[groanup]

Please... I'll put the substance of my arguments against your's any day. Do you think you irrelevant cut & pasties are substance? They are a joke. Just look at the post I'm replying to. We are talking about the compliance problem of a NRST and you quoting the Federalist papers and John Philpot Curran in a lame attempt to give your post a sense of gravitas but it ends up just making you look pathetic.

YN you're losing credibility here. As anyone lurking here can see, AG is addressing the arguments specifically. He uses the debater's own quotes as is customary.

[Your Nightmare]

YN you're losing credibility here. As anyone lurking here can see, AG is addressing the arguments specifically. He uses the debater's own quotes as is customary.

My "argument" was that the panel expressed concerns about compliance under a NRST. How was that "addressed"? Where is the "credibility" in replying that the income tax and VAT have compliance issues, too?