Just watched Freedom To Fascism For First Time

[Matt Collins]

I just watched Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism for the first time tonight. (yeah my reading / video list really is that backlogged heh)



My initial thoughts...


I wish the production value was higher. AJ's films tend to lack substance but at least they look good, in fact sometimes over doing the flair. However FTF needed a lot more dressing up. Superficial I know but it is important.

Also it was too long, or at least the timing / pacing of it was very slow. The subject matter didn't bridge very well together either. Going from taxation to the Fed to RFID/ID, e-voting, and globalization seemed like it was taking enormous jumps without any real attempt to mention how these subjects related, not that there was time for that.

I think he should've left the globalization aspect of it out at the end because he couldn't have given it the attention it deserved. Also anyone who was right leaning conservative watching it would've probably have been confused by it without having prior knowledge or understanding.

And the title itself I think turns off many right-leaning conservative types too. Since Bush was called a fascist by many on the left the natural assumption is that the film was and excuse to Bush bash- which it really was not.

I think he could've done a bit better job explaining the existence and role of the Fed. Tom Woods and Ron put it in plain English very well for example. My favorite segment was the first where the validity income tax was questioned. I feel that was a bit erratic in the way it was both handled and explained. More graphics, charts, and animations could've been used to visually explain this.


All in all it was a good film, I just think it needs some polish here and there. I am glad I watched it.

[low preference guy]

is this the film were Aaron Russo just made up a Woodrow Wilson quote?

[WaltM]

Matt, are you kidding me????????

[WaltM]

is this the film were Aaron Russo just made up a Woodrow Wilson quote?
deleted, see below

[WaltM]

is this the film were Aaron Russo just made up a Woodrow Wilson quote?

He got them wrong, yes, but he didn't make them up

He likely got them from the film "the Money Masters"

here are other quotes he misinterpreted (probably not always intentionally)
# 6 Inaccuracies

* 6.1 Quotation of U.S. District Judge James C. Fox
* 6.2 Quotation of Mayer Amschel Rothschild
* 6.3 Quotation of President Wilson
* 6.4 Quotation of Mussolini
* 6.5 Quotation of President Clinton
* 6.6 Quotation of Charles Rossotti
* 6.7 Quotation of Judge Kent Dawson
* 6.8 First Amendment

[Matt Collins]

Matt, are you kidding me????????


No, why would I be? :confused:

[WaltM]

No, why would I be? :confused:

i just thought with all the people you've met, places you've been, 9/11 truthers you criticize, you'd have see that at the least.

Here's a good page debunking the film to the style of Michael Moore.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

[Matt Collins]

i just thought with all the people you've met, places you've been, 9/11 truthers you criticize, you'd have see that at the least.

Here's a good page debunking the film to the style of Michael Moore.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

[WaltM]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

you are welcome, thanks for bumping all those BS threads with updated facts.

[Elwar]

i just thought with all the people you've met, places you've been, 9/11 truthers you criticize, you'd have see that at the least.

Here's a good page debunking the film to the style of Michael Moore.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

The law professor might want to read the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

[Acala]

The law professor might want to read the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

And this is the whole reason they enacted the 16th amendment. Maybe it wasn't properly ratified. I don't know. But the Constitutional provision you cite was amended to allow an income tax.

[MelissaWV]

I just watched Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism for the first time tonight. (yeah my reading / video list really is that backlogged heh)
....

YouTube - Madonna - Like A Virgin (video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s__rX_WL100)

(This serves a double purpose. Your thread title reminded me of it, of course, but also you are so far behind the times you might not have heard this before :D )

[Fredom101]

I just watched Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism for the first time tonight. (yeah my reading / video list really is that backlogged heh)



My initial thoughts...


I wish the production value was higher. AJ's films tend to lack substance but at least they look good, in fact sometimes over doing the flair. However FTF needed a lot more dressing up. Superficial I know but it is important.

Also it was too long, or at least the timing / pacing of it was very slow. The subject matter didn't bridge very well together either. Going from taxation to the Fed to RFID/ID, e-voting, and globalization seemed like it was taking enormous jumps without any real attempt to mention how these subjects related, not that there was time for that.

I think he should've left the globalization aspect of it out at the end because he couldn't have given it the attention it deserved. Also anyone who was right leaning conservative watching it would've probably have been confused by it without having prior knowledge or understanding.

And the title itself I think turns off many right-leaning conservative types too. Since Bush was called a fascist by many on the left the natural assumption is that the film was and excuse to Bush bash- which it really was not.

I think he could've done a bit better job explaining the existence and role of the Fed. Tom Woods and Ron put it in plain English very well for example. My favorite segment was the first where the validity income tax was questioned. I feel that was a bit erratic in the way it was both handled and explained. More graphics, charts, and animations could've been used to visually explain this.


All in all it was a good film, I just think it needs some polish here and there. I am glad I watched it.

Agreed on all fronts.
I'd also add that instead of going with the ridiculous "SHOW ME THE LAW" argument on the income tax, he should have gone with the moral argument (ala Mark Stevens', what services do you want provided at the barrel of a gun?).

I respect what Russo was trying to accomplish, but it really didn't change much.

[Elwar]

And this is the whole reason they enacted the 16th amendment. Maybe it wasn't properly ratified. I don't know. But the Constitutional provision you cite was amended to allow an income tax.

What part of the 16th Amendment states that earlier tax provisions of the Constitution are repealed?

[Acala]

What part of the 16th Amendment states that earlier tax provisions of the Constitution are repealed?

Amendments supercede all inconsistent prior provisions.

[Elwar]

Amendments supercede all inconsistent prior provisions.

Where in the Constitution does it state this?

[roho76]

Where in the Constitution does it state this?

We mostly follow the Constitution around here. Mostly. You can only make stuff up when it comes to tax provisions.


Originally Posted by Acala
Amendments supercede all inconsistent prior provisions.

So the Bill of Rights is just a list of things the State and Federal government can throw away with a constitutional amendment? Do we really trust our Federal and State governments to act on our behalf when it comes to amending the Constitution?

So you would be for stricter gun laws as long as there was an amendment to the Constitution? What about free speech. I would love for Natzi Pelosi to get a hold of your mind set. That would be great.

Personally I think the founders would have done us a great service by putting "The End" at the bottom of the Constitution. The whole living document thing is troublesome IMO. I don't need the government to do anything except protect my original inherent rights. Basically my right to be left alone.

Congress shall make no law abridging my rights.

[Baptist]

Where in the Constitution does it state this?

Using your logic, the Amendment that gave women the right to vote is not valid, neither is the Amendment that outlawed booze.

[Acala]

Where in the Constitution does it state this?

It doesn't. It is a rule of legal construction that predates the Constitution by several hundred years. For example, if you have two valid wills from the same person, which one controls? The later one. If you amend a contract and the provisions of the amendment are inconsistent with the original contract, the amendment controls. If a statute is amended and there is a conflict, the amendment controls. You don't need to specifically repeal a prior provision.

You will note that many changes were made to the Constitution by amendment and very few bothered to repeal the provision being amended.

And even if there were some ambiguity about the language of the 16th amendment, the legislative intent is clear and that would control if there was uncertainty.

[Acala]

So the Bill of Rights is just a list of things the State and Federal government can throw away with a constitutional amendment?

The Bill of Rights, as part of the Constitution, could be amended or repealed, if that is what you mean. The Constitution was written with a procedure for changing it. However, some States might argue that the Bill of Rights was an inducement to join the compact and that removing them voids the agreement.



Do we really trust our Federal and State governments to act on our behalf when it comes to amending the Constitution?

I don't.


So you would be for stricter gun laws as long as there was an amendment to the Constitution?

Tut tut. I am just reporting the legal realities. I have not said I approve of the arrangement or how it might be used. But an amendment to the Constitution that gave the Federal government power to regulate guns WOULD be Constitutional. A bad idea, but lawful. Also not necessary, it would seem, as the Constitution is no longer enforced as a substantive limitation on Federal power anyway.


Personally I think the founders would have done us a great service by putting "The End" at the bottom of the Constitution. The whole living document thing is troublesome IMO. I don't need the government to do anything except protect my original inherent rights. Basically my right to be left alone.

The founders intentionally made the Constitution amendable. It is the fault of subsequent generations that we allowed it to be amended badly.

[Baptist]

And even if there were some ambiguity about the language of the 16th amendment, the legislative intent is clear and that would control if there was uncertainty.

+1

Jefferson stated that when looking at the Constitution, you need to see what the intent was of those who wrote it-- otherwise, it might as well just be a blank piece of paper. Language morphs and changes over time. Does "arms" today mean the same thing as back then? I have an 1828 dictionary and I can tell you that in the past 200 years words have changed dramatically. So when looking at any text of the Constitution, we should focus on what the people who wrote it were trying to accomplish (versus arguing semantics over what word means what).

[Acala]

Using your logic, the Amendment that gave women the right to vote is not valid, neither is the Amendment that outlawed booze.

You are correct. There is no need to expressly repeal a provision with an amendment. You simply state what the law will be subsequent to the amendment and that voids any inconsistent prior provisions.

With statutory law, superceded provisions are usually repealed and removed from the code. But that is just for convenience because the codes are so big and are changed so often you would never be able to find the current law if you had to check all the amendments each time you looked at a code provision. The Constitution is mercifullly brief and the amendments are few, so it is not a problem to leave the superceded provisions in place..

[roho76]

Using your logic, the Amendment that gave women the right to vote is not valid, neither is the Amendment that outlawed booze.

Really? I hope this is sarcasm.

I was unaware the Constitution banned women from voting which would then require a Constitutional amendment. And in cases like New Jersey in the 1800's banning women from voting, well that would suck to live there and they should move to another state if those rights are what they wanted. New Jersey would have learned pretty quick that denying women the right to vote was probably the worst idea ever.

And are you actually advocating prohibition with the second part of your comment? I don't understand your argument? Where's MelissaWV to learn you about comprehension?

[Elwar]

Using your logic, the Amendment that gave women the right to vote is not valid, neither is the Amendment that outlawed booze.

What part of the Constitution stated that women weren't allowed to vote before the 19th Amendment? There's no conflict.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that outlawed booze.

The 16th Amendment didn't repeal the previous tax laws in the Constitution.

[LibertyEagle]

+1

Jefferson stated that when looking at the Constitution, you need to see what the intent was of those who wrote it-- otherwise, it might as well just be a blank piece of paper. Language morphs and changes over time. Does "arms" today mean the same thing as back then? I have an 1828 dictionary and I can tell you that in the past 200 years words have changed dramatically. So when looking at any text of the Constitution, we should focus on what the people who wrote it were trying to accomplish (versus arguing semantics over what word means what).

And THIS is what the Supreme Court was really supposed to do. Not make law.

[roho76]

+1

Jefferson stated that when looking at the Constitution, you need to see what the intent was of those who wrote it-- otherwise, it might as well just be a blank piece of paper. Language morphs and changes over time. Does "arms" today mean the same thing as back then? I have an 1828 dictionary and I can tell you that in the past 200 years words have changed dramatically. So when looking at any text of the Constitution, we should focus on what the people who wrote it were trying to accomplish (versus arguing semantics over what word means what).


You are correct. There is no need to expressly repeal a provision with an amendment. You simply state what the law will be subsequent to the amendment and that voids any inconsistent prior provisions.

With statutory law, superceded provisions are usually repealed and removed from the code. But that is just for convenience because the codes are so big and are changed so often you would never be able to find the current law if you had to check all the amendments each time you looked at a code provision. The Constitution is mercifullly brief and the amendments are few, so it is not a problem to leave the superceded provisions in place..


So we just don't understand the Federal Reserve? And in order to End the Fed we will need an amendment to the Constitution? Maybe we just don't understand it because the words have changed in the last hundred years.

[Acala]

I was unaware the Constitution banned women from voting which would then require a Constitutional amendment.


lol. Check out the 19th amendment. That gave women the vote. Only men could vote prior to that.

[Acala]

So we just don't understand the Federal Reserve? And in order to End the Fed we will need an amendment to the Constitution? Maybe we just don't understand it because the words have changed in the last hundred years.

I don't understand what you are saying. The Constitution did not authorize the creation fo the Federal Reserve. The Constitution also did not authorize an income tax - until it was amended.

[Baptist]

What part of the Constitution stated that women weren't allowed to vote before the 19th Amendment? There's no conflict.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that outlawed booze.

The 16th Amendment didn't repeal the previous tax laws in the Constitution.


Elwar and Roho76,

The 15th Amendment allowed discrimination based upon sex. When they wrote the 19th, they did not refer to the 15th. It was already understood that women could not vote, there was no need to state the obvious and give background info when writing the 19th.

Similarly, when writing the 18th to ban booze, they did not give background info stating that "the Constitution does not give the Feds permission to ban booze, therefore we are enacting this Amendment." Everyone already knew and understood that the Feds had no authority to ban booze, so there is no need to give background info in the 18th.

My point is the same as Acala's, that an Amendment allows or disallows an action, and overrides everything prior that is in conflict with the new Amendment. Just because an Amendment does not give background information, state the obvious defacto situation on the ground, or point to previous text in the Constitution, does not mean that the new Amendment is void. This means that the 16th Amendment does allow the government to implement the income tax. Do I agree with the income tax? No. but the 16th allows it.

[Acala]

What part of the Constitution stated that women weren't allowed to vote before the 19th Amendment? There's no conflict.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that outlawed booze.

The 16th Amendment didn't repeal the previous tax laws in the Constitution.

Okay. If you say so. But no judge - or anyone else who understands statutory construction - is going to take you seriously. So you are wasting your time.

[Elwar]

Elwar and Roho76,

The 15th Amendment allowed discrimination based upon sex.

The 15th Amendment has nothing to do with sex.

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about sex until the 19th Amendment. Thus there is no conflict. The 19th Amendment restricts Congress from discriminating based on sex.

The 1st Amendment restricts the government from supressing free speech. It's not countering another part of the Constitution that mentions where it can supress free speech. Same with gun laws, etc.

[AuH2O]

The 16th Amendment didn't repeal the previous tax laws in the Constitution.

Just to be clear, in proposing the 16th Amendment, do you think they were:

a) sloppy, and just forgot a repeal?
b) tricky, because leaving out a repeal somehow expedited passage?
c) just fooling around proposing a contradictory law they didn't think actually would do anything for shits and giggles?

Is there another option I'm missing?

[Acala]

Just to be clear, in proposing the 16th Amendment, do you think they were:

a) sloppy, and just forgot a repeal?
b) tricky, because leaving out a repeal somehow expedited passage?
c) just fooling around proposing a contradictory law they didn't think actually would do anything for shits and giggles?

Is there another option I'm missing?

d) Really didn't WANT an income tax but their loved ones were being held hostage by reptilians who were forcing them to do it. But they thought they could cleverly fool the reptilians by not specifically repealing the existing provision and thereby create a means for invalidating the law, which would be ingored by every legal scholar for 90 years until it was discovered by some self-educated legal genius on the internets. And now we are saved!!!

[roho76]

lol. Check out the 19th amendment. That gave women the vote. Only men could vote prior to that.

The Constitution never says anything about denying a Womens right to vote nor about slavery or a Negros right to vote for that matter. The 19th amendments made it so the states can't restrict that right. New Jersey was already breaking the law. We didn't need an amendment for that.


I don't understand what you are saying. The Constitution did not authorize the creation fo the Federal Reserve. The Constitution also did not authorize an income tax - until it was amended.

I know. But only Congress can coin money and no tax shall be laid unless they are apportioned which is the opposite of the income tax. How are we in disagreement here. Your advocating these things just because they amended the Constitution and I say bullshit. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the power to do that.

Look, I hate the Fed and the income tax, but there seems to me to be not as much opposition to the income tax as there is to the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve when they were created together and for a single purpose. To loot the citizens of this country through taxation and inflation. How can you be for abolishing the Federal Reserve and say that the income tax is legal when it's obvious they are both illegal. Printing money is counterfeiting and income tax is slavery. period.

According to your argument they can get rid of the right to have guns and free speech and pretty much do what ever they want as long as they have an amendment to the Constitution which these days wouldn't be hard to do considering the yahoo's they have at both the State and Federal levels.

[AuH2O]

d) Really didn't WANT an income tax but their loved ones were being held hostage by reptilians who were forcing them to do it. But they thought they could cleverly fool the reptilians by not specifically repealing the existing provision and thereby create a means for invalidating the law, which would be ingored by every legal scholar for 90 years until it was discovered by some self-educated legal genius on the internets. And now we are saved!!!

Shit, I left off the obvious choice!

[WaltM]

The law professor might want to read the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

And he addressed this, that's what the 16th Amendment did, NO NEW TAXES, but it created a new status for the existing taxation power.

But hey, feel free to make these arguments in court.

[WaltM]

Agreed on all fronts.
I'd also add that instead of going with the ridiculous "SHOW ME THE LAW" argument on the income tax, he should have gone with the moral argument (ala Mark Stevens', what services do you want provided at the barrel of a gun?).

I respect what Russo was trying to accomplish, but it really didn't change much.

I think it backfired, as it will with 9/11 truthers, that serves to show their lack of critical thinking.

[WaltM]

Where in the Constitution does it state this?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Constitution is the supreme law?

What would it take to convince you you are wrong?

[Elwar]

Just to be clear, in proposing the 16th Amendment, do you think they were:

a) sloppy, and just forgot a repeal?

There was a lot of sloppiness with the 16th Amendment. Including states changing the language to mean the complete opposite before voting on it.

There was also a lot of deception about what it would actually do. Touting it as a tax on the top 1%.

Much like the deceptive language of the FairTax proposal that makes it seem like one thing but leaves huge back doors for a complete redistribution of wealth.

[Acala]

Your advocating these things just because they amended the Constitution and I say bullshit. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the power to do that. .

I am not advocating anything. I am merely reporting that the Constitution was amended to allow the income tax. And the Constitution as originall drafted and ratified provides a process for amending it. What did you think that meant?



Look, I hate the Fed and the income tax, but there seems to me to be not as much opposition to the income tax as there is to the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve when they were created together and for a single purpose. To loot the citizens of this country through taxation and inflation. How can you be for abolishing the Federal Reserve and say that the income tax is legal when it's obvious they are both illegal. Printing money is counterfeiting and income tax is slavery. period. .

The income tax is terrible. I agree. So is the Federal Reserve. But the Constitution was specifically amended to allow the income tax. That doesn't mean I like it. But it is Constitutional.


According to your argument they can get rid of the right to have guns and free speech and pretty much do what ever they want as long as they have an amendment to the Constitution which these days wouldn't be hard to do considering the yahoo's they have at both the State and Federal levels.

The Constitution was written to allow amendment. No parts of it are exempt to amendment. So, yes, it could be amended to essentially eliminate the Bill of Rights. However, as I said in a prior post, I think the States could argue that repealing the Bill of Rights without their permission would void the compact since the ratification of the Constitution was predicated on adoption of a Bill of Rights.

[WaltM]

Using your logic, the Amendment that gave women the right to vote is not valid, neither is the Amendment that outlawed booze.

Exactly, this is the kind of absurdity you arrive at when you argue with "Constitutionalists" they either have their own interpretation of the Constitution with no legal or political expert shares, or they disagree with themselves where to cherry pick and follow the Constitution.

[roho76]

Just to be clear, in proposing the 16th Amendment, do you think they were:

a) sloppy, and just forgot a repeal?
b) tricky, because leaving out a repeal somehow expedited passage?
c) just fooling around proposing a contradictory law they didn't think actually would do anything for shits and giggles?

Is there another option I'm missing?


d) Really didn't WANT an income tax but their loved ones were being held hostage by reptilians who were forcing them to do it. But they thought they could cleverly fool the reptilians by not specifically repealing the existing provision and thereby create a means for invalidating the law, which would be ingored by every legal scholar for 90 years until it was discovered by some self-educated legal genius on the internets. And now we are saved!!!

This is just getting ridiculous anymore.

(e) doesn't matter because they're not in conflict.

You know some of your arguments are worse than a 5 year old.

[Elwar]

But hey, feel free to make these arguments in court.

Don't worry. I have accepted the fact that they have more guns than I do and I submit to the mafia and pay my dues.

You join many others in bringing up to anyone questioning the All Mighty IRS, the fact that they can jail you for little reason. When in doubt, bring up the thuggery powers of the IRS. That argument trumps all.

[WaltM]

Really? I hope this is sarcasm.

I was unaware the Constitution banned women from voting which would then require a Constitutional amendment.


Now I hope YOU'RE sarcastic.

The right to vote is a "positive" right which needs to be given (and without given, does not exist) , therefore, you do not need to "ban" it unless it's ever existed (or expected to exist).

If it existed, what was the 15th & 19th Amendment would be unnecessary.



And in cases like New Jersey in the 1800's banning women from voting, well that would suck to live there and they should move to another state if those rights are what they wanted. New Jersey would have learned pretty quick that denying women the right to vote was probably the worst idea ever.


So you agree that it's legally acceptable.

[WaltM]

Don't worry. I have accepted the fact that they have more guns than I do and I submit to the mafia and pay my dues.


Good.




You join many others in bringing up to anyone questioning the All Mighty IRS, the fact that they can jail you for little reason. When in doubt, bring up the thuggery powers of the IRS. That argument trumps all.

I don't need to, feel free to test them.

Don't kill the messenger. I'm not paid to help them. Nor is any tax protestor paying me to keep him out of prison.

"It’s not a crime not to pay income taxes, so long as you truly believe you don't have to."
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/belief.htm

[WaltM]

And THIS is what the Supreme Court was really supposed to do. Not make law.

Is there a difference between "making law" and "making an interpretation of the law, based on understanding of the writers' intentions"?

I think you'll say "making law" means "make it up on your own without thinking of the original writers", but if it's so clear and obvious how NOT to deviate from the intentions, would we need an interpreter?

Nobody is perfect, but isn't the whole point of having a human being be the interpreter, decade after decade, to have a somewhat biased and somewhat flexible understanding of the law as it applies to us today?

[Elwar]

Nor is any tax protestor paying me to keep him out of prison.



Why would someone be in prison for protesting taxes?

[WaltM]

Why would someone be in prison for protesting taxes?

I thought you already knew.

"because of the thuggery almighty IRS"

There are varying levels of protesting, some are more serious than others.

[Elwar]

I thought you already knew.

"because of the thuggery almighty IRS"

There are varying levels of protesting, some are more serious than others.

Do you consider illegal imigrants "imigration protesters"? Or marijuana users "drug protesters"?

Why do you use the term "tax protesters"?

Or is that just because the IRS uses that as a propaganda term to lump together anyone who questions the tax laws?

Protesting taxes is completely different from not paying them.

[AuH2O]

This is just getting ridiculous anymore.

(e) doesn't matter because they're not in conflict.

You know some of your arguments are worse than a 5 year old.

That's fine if it's your position, but my argument makes perfect sense since Elwar was expressly saying that there was a conflict, and that the original constitutional language invalidates the language of the 16th Amendment. Anyone smarter than a five year old (and you imply in your post that you think you are) would see that there are few other explanations granting the assumption that they do conflict.

[WaltM]

Do you consider illegal imigrants "imigration protesters"? Or marijuana users "drug protesters"?


yes.



Why do you use the term "tax protesters"?


tax protestors, tax evaders, useless without context. what's your question?



Or is that just because the IRS uses that as a propaganda term to lump together anyone who questions the tax laws?


they don't need to, call them skeptics if you like, or deniers.





Protesting taxes is completely different from not paying them.

ok fine. is evasion a form of protesting?

if I corrected the word protest to evasion and offending, would you be happy?

[WaltM]

That's fine if it's your position, but my argument makes perfect sense since Elwar was expressly saying that there was a conflict, and that the original constitutional language invalidates the language of the 16th Amendment. Anyone smarter than a five year old (and you imply in your post that you think you are) would see that there are few other explanations granting the assumption that they do conflict.

are you trying to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to enact a 16th Amendment based on the original language of the Constitution?

[AuH2O]

are you trying to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to enact a 16th Amendment based on the original language of the Constitution?

Not in any way. I was simply asking Elwar, given his position that the original text of the constitution invalidates the 16th Amendment, to explain why those who proposed it omitted language to repeal the pre-existing restrictions. Did they do it intentionally, knowing it wouldn't "take," or where they incompetent? Is there some nefarious in between possibility?

I don't think they conflict in the first place, so it's all moot to me. I was just trying to understand how the position that they do could be explained in context.

[Romulus]

i just thought with all the people you've met, places you've been, 9/11 truthers you criticize, you'd have see that at the least.

Here's a good page debunking the film to the style of Michael Moore.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

That link is laughable.. especially this part:


It appears that Mr. Russo didn't give the former Commissioner advance notice of the questions he would be asking -- at one point, the former Commissioner says that he was caught unprepared.

HA HA! Oh , the poor commissioner wasn't given a script of questions beforehand?! Breakout the violins. :rolleyes:

Fail.

[Elwar]

ok fine. is evasion a form of protesting?

if I corrected the word protest to evasion and offending, would you be happy?

Thousands of people go out on April 15th and protest taxes, yet they pay their taxes and don't end up in prison.

Many people evade paying taxes just because they don't want to pay taxes. They're not protesting taxes, they're just not paying. They are not tax protesters.

I am an individual. I do have some legitimate questions about the source of our government's power that I've not found sufficient answers to, mainly propaganda.

I have accepted that it was ratified although it didn't meet the proper amount of votes. The fact that the Secretary of State ratified it, makes it the law. Just as our current Secretary of State could write up an Amendment right now and ratify it and it would become law. Making the Secreatary of State the most powerful position in the United States government.

[WaltM]

Not in any way. I was simply asking Elwar, given his position that the original text of the constitution invalidates the 16th Amendment, to explain why those who proposed it omitted language to repeal the pre-existing restrictions. Did they do it intentionally, knowing it wouldn't "take," or where they incompetent? Is there some nefarious in between possibility?

I don't think they conflict in the first place, so it's all moot to me. I was just trying to understand how the position that they do could be explained in context.

so you agree, that if people believe there's a conflict, they must at least propose a solution to "legalize" and "justify" something that a 16th Amendment requires to be enacted?

[WaltM]

Thousands of people go out on April 15th and protest taxes, yet they pay their taxes and don't end up in prison.


yeah, so the broke no law.



Many people evade paying taxes just because they don't want to pay taxes. They're not protesting taxes, they're just not paying. They are not tax protesters.


How is "not wanting to, and not doing it" not protesting? What do you call it?



I am an individual. I do have some legitimate questions about the source of our government's power that I've not found sufficient answers to, mainly propaganda.


good for you.



I have accepted that it was ratified although it didn't meet the proper amount of votes. The fact that the Secretary of State ratified it, makes it the law. Just as our current Secretary of State could write up an Amendment right now and ratify it and it would become law. Making the Secreatary of State the most powerful position in the United States government.

that's all they care about :)

[WaltM]

That link is laughable.. especially this part:

HA HA! Oh , the poor commissioner wasn't given a script of questions beforehand?! Breakout the violins. :rolleyes:

Fail.

the writer of the page says "he made a poor performance" and he agrees with RUsso, that people DESERVE AN ANSWER, but he didn't deliver.

[AuH2O]

so you agree, that if people believe there's a conflict, they must at least propose a solution to "legalize" and "justify" something that a 16th Amendment requires to be enacted?

This has become a pointless back and forth. I simply wanted to know if he (or anyone who thinks there is a conflict) thought those passing the 16th Amendment were idiots for not realizing the conflict, busybodies for realizing the conflict and passing a law they thought would not take effect, something darker wherein they realized the conflict, but somehow by not addressing it they were more easily able to pass the law (?), or some other explanation. Because if the conflict exists, there must be a way to explain why Congress and the states supported it. This question is completely separate with how to actually legally justify it. Simply -- how did they justify it at the time?

[WaltM]

This has become a pointless back and forth. I simply wanted to know if he (or anyone who thinks there is a conflict) thought those passing the 16th Amendment were idiots for not realizing the conflict, busybodies for realizing the conflict and passing a law they thought would not take effect, or some other explanation. Because if the conflict exists, there must be a way to explain why Congress and the states supported it. This question is completely separate with how to actually legally justify it. Simply -- how did they justify it at the time?

no, it's not a separate question.

obviously they justified it as the way they understood it, which is, like you said "don't see the problem".

those who see the problem need to show how to resolve it, or else admit, a 16th Amendment can NEVER be passed and NEVER be enacted, enabled, legalized.

but you're right, we don't need to argue, see what they say.

[Galileo Galilei]

I just watched Aaron Russo's Freedom To Fascism for the first time tonight. (yeah my reading / video list really is that backlogged heh)



My initial thoughts...


I wish the production value was higher. AJ's films tend to lack substance but at least they look good, in fact sometimes over doing the flair. However FTF needed a lot more dressing up. Superficial I know but it is important.

Also it was too long, or at least the timing / pacing of it was very slow. The subject matter didn't bridge very well together either. Going from taxation to the Fed to RFID/ID, e-voting, and globalization seemed like it was taking enormous jumps without any real attempt to mention how these subjects related, not that there was time for that.

I think he should've left the globalization aspect of it out at the end because he couldn't have given it the attention it deserved. Also anyone who was right leaning conservative watching it would've probably have been confused by it without having prior knowledge or understanding.

And the title itself I think turns off many right-leaning conservative types too. Since Bush was called a fascist by many on the left the natural assumption is that the film was and excuse to Bush bash- which it really was not.

I think he could've done a bit better job explaining the existence and role of the Fed. Tom Woods and Ron put it in plain English very well for example. My favorite segment was the first where the validity income tax was questioned. I feel that was a bit erratic in the way it was both handled and explained. More graphics, charts, and animations could've been used to visually explain this.


All in all it was a good film, I just think it needs some polish here and there. I am glad I watched it.

Glad you watched the film. The best part is when Aaron interviews the former IRS Commissioner, or whatever his title was in the first half hour, I think his name was Sheldon Koen, or something like that. The film quality production value is a lot better if you get the hard copy.

[Acala]

This has become a pointless back and forth.

Of course it has! It's WaltM! Thread killer.

[Galileo Galilei]

is this the film were Aaron Russo just made up a Woodrow Wilson quote?

The quote is not "made up". First of all, the quote is widely attributed to Wilson, much like ancient literature attributes quotes to Socrates or other people like that.

Second, the quote is documented to be a few separate quotes of Wilson put together into one quote, it it captures the actual spirit of Wilson.

[low preference guy]

The quote is not "made up". First of all, the quote is widely attributed to Wilson, much like ancient literature attributes quotes to Socrates or other people like that.

Second, the quote is documented to be a few separate quotes of Wilson put together into one quote, it it captures the actual spirit of Wilson.

First paragraph: It's not made up.
Second paragraph: It's made up.

Making things up is a really quick and effective way to lose credibility and have people not consider anything else you have to say.

[Galileo Galilei]

First paragraph: It's not made up.
Second paragraph: It's made up.

Making things up is a really quick and effective way to lose credibility and have people not consider anything else you have to say.

The quote is part of our received history. If you want to revise history, you can do it.

[WaltM]

Glad you watched the film. The best part is when Aaron interviews the former IRS Commissioner, or whatever his title was in the first half hour, I think his name was Sheldon Koen, or something like that. The film quality production value is a lot better if you get the hard copy.

read the responses in this thread.

thanks

[Galileo Galilei]

read the responses in this thread.

thanks

I did. What was I supposed to look for?

[Romulus]

I did. What was I supposed to look for?

Hijacks and discredit attempts?

[Galileo Galilei]

Hijacks and discredit attempts?

none of them worked on me.