1
   

912,548views since8-20-06, 5 stars, O'Bill says WATCH THIS!

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:09 pm
Like momma used to say "If Sally jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump off too?"
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:09 pm
Yet another for anyone still reading:

This one gives the most complete description of the video.



Quote:

America: From Freedom to Fascism
Year Released: 2006
Directed By: Aaron Russo
(NR, 105 min.)




Filmmaker Aaron Russo and a swelling movement of angry Americans make the case in this documentary that there is no law on the books that requires Americans to pay income taxes. Although Russo's film is grounded in Libertarian theory, the producer-turned-filmmaker presents some very provocative information in the film's first half, which argues that there is no legal basis for the payment of income taxes. He looks at the origins of the 16th Amendment and concludes, as many other tax resistors have over the years, that the amendment was never legally ratified by the states before its implementation in 1913. Russo speaks with former Internal Revenue Service workers who've grown disenchanted with the agency's inability to cough up a specific statute to support their endeavors and also speaks with various experts, authors, and average citizens. Russo spars with former IRS Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen, who tries to explain what is meant by "voluntary compliance" and the meaning of various Supreme Court rulings that he finds inapplicable to the IRS. Yet the majority of Russo's speakers are supporters of his cause - a cause that this former music promoter; former Bette Midler manager, producer of the films The Rose and Trading Places and failed candidate in the Nevada governor's race is championing with this self-produced film. His efforts have been rewarded with a genuine grassroots campaign of viewer support, and in one of the odder examples of politics making strange bedfellows America: From Freedom to Fascism is being distributed by Cinema Libre - the independent company that has also released such left-identified fare as Uncovered: The War on Iraq, WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception, The Future of Food, and Tim Robbins' Embedded Live. In between his experts' testimonies, Russo also highlights several cases of resistors' legal battles with the IRS that cast the agency as a bully that relies on intimidation and fear to get what it wants. However, just as the film's arguments start growing persuasive, Russo (who also narrates the movie) undermines his work by freefalling into a tangled web of all-out conspiracy-mongering. The Federal Reserve is taken to task for being the work of a rich cabal of banking interests. The decline of the gold standard and the secrecy and lack of auditing of Fort Knox are also seen as conspiratorial. Next, the film segues into the evils of the USA PATRIOT Act, electronic voting machines, national ID cards, and the new world order. It concludes with an impassioned plea for civil disobedience, but not before allowing Texas congressman Ron Paul to have the last word. (The Libertarian-turned-Republican Paul, a central Texas representative and physician, is known in the House as Dr. No for his consistent voting against anything not required by the Constitution.) Though the technical credits and music used in America: From Freedom to Fascism are a bit substandard for a theatrical release, it's good to see that passionate cinematic rabble-rousing does not rest solely in the hands of the left.


Marjorie Baumgarten [2006-07-28]


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:11 pm
The NYTimes story on it is here
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ex=1167973200&en=713285e079a9b443&ei=5070



Quote:
...Near the film's beginning Mr. Russo says, and others appear on screen asserting, that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages.

Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress, but Mr. Russo denied this fact.

"Title 26," Mr. Russo said in an interview last week, "is not the law, it is I.R.S. regulations and to be a law it has to be passed by Congress." Mr. Russo added that he had studied the matter closely and was confident that he had the facts.


Do you really trust a guy that doesn't understand that Title 26 of the US Code is law passed by congress?

The arguments are the same old BS that has been refuted and to further quote the NYTimes story..

Quote:
Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:16 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Fair enough Timber. (Vote please)

Fair enough - I voted.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:18 pm
parados wrote:
Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.
That doesn't strike you as a little odd? Watch the last 25 minutes or so of the film, Parados, and I think you too will find something you like. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:21 pm
O'Bill, I think you are trying to tug at our collective hearts. OK we watched. We loved it! Feel better?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:24 pm
And by the way, if you write your urls like this:
Code: [url=HTTP.whatever.com]Here or This or whatever[/url]
they won't stretch pages and will be easier on the eye.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:33 pm
From the reviews, it sounds like Aaron Russo and Michael Moore have a lot in common, both as videographers and crusaders for their respective agendas.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
parados wrote:
Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.
That doesn't strike you as a little odd? Watch the last 25 minutes or so of the film, Parados, and I think you too will find something you like. :wink:


Why would it strike me as odd? It is odd that people argue something that courts have said is not a valid legal argument. It is odd that some people expect courts to continue to listen to those silly arguments. It isn't odd that Congress has passed a law to try to prevent people from tying up the courts with an argument that has no standing.

Quote:
Section 6673. Sanctions and costs awarded by courts

(a) Tax court proceedings
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that -
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained
by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous
or groundless, or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available
administrative remedies,

the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay
to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.



I find the film to be poor quality and entirely misleading. It makes Michael Moore look like a genius and completely truthful. (Which he isn't.) It would be a much better film was about how the world was flat and it was a conspiracy to tell us it isn't. Recycling arguments that have been found to be completely without merit doesn't make for a good film.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 10:58 pm
parados wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
parados wrote:
Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them.
That doesn't strike you as a little odd? Watch the last 25 minutes or so of the film, Parados, and I think you too will find something you like. :wink:


Why would it strike me as odd? It is odd that people argue something that courts have said is not a valid legal argument. It is odd that some people expect courts to continue to listen to those silly arguments. It isn't odd that Congress has passed a law to try to prevent people from tying up the courts with an argument that has no standing.
Can you sight any similar law that will subject you to fines for attempting to include SC rulings in your defense and/or for attempting to invoke your 5th amendment rights?

Quote:
Section 6673. Sanctions and costs awarded by courts

(a) Tax court proceedings
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that -
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained
by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous
or groundless, or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available
administrative remedies,

the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay
to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.



parados wrote:
I find the film to be poor quality and entirely misleading. It makes Michael Moore look like a genius and completely truthful. (Which he isn't.) It would be a much better film was about how the world was flat and it was a conspiracy to tell us it isn't. Recycling arguments that have been found to be completely without merit doesn't make for a good film.
Interesting assessment... but how did you fail to notice the other 1/2 dozen + issues, other than Income Tax, it addresses if you watched it? I'll caution you to think before you mislead any further because you've argued on the same side as that producer more than once.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jan, 2007 11:11 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Another review...
But the deeper Russo digs, the less he finds...

Truer words have rarely been spoken.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 12:28 am
Laughing Did you watch it Joe?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 07:44 am
Bill,
Just because Russo throws every issue he can find at the end doesn't make him right or make him more credible. I'm suprised he doesn't bring up the vatican or the trilateral commission. Which issues do you think I would like? Would you argue that I liked what Ed Gein did because we both like lamp shades?

As for the argument that people can't bring up SC rulings or their 5th amendment rights, care to show me where they are prevented from doing that? There is a difference between making a valid argument or arguing a point without merit that the SC and every other court has ruled against.
1. Arguing that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified is frivilous
2. Arguing that the tax law doesn't include the word "liable" is frivilous.
3. Arguing that the monetary system in the US is unconstitutional is frivilous.

No amount of posturing on your side will change the fact that the arguments Russo makes about tax law are not supported by law or court rulings.

You might want to check out the actual transcript with Judge Fox and not Russo's quote pulled completely out of context. Fox states, "I'm sure no court is going to say the 16th amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 08:05 am
I'm glad i read the entire thread before wasting my time downloading the video. That a million people have viewed the video is not evidence that it is worth looking at. That also ignores that half a million might have begun the download, seen what they were getting into, and said: "My god, i've got better things to do"--just before they backed out of the page.

Even had there been a million viewers, that's no evidence of the value of the video. As Anatol France put it, because 50,000 people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

I'm glad that i read the thread first because i don't intend to waste my time on anti-income tax arguments--i first heard the argument that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional from a self-described "libertarian" more than 30 years ago. He used to brag that he'd never paid income tax. He was earning less than $3/hour, and was about 25 years of age. Yeah--i'm sure the IRS was looking high and low for that night watchman.

Thanks in particular to Butterfly for the reviews which demonstrated that this drivel is tired old arguments, and to Parados for pointing out that it's full of bogus "legal" arguments--saves someone else the trouble.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 06:07 pm
Quite true Set. I'm unimpressed by consensus when determining right and wrong as well. What impressed me was the perfect 5 STAR rating...after 8,000+ votes... presumably bothered with predominantly by people who actually watched the damn thing. It was apparently considered very entertaining, at least. I for one was dazzled by the litany of historical quotes, intrigued by the suggested implications of the National ID and RF senders in products and now some people, and was thoroughly impressed by the timing of still photos and quotes at appropriate times. My natural assumption was that anyone who liked Fahrenheit 911 would like this film better, as it was infinitely more entertaining in it's broadness of scope. The actual result is reminiscent of discussions over Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard... in that discussion is dominated by those negatively opining from ignorance. Predictable, I suppose, since those who generally think as I do will naturally assume it's crap and those who generally oppose me won't even give it the benefit of the doubt.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 08:47 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Quite true Set. I'm unimpressed by consensus when determining right and wrong as well. What impressed me was the perfect 5 STAR rating...after 8,000+ votes... presumably bothered with predominantly by people who actually watched the damn thing. It was apparently considered very entertaining, at least. I for one was dazzled by the litany of historical quotes, intrigued by the suggested implications of the National ID and RF senders in products and now some people, and was thoroughly impressed by the timing of still photos and quotes at appropriate times. My natural assumption was that anyone who liked Fahrenheit 911 would like this film better, as it was infinitely more entertaining in it's broadness of scope. The actual result is reminiscent of discussions over Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard... in that discussion is dominated by those negatively opining from ignorance. Predictable, I suppose, since those who generally think as I do will naturally assume it's crap and those who generally oppose me won't even give it the benefit of the doubt.

Bill,
I happen to think its a fantastic movie and a wonderful vehicle to educate people about the fed and other matters. This country would do a lot better for itself without having a private national bank.

It would do well for this country to issue its own currency once again.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:22 pm
I thank you for the response (and assume you voted...). It never ceases to amaze me when people bash things they haven't even read, seen or heard. Some of the folks above would truly enjoy it as well, if they weren't too busy opining from ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 10:14 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I thank you for the response (and assume you voted...). It never ceases to amaze me when people bash things they haven't even read, seen or heard. Some of the folks above would truly enjoy it as well, if they weren't too busy opining from ignorance.


Yes, you are correct. I suppose that 'pack mentality' is what the government counts on to continue fooling the people. Kind of like in the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.'

This 3rd private national bank we have will eventually go the way of the 2nd bank because it will have created all of the monetary problems that people think its designed to prevent, however it will take a president like Andrew Jackson who isnt afraid to stand up to the people in control, and with the Bank shall go the IRS as well to the betterment of the people and the nation.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 11:00 pm
I'd be interested to read your take on THIS tax proposal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 11:03:11