic type of tax: "flat tax or VAT". When you ask him for a link to the proposal that he favors, he insultingly says there are many studies out there on the generic tax forms that he favors. Ask him a specific question, such as the rate that he would use, and he evades the question. He criticizes the economic studies which have been done on the FairTax, but offers none in support of his preferred alternative.
I have to agree with badray on this one.