[OHelix]

Oh, dear, we haven't read and thoroughly digested the thread, so we begin the name calling. The best defense is an offense, right? Give me a break! At least give a valid reason to refute the message other than a nah nah nah nah nah nah.

I understand your response, but I also understand Conspiracy Guys' response to the article. For those who have even a slight familiarity with the FairTax bill, it is almost immediately evident reading the article that the author is not familiar with the FairTax bill. He has some imagination of what it must be and is attacking that, but it is clear he is either not familiar with the bill itself, or he is intenionally promoting a false representation to demonize.

[Paperdoll]

I rather think the guy who wrote the article is as at sea about the Fair Tax Bill as I am, and because he may be an old timer, like I am, is more skeptical of change; and likes to examine all sides of a proposal before endorsing it carte blanc.
There are positive and negative facets to any proposal. These must be weighed one against the other in an unbiased manner in order to arrive at the most acceptable conclusion, IMHO. I am here to learn. We each must do our own weighing.