[Paperdoll]

>You've got that right. The author is an idiot.<

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.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Give me a break, if you don't know how to follow a thread then don't comment. Poster in reply # 3 said, That the author lost them at, "pony up another 40% or so".... And I agreed.

The article reeks of opinion without fact. I will not lend it credibility with specifics not known or mentioned by the author.

Now go buzz around someone else'd ear.

[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.

[Badray]

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 got as far as about the 5th paragraph and found about 6 errors in fact and logic and couldn't read further.

I won't call the author an idiot though. To be as wrong as he is, he has to be a deliberate liar. No idiot could be that wrong so consistently.