Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Capone Is Reduced To Paranoid, Quivering Goo After AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM!!

Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

I don't mean to invoke the name of Harry Knowles in my reviews two weeks in a row, but in the same lengthy conversation in which he accused me of being too old to appreciate Lady in the Water (apparently most of America was also "too old" this past weekend), he also asked me a question I never thought another human being on this planet would ask me: "Have you seen a film called America: Freedom to Fascism?" My heart practically jumped out of my chest when he spoke these words.

I had just watched the film a couple of days earlier, and it had scared the crap out of me to such a degree that I was prepared to put it out of my mind until I wrote my review. Harry wasn¹t even sure he would or could write about it. We were in complete agreement on this movie. It looks like it was pieced together using a Commodore 64 computer. The graphics are terrible, the production value is non-existent, and the voiceover by filmmaker Aaron Russo sounds like a lung cancer patient on his last lung. But none of these things will stop the slow-building paranoia levels from simmering in your brain.

If you thought Michael Moore had an agenda with his documentaries, wait until you meet Russo, the movie producer responsible for such gems as The Rose and Trading Places, and the director of the 1989 bomb Rude Awakening. His film begins with a search for the actual law that requires Americans to pay federal income tax (I¹m sure Russo knew going into this project that no such law exits, but the search is still quite interesting).

He talks to tax attorneys, constitutional law experts, former IRS and FBI investigators, writers, anyone who can explain why we are shelling over huge percentages of our income to the federal government when there is no law saying we must. Russo interviews people on the street asking them, "What do you think your income tax pays for?" People assume it's for things like road building, schools, and social programs. But Russo says that income taxes in fact do nothing more than pay off the interest on the national debt.

What follows is Russo's smartly structured dissection of how the Federal Reserve and the world banking leadership has essentially changed the way this country a policing agent for the Fed (which, by the way, we learn is not a government agency, but a private group of bankers making decision about how much money is printed, which in turn effects interest rates, inflation, and all the other financial details that determine whether you will ever be able to buy a home or pay off your credit cards). Sound like the work of a paranoid conspiracy theorist? You bet it is. Does that mean he¹s wrong? Well, he succeeding in making me very nervous.

I could spend many paragraphs of this review detailing Russo's theories and revelations, but hear it directly from Russo in this film, which he narrates and occasionally shows up on camera interviewing various subjects. What some might find fascinating is that Russo doesn¹t lay the blame for the current situation on either left- or right-wing leaders. In his eyes, they are just as much pawns in this game as ordinary citizens. Russo may lose a few people when he gets into discussions of National Identity Cards and microchips under the skin, but the fact remains that these developments are reality. (The day when you¹d be walking down the street and a police officer can stop you and ask to see your "papers" is not a thing of the past any longer.)

Russo sees the United States as having lost its way, headed toward a police state, not so slowly but surely. As nothing more than an eye-opening look at the way financial institutions control our lives, this film is devastating enough, but Russo follows the natural pathways to the worldwide bigger picture. America: Freedom to Fascism is designed to overwhelm and frighten, and Mr. Russo should consider his mission accomplished.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 24, 2006, 2:22 p.m. CST


    by Teamwak

  • July 24, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Death and Taxes

    by Teamwak

    Could you fund a country on taxes from goods only?

  • July 24, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    I've heard nothing but good about this movie

    by WeirdEd

    It's supposed to scare hell out of ya bigtime, in a way that Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't even.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST


    by WeirdEd

    You could fund a country on nothing but import tarrifs. Heck that's how most of our government was funded up until the early part of the 20th century.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    What about a review of the Hot Fuzz clips @ Comicon?

    by Teamwak

    Empireonline has a discription of it. Sounds amazing. Cant wait for that flik.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Cheers WierdEd.

    by Teamwak

    I often wonder who America owes all its foriegn debt to. The UK owes you loads, who do you owe? Would we all be in the black or the red if all foreign debt was written off? Heavy stuff.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Complain all you want about this country

    by rubensreviews

    you still got it better than a LOT of people out there.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    I saw this too

    by Bean_

    This will scare the SHIT out of you. I was writing a review, but didn't think this site would want it. I think I'll finish it and send it in.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    16th Amendment?

    by Durendal

    "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Kinda says right there that they can go right ahead and collect income taxes if they damn well want to. I'm wondering how he addressed that one. And how is it he can differentiate between what pays off the national debt and what is used in other projects? Income tax is a huge source of income for the government. There's no way in hell they can use that to spend on the national debt and still fund the rest of the 2.6 trillion or so budget. This movie may have some interesting points to make, but I'm already catching a pungent whiff of bullshit.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:46 p.m. CST

    The U.S. is becoming

    by Shaner Jedi

    more authoritarian.There is a ebb and flow on the margins, but overall our nation is creeping towards a sort of benign-corporatist state. The growth of private armies and the private arms merchants is another area where they're increasingly assuming the role previously held by public defense. It's especially problematic in third world nations with particularly weak democratic insitutions. Lebabnon is a fine example. Weak government = Hezbollah controlling the south with its private militia.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Libertarian! W00t!

    by Engineer_at_peac

    Heh, a Libertarian documentary... gotta love it.

  • July 24, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST

    I hardly think the day when a policeman approach you...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...and ask for your "papers" is right around the corner either. Still, stuff like this interests long as its not left wing nut case stuff

  • July 24, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    He's talking about paying INTEREST on the debt. What is our national debt? What is the interest on that? What is the 2006 U.S. Government's budget?

  • July 24, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Okay, that's it

    by BayouWilly

    let's all move to France. America sucks. You first, Capone.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Durendal,the movie explains that the 14th ammendment is

    by Bean_

    Unconstitutional, and also explains that the definition of income was not extended to private citizens.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:02 p.m. CST

    anchorite, the movie doesn't "bash America"

    by Bean_

    Russo appears genuinally worried about this country, a country he loves, and I love and I'm sure you love. America needs to be fixed, this film shows what exactly is broken.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST

    "The movie explains that the 14th ammendment (sic) is..

    by JonQuixote

    ...Unconstitutional." I'm gonna have to check this out. I'd like to hear the explanation for that one.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST

    I can complain all I want

    by DOGSOUP

    Because this is America and it's my RIGHT to complain. I pay those taxes, I vote in every election, and I know there are lots of countries where if I were to complain I'd be put to death. So I'm proud of my freedom to complain!

  • July 24, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    TB melt down in 5... 4...

    by brycemonkey

    Stop bitching about paying taxes! Jeeze, if you want to live in a civilised country think of paying taxes as 'civic duty'. It pays for all kinds of neato stuff. Notice how there aren't dead bodies lying around clogging up your road network? Taxes baby!

  • July 24, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    I shouldn't really get involved...

    by brycemonkey

    I used to pay taxes but I moved to a tax haven where there is no direct taxation on individuals OR companies. Ha! Ha! :-P

  • July 24, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    The Supreme Court, I believe in the late 1890s or possibly early 1900s, passed a law saying it was unconstitutional for a tax on people's income.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST

    That is pre 14th Ammendment, by the way!

    by Bean_

  • July 24, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Maybe he should go to an actual police state...

    by jimmy_009 see just how far America is from that. Still the tax thing sounds interesting.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:18 p.m. CST

    who's gonna make us pay off our national debt?

    by durhay

    It appears to be a running tab - zero sum thing. We all owe each other anyway.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:21 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    Watch the movie and you'll see we're really not that far off afterall.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    America is great, this film sees problems that will damage this greatness. You would rather see movies that pretend everything is fine, when it so clearly isn't? And oops, I guess you're right, I have no idea which Amendments are what... another point the film makes. Do you know what rights are guaranteed to you in the 1st Amendment?

  • July 24, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Or you could just read this

    by Toby O Notoby Granted I haven't seen the movie, but it seems like this guy slept through a few Econ and Govt. classes...

  • July 24, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Yes, the U.S.A. is a GREAT COUNTRY! WTF .......

    by SydBarretsMyDad wrong with trying to make it better? If something is wrong with your car, you try and fix it, no? Or do you sit there, with smoke pouring out from under the hood, and tell your wife to stop complaining because the neighbors dont even HAVE a car.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    What I tried to say in my other post, but you put it much better :D

  • July 24, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    YEAH!! There you go...

    by Tal111

    ..I'm gonna make an America is great movie!! Of course I'll have to ignore the fact that an election was stolen then ignore Plamegate, Gitmo, an Iraq conflict that has gotten us mired while the region spirals into a world war, not to mention a dozen other scandals that have come and got with barely a raise of the collective head. And DoctorWho? what ass do you have your head shoved up? Yeah dude no way are we anywhere near a police state...or just ignore the fact that whenever a politician speaks these days people around them get arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt you dipshit!

  • July 24, 2006, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Wearing the wrong t-shirt?

    by Poacher

    When did someone get arrested for that? I'm seriously wondering. Sounds like a good flick though!

  • July 24, 2006, 3:41 p.m. CST

    A Theory Is Only A Theory Until....

    by The Ender prove it is a fact. That is why I dont understand when people call things like this, a Conspiracy 'Theory". It's a fact that there is something crooked going on. Something we call a conspiracy. Unfortunately people put labels like left wing, right wing, conservative, fuck-nut, on everything. And then the truth gets muddled and sifted in and out of all these stupid bullshit arguments that a lot of fucktards on these talkbacks get into. And there you have it.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    is this scarier than

    by Guy Gaduois

    "an inconvenient truth"? I hope it has less bullsh*t "science" in it. Saw the trailer off a link a friend sent to me. I'll say this, if Patrick Henry was riding in my car the other night, and he spoke like Chris Rock - whilst I was at a sobriety check point and was stopped by the gestapo and then asked to show license, registration, proof of insurance and then issued a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, Patrick Henry would have asked me to pull over and then he would have kicked my ass for not leading a revolution to overthrow tyranny in the country he helped found. The title alone "freedom to facism" is well based in day to day living. The man does not regulate my morning constitutional, but I'll bet somebody's working on it. Probably through some safe water act that's cluttering some bureaucrat's desk. Tal111 - what's wrong with a "protest free zone" except that it defies everything about freedom. Just sign up for the new "National I Want to Go Ahead and Keep My Constitutional Rights Database", you'll be observed for a few years and see if you're qualified for citizenship.

  • July 24, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Guy Gaduois

    by Tal111

    Well, whatever it takes to stop the terrorists, right pal? Oh you got a problem with searches? What are you, unpartriotic? And just for the record - the T-shirt thing, no I'm not referring to getting thrown out of the capitol. A gentleman in NY was pulled from a motorcade route because the message on his t-shirt signaled to secret service that he may have been hostile towards the prez...far as I know it's still in the courts. But it's all in the name of safety and freedom...HEY LOOK OVER HERE A DISTRACTION!! What were we talking about?

  • July 24, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Any positice characteristics this country had are fast

    by Engineer_at_peac

    eroding. It's not anti-american to recognize that. It's anti-American to ignore it and roll over.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:16 p.m. CST

    I grew up in what you would call a police state

    by Harold The Great

    and also grew up with the American Dream, where people are free, work is appreciated, and it's democracy in it's finest, and there's Coca Cola coming from the fountains. So It rocked my world when I could go work there for a while last year. It wasn't what I expected. Yeah, there are differences between a police state and America. But they're not that fucking huge as some of you guys think. That most of you dismiss criticism of the administration as "unamerican" for example, is not all that reassuring. You really should put your shit together over there, not only for your own shake, but you people having all the bombs makes me kind of weary.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:16 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    "We are not living in a fascist or totalitarian state, nor are we "fast approaching" such a nation." No, but we're sliding towards a nation where private interests make nearly all the decisions at the expense of the common good. Read Madison in the Federalist papers. He talked about it. We're starting to resemble a clientocracy not a democracy. BTW, what is the definition of "Note"? Why are our Federal dollars termed "notes"?

  • July 24, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST

    New World Order

    by DigitalDong

    It's on every dollar bill. Maybe there's some truth to that.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    "not only for your own shake, but you people having all the bombs makes me kind of weary." We're not the only ones with bombs. I'd worry more about a nuke in the hands of a crazy religious zealot than George W. Bush.... :p

  • July 24, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST

    AICN bias

    by talonkarrde

    The points regarding AICN's bias should be "weighed" against the fact that it is a site run by a bunch of fat fucks who just bitch and moan between stuffing twinkies in their bloated pie holes and couldn't be bothered to do anything to improve this country, including VOTE!

  • July 24, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi

    by Harold The Great

    You're partly right. It's just the fact, that we never saw anyone else use it, but you guys.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    "Love it or leave it" types

    by Harry Weinstein

    I have the freedom to say anything I want to about my country and/or the people who run it, and I'm not going fucking anywhere. People who would challenge that should move to fascist states where they can endlessly sing the praises of the government and rat out those who don't. America is founded on a fundamental distrust of the government and the people in it - without that, the system DOES NOT WORK. The right to bear arms isn't about protection from street criminals, it's about protection from a tyrannical government. Love It Or Leave It, my ass. I love it, or else I wouldn't talk shit on the people running it into the ground.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by Coconutradio

    Where've you been? Jesus talks to the man, he's said it himself. He also has admitted that he believes that if you are not Christian, you will go to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. It is the basis of an ongoing argument he's had with Mamma Babs Bush. You can look it up.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    And talonkarrde, the last 2 elections were rigged

    by Coconutradio

    Where have YOU been? Unless you have a sh*tload of cash, your vote is worthless on the national level. Have a nice day.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Every religion is full of zealots

    by talonkarrde

    Coco, EVERY religion basically says, "We're right and they're wrong. If you aren't a good Christian, Muslim, etc. you're going to the pit." Maybe if we cared more about this life than whatever mystical mumbo-jumbo we wouldn't be so ready to judge (or worse walk into a cafe while wearing a suicide vest).

  • July 24, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    did you miss this: :p Pay attention!

  • July 24, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Liberals would make more sense if

    by Shaner Jedi

    they just paid attention a little more and talked alot less.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    This movie sounds like the kind of videos the tinfoil

    by detinue

    hat types like to post links to over on the 9/11 boards.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    "You're partly right. It's just the fact, that we never saw anyone else use it, but you guys." Yes, but other nations were devloping it at the time, including Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan was ready to fight to the death. I submit using the bombs actually saved more Japanese lives than what would've happened during an allied invasion. We would've had mass citizen sipukku and kamikaze attacks like you wouldn't believe.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Did I miss anything?

    by CreasyBear

    Just hopped online. Let's see, liberals hate conservatives. Conservatives hate liberals. "Love it or leave it" versus "Love it = challenge it" back and forth, back and forth. Nope. Haven't missed nothin'. Just checking. Back to the endless debate in which no one changes their mind, yet people expend a lot of energy and frustration trying to get people to change their mind.

  • July 24, 2006, 4:56 p.m. CST

    What I find hilarious....

    by Sejanus

    I think it's hilarious that Capone is evidently too old to like LADY IN THE WATER but doesn't know the FED isn't a government agency: which, by the way, we learn is not a government agency, but a private group of bankers making decision about how much money is printed that's the problem with a lot of the bull here at AICN. They love to pontificate on how America is so horrible and going to hell in a handbasket, but have no idea how the real world works in the first place. This isn't the first time, and won't be the last, but Jesus if your going to complain about something, at least understand it in the first place. It's just like most of the children here complaining about Neoconservatives, but if you asked them to define the concept they wouldn't be able to if their life depended upon it. But then, I guess that's what you get from learning about the world from THE DAILY SHOW. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion - but learning about what you need to know as a citizen of this country from bullshit like THE DAILY SHOW, is as bad as learning it from THE O'REILLY FACTOR. I'd be surprised if most of the wingnuts that post their views on religion/politics/foreign policy could name the U.S. Presidents back to Roosevelt. Moriarty and Merrick seem to be the only ones that not only have a firm grasp on reality, but are informed enough to actually have logical arguments and insights. By the way, Capone. The U.S. government is made up of 3 branches: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and The Judicial Branch. Get a book, start with that, and don't look back until you get to the part where you say, "Why the fuck am I learning about politics from the guy who produced THE ROSE?" Be Seeing You, Sejanus

  • July 24, 2006, 5:09 p.m. CST

    supreme court

    by andenu

    doesn't pass laws ya know, bean_

  • July 24, 2006, 5:14 p.m. CST


    by BrunoTheDog

    All the points I was hoping to make when I got home from work.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:17 p.m. CST


    by Tal111

    Yeah I did find it funny that Capone is just finding out about the Fed. Oh and for the rest of you- this isn't a conservative vs liberal thing...if you think that you really need to do more research beyond your X-Men comics.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:19 p.m. CST

    So much ignorance...

    by Strabo

    Really, it doesn't surprise me that people are still conservative, given that most people are complete fucking morons. We aren't heading for a police state; we're already there. Ever heard of a Terry stop? In Hiibel v. Nevada in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that a Nevada law--requiring people to show proper identification upon request by an officer--was legal. 20 of the 50 states currently have such laws--called Stop and Identify statutes--on the books. Police officers in those states need no provocation to request you show identification. If you refuse or are unable to show identification, they can immediately arrest you. Wiki "Stop and identify statutes" to educate your dumb ignorant fucking asses. Also, these are just two examples from a multitude in the last six years, but Cindy Sheehan was arrested at the State of the Union address earlier this year for wearing a shirt underneath her jacket that said "2245 Dead. How many more?" She wasn't protesting. She wasn't making any noise. She was just sitting in her seat, after having been invited to the Address--and provided a legal, proper ticket for such--by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-CA. On the same evening Beverly Young--wife of Rep. Bill Young R-FL--was also led from the Hall by Capitol Police for wearing a shirt that said "Support the Troops

  • July 24, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST

    United Police States

    by Tal111

    How much evidence do you need? Name the amount and it is there.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    By definition

    by Aonetimething

    An ammendment can't be unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court doesn't have any authority over it one way or the other once something is written into the constitution. And now I'm gone.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Just be careful...

    by Tal111

    what you put on MySpace tm NewsCorp or post to message boards. Enjoy your freedom.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:40 p.m. CST


    by Tal111

    This frog says the water's getting warmer but I think he's just a paranoid.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by BrunoTheDog

    What does conservatism have to do with the things you pointed out? Nevada is a very liberal state. Personally, I think both parties share equal responsibility for the state of our country. Both are basically heading in the same direction, just taking separate paths. And Strabo and Tal111, there are lots of people in other countries who would be willing to debate whether or not the US is currently a "police state". Like the Chinese. We are definitely not a truly free country, but we have a lot more rights as citizens than most others enjoy (and more rights as non-citizens than any other country would allow!!). As for what you can post on the your own website and post what you want. I own three's not that complicated.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Conservatives always end up being wrong...

    by modlight

    By definition they dont want things to change, but change is inevitable. I love that conservatives are coming out now and saying that we should be concerned about the environment and polution. 10 years ago they were labeling people who were worried about that tree hugging hippies. They fought civil rights and lost, they are now realizing stem cell research may be useful, and some are even beginning to realize that Iraq might have been a mistake. The Republican party's motto should be "A Day late and a dollar strong."

  • July 24, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by Tal111

    Well gee, yes, compared to other countries we do have a lot more freedom but if that's how you're going to gauge it then you're kind of playing into the hands of the powers that be, no? And you can get a website and post what you want...just so long as it's not "hate speech" or incendiary. But the parameters are always changing. Just ask any Muslim who was hauled in after 9/11.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Actually modlight

    by Shaner Jedi

    the left is more reactionary these days and unwilling to change. I want things to change: We should CHANGE the tax code We should CHANGE the IRS We should CHANGE the size of our national government. It should be alot smaller.

  • July 24, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    How can an amendment be unconstitutional?

    by Doggus47

    Isn't that the point of an amendment- to "amend" the constitution to do whatever the people want? Isn't an amendment constitutional by definition? I thought an amendment was another mechanism to represent the will of the people(people being defined as the majority required in the senate, house & states, etc... to pass the amendment).

  • July 24, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    You're confusing Conservatives with Republicans

    by BrunoTheDog

    They're not the same thing anymore.

  • July 24, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    You're right, we should tax the rich more...

    by modlight

    The government should be smaller to keep the NSA out of our privacy, and the IRS should tax those who can afford it so that we can give health care, food, and help to those who don't have it. but I don't think its the left who is resisting those ideas.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Playing into the hands of the powers that be?

    by BrunoTheDog

    What powers would those be? The powers of the reactionary public who elects idiots into office (I am not speaking of Bush necessarily, but just about all of them as a whole) because they're willing to sacrifice freedom for safety? I blame the masses, not the government, for our situation. I don't subscribe to the theory that there is an illuminati or neo-con group that secretly rigs elections and assassinates people to make things go there way. We are where we are because people run their mouths about things and make stupid decisions based on their pre-conceived notions, when ultimately they know so little about how their economy works that they think the Federal Reserve is a government-controlled organization. It's a real shame in my opinion, and makes me want to just give the fuck up. I mean, people out there who talk about raising taxes to pay for welfare programs and the like and they DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TAXES WORK! Seems like a lost cause to me. I wonder who to blame for the state of our nation?

  • July 24, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Bruno, you have a point... Conservatives

    by modlight

    took it over with their religion and "Family Values" there was a point where Dems and Repubs were checks and balances looking at things and figureing out what is best for the country. Now the Democrats and "lefts" are more conservative than most western democracies conservative parites.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Tax the rich more?

    by BrunoTheDog

    The top 50% of wage earners already pay 96.54% of all income taxes. The top 1% pays more than a third at about 34%. Personally, I think we should do away with the IRS and go to a national sales tax.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST


    by Tal111

    Did I say anything about an Illuminati? Yes, blame the masses...they got us into Iraq...they are bombing the hell out of Lebanon and Israel...they are responsible for Enron...they are responsible for voting for Gore and then reversing that decision...the masses are responsible. Ah crap, I'm reducing to talking to a dog.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Ashok0 - Deception and Power do not make someone right

    by modlight

    Just ask middle america who is still voting for republicans because they promised them dedication to Family Values. Those people who can't fill their gas tanks, who are out of a house after Katrina, who have no health insurance because their work won't give it to them, who's patriotic sons are dying in Iraq I'm sure wouldn't change a thing or change their votes because our government loves jesus, keeping the flag safe from symbolic demonstration, I mean fire, and is keeping gays from getting married... you know the really important issues.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST


    by Poacher

    First of all, neither women should have been asked to leave which the Capitol police later admitted...the reason Sheehan was arrested and not the other woman was that Sheehan refused to leave and the other woman didn't. There was no preferential treatment given, it was ridiculous on both counts. There ARE consequences to the First Amendment. No, Sheehan shouldn't have been arrested, but is it okay for them to kick her out? Sure. That doesn't make it a police state. To call it one is insulting to those who lived in Nazi Germany or South African apartheid.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Tal111: You got it

    by BrunoTheDog

    Get over the idea that Bush was not elected legally: it's not true. Seriously, it's sad that people still cling to that assertion. He was elected by the popular majority this second time around, so the idea is a little old. Anywho, the masses got us into Iraq by electing a leader who would take us there, and then re-electing him. The US is not bombing either Lebanon or Israel, so that's kind of a strange point. Enron...that's not really a Bush thing, it's what happens when people stop taking responsibility for monitoring corporations themselves (with the power they wield as consumers) and expect a bloated, irresponsible government to do it for them. Bruno is my pet chihuahua, by the way. ;)

  • July 24, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Out-sourcing jobs is destroying th US

    by Doom II

    It's fucking sad that NOTHING is made in America anymore. And call centers for many companies are now in India and Pakistan. Cars are made in MEXICO now! Hundreds of thousands of previously nice paying jobs are gone. Why pay a US citizen 30 dollars an hour to assemble a car when a Mexican will do it for 30 dollars a week? I never thought I would see the day that Doc Martins are no longer made in the UK, but it's here. Pretty soon the only jobs Americans will have is Wal Mart and fast food and those both pay SHIT.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    you're right, flat tax

    by modlight

    lets see, 30% of 30,000 is just as easy to live with as 30% of say $500,000.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Did I say flat tax?

    by BrunoTheDog

    Try SALES tax. Think about that. What is a sales tax? It's a tax on goods that one purchases. So a family living on $30,000 dollars a year, who buys less, will pay less in taxes than someone who makes $500,000.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    actually I'm scared that Bush's effed up foreign policy

    by modlight

    is going to just create more terrorists who are pissed off at us and therefor will kill more innocent Americans on our soil. But I'm sure that he's doing a good job and that he's not spreading our Army's too thin. And I'm sure that your pleasant cynical insualtion from the problems of others will probably also sheild you from an attack

  • July 24, 2006, 6:37 p.m. CST

    What would you do, modlight?

    by BrunoTheDog

    By your assertion, if we respond to a terrorist attack we are just provoking them and encouraging them to continue in their attacks. But if we do nothing, then we embolden them and they will continue in their attacks. Ask Israel. Our military IS being spread thin, I don't disagree with you there. But a big reason for that is that the rest of the world, led by the UN, is perfectly content to sit on their asses with their hands over their eyes and ears hoping that the problem will just go away. The US is spreading itself thin in the way that a person who has to stick several fingers and a toe in a leaking dam (no offense New Orleans) spreads himself thin. With help, the problem might be fixed, but instead we're stuck there plugging the holes as best we can.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    The word is "Regressives"

    by BrandLoyalist

    Conservatives have been trying to switch over to that word -- their old moniker has become a liability. So you hear things like, "I'm proud to say that I'm the candidate who stands for regressive values."

  • July 24, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    I'm no politician, but here is my thoughts...foreign

    by modlight

    First off, Iraq was not a response to a terrorist attack. It was for oil pure and simple. You can call that conspiracy theory or not, but the fact remains that Bush's own people have said that they didn't have connections to 9-11 and that there were no WMD's leaving really no excuse to go to war.. But that is in the past. right now there are many hotspots in the world, and as we both say our military is stretched thin. Perhaps we are not meant to be the worlds police. Perhaps we should worry about our own before we go stepping into other countries. And I find it od that we only step into other countries when we feel we can either win, or gain something, or are exacting revenge. OFten the tactic of a bully. Notice we don't care to much about genocide in Africa, nor do we go after N Korea the way we did with Iraq.. Perhaps because they actually do have nukes. I feel that as far as the middle east is concerned these people hated us when we weren't bombing them... Now not only are we bombing them, we are turning our backs when Isreal bombs them. I'm not taking a side on the Isreal thing, but how would you feel about america now, as opposed to 5 years ago. I'll put more in another post to it doesn't get too talky.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Police State Coming From Left

    by Roboteer

    First off, conservatives aren't in power today, left leaning moderates are. JFK and Reagan, they were conservatives, not the spendaholic, big government, open-the-borders-to-become-welfare-state-to-the-world 'leaders' around today. True conservatives want smaller government, less regulation, and less intrusion into people's lives. Many conservatives are in fact Libertarians, which means just what it sounds like. If you want a police state, elect these power mad Left Wing fanatics that run the Democratic party today. They're in the grand old socialist tradition of Mao, Uncle Joe, and Pol Pot. Now THOSE guys were into police states. You're worried about a cop asking for your ID? Or kicking Sheehan, (who BTW like Moore the DNC has already thrown to the curb) out of a terror risk private function she sought to disrupt. I'm sorry, but that's insane. Let government increase taxes, take your private property, take away guns, or get control of your health care, that's when you need to worry. I lose a lot more sleep when a child-killer/rapist might now go free after he led police to where he buried this little girl alive after raping and terrorizing her for 3 days. Why? Because in the hope she might still be alive, they talked him into confessing before his attorney arrived. But the ACLU will be all over that one trying to get him off. But we don't have enough freedom? You want free speech worries, try being a conservative speaker invited to talk on a campus today. If you're not assaulted with pies and produce, Leftist groups will try to drown you out or stage a near riot to shut you up. Try getting hired in a classroom or newsroom if you're conservative and see what they really think of diversity and free speech. Your police state is coming from the Left my friend, not these weak kneed pandering neo-cons in there now. Also, with freedom comes responsibility. We don't lack for individual liberty, there's way too much of it and a whole lotta folks that can't handle it. We've got too many adults who act like children because no one makes them behave or holds them accountable. There's not much shame, guilt, or even punishment, but we all feel so good about ourselves. We may be divorced, alcoholic, drug abusing, selfish, slackards, but we've got that self esteem thing goin'. But I digress. if that's the best you can come up with that a police state is here, then maybe just be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself. There's problems, but those ain't them. BTW, all central banks around the world are just like ours, even in China, because it works. You'd rather have politicians controlling banking???? So we'd have zero interest rates before every election. Sigh. So much ignorance, so little time. One last thought. Quick... who do you hope wins the War on Terror? Bush or Al Queda? If that took you more than 5 seconds to say Bush, you're anti-American and maybe you should move to Lebanon and join Hizbolla.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST


    by modlight

    As far as this country is concerned I think both parties are screwing up. Ashok0 may be ok, but alot of Americans aren't. The wealthy few are controlling the many.. This has always been the case, but the old idea of civic responsibility has been labeled "liberal" or "socialist" and replaced with selfish conservative ideals. Americans have been urged in the past few years to look out for number one. Don't worry about others take care of yourself, others take care of themselves. The idea of taking up the slack in society has been turned into a four letter word. I think Bush thinks he's doing good, but is ultimately so blined by his religion that he can't thing clearly... here is a thought. Bush is a born again christian. What that means is that he came to a point in his life where he devoted himself to god and that all his previous sins were washed away and he is now living his life as good as he can... that is admirable, but how can someone believe that on this earth you can be born again, yet also believe in the death penalty. There is so many ways that the conservaties have blinded hardworking honest americans into believing they are the party for them, but at the same time siphoning money from their back pockets. Its really sad. And unfortunately Rhetoric has become the new weapon of discussion not ideas so that everytime two people meet to debate, it becomes a shouting match and no one benefits.

  • July 24, 2006, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi

    by ganymede2010

    If you wanted a smaller Government then you should vote Democrat. It was the conservatives that were responsible for Homeland Security. It was the conservatives who wanted the Patriot Act. Yea, the Dems voted for initially "at-gun-point" but once it came up for renewal they voted against it. But the Republican Majority carried it through. So now thanks to Republicans. 1) You can be arrested and detained "indefinately" without being charged. 2) Your phone can be tapped without warrant. 3)The FBI has full access to your Libray records. 4)The police can now break down your front door if they "think" you drove home under the influence. And that's not the definition of a police state. By all means tell me what is!

  • July 24, 2006, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by Tal111

    When did I say I was only talking about Bush? Are the powers that be only Republican? And yeah technically Enron isn't a Bush thing, although if you recall Cheney did have some involvment but it is an example of the "powers that be" run amuck beyond the control of the masses. Enron cannot be blamed on the masses. It's about what it's always been about- the haves and the have nots.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Roboteer, nice final question...

    by modlight

    What if I said I wanted the billions of normal people who populate this earth and cover the middle ground between fanatical relgious zealot nuts like Bush and Al Queda to win the war on terror, Where should I go and who should I join? I'm just wondering because you didn't have that choice. And I have a question that makes about as much sense. What is your favorite carbonated beverage? Milk or Water? if you hesitated you're a faggot.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Bruno Enorn is a Bush Thing

    by ganymede2010

    Induldge, Ken Lay diddn't take a shit before checking in with George Bush. And Bush used the Enron Jet to in his first campain tour!

  • July 24, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST

    haha when I read the headline, I knew Anchorite would

    by Windowlicker74

    be around. Always funny reading this guys posts about 'the great America' That's what I like about AICN

  • July 24, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    The 16th

    by bubbha

    Was never Ratified.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Just think how ridiculous this is

    by bubbha

    We work at least 4 months a year for the government. Tell me that isn't sick. A man spends 4 months a year working without being paid.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    joke of the week:

    by Windowlicker74

    American refugees having to flee Beirut from Israeli bombs provided and paid for by their own US government.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:28 p.m. CST

    9/11 Families Releasing Powerful Documentary Soon...

    by pockybot

    Exposing US government complicity in 9/11 and their struggle for the truth. No wonder Ann Coulter is trying to attack these heroic women. Check out the trailer for 9/11 Press For Truth:

  • July 24, 2006, 7:29 p.m. CST

    *beeping* extremeists leaving nice normal people

    by modlight

    in the dust. IF you don't get it then you never will, and have fun being their pawn.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:30 p.m. CST

    mmm, Ashoko, I think I prefer the US

    by Windowlicker74

    above Cuba of N Korea. where did I say otherwise?

  • July 24, 2006, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Guys, it's hard to be more anti-tax than me...

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...but several of the claims advanced in this review and in this talkback are simply absurd. First of all, it's impossible for an amendment to be unconstitutional. An amendment changes the constitution and overrides anything in the existing text that contradicts it. You could use the amendment process to change anything you want. That includes allowing for direct taxation, which originally was unconstitutional. Second, it would be easy for anyone to look up what percentage of total tax revenue is spent on debt service, and that percentage ain't "all". By the way, the practice of passing tax cuts without passing corresponding spending cuts [the way our douchebag of a fake-conservative President did] is a recipe for increasing debt service. The percentage of your tax dollars going to pay bondholders will increase in the future thanks to W. Send him a thank you card. Third of all, there are few people less connected to reality than your average goldbug, and when you hear someone start bitching about the Federal Reserve, I can guarantee you that you'll find a goldbug somewhere under the surface. Since I know a great many libertarians and Randoids personally, I can tell you that I know this from experience. Some people just can't get their minds around the way that the practice of extending credit by banking increases the money supply - it seems like something for nothing, even though it's not. They see the Federal Reserve as the embodiment of this process, and as part of some conspiracy. This shows a complete ignorance of the history of banking - even in the days where metals were the foundation of all currency, banks still "created" new wealth by extending credit, and informal organizations of bankers serving as the lender of last resort for other banks performed virtually every function the current Federal Reserve performs. That shouldn't be surprising, since the Federal Reserve itself was modelled on JP Morgan's practice of establishing credit syndicates to deal with liquidity crises during market panics. The Fed isn't private because it's a conspiracy - it's private because it's essentially providing a business-to-business service.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:31 p.m. CST

    joke of the week: Windowlicker74

    by bubbha

    Said american refugees chosing to live in a country that allows terrorism to run rampant over living here.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Bubbha you're statement is whats wrong with the tax

    by modlight

    system. People feel that they are paying for this big monster and never get anything in return. I think that to a certain extent thats true, but the concept is that you are working those four months for pay. Your pay is supposed to be the roads you drive, the education your children get, the clean air you breathe, the safety you have from agressors, the scientific advances that come from government research. The problem is that more recently that money has gone to fund private wars and pay government contractors who have politicians on the payroll. So yeah, it sucks, but if someone could get in there and create a system where people actually didn't feel like shit every april 15th and knew that their money was going to be used to help them, then possibly we might be on to something good.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    I only think Anchorites posts about 'his great

    by Windowlicker74

    Nation' are funny. You gotta love the way he attacks everyone who dares to say otherwise

  • July 24, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST


    by bubbha

    "it's impossible for an amendment to be unconstitutional". - It's unconstitutional because it's never been ratified.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Oh right, that old canard.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I forgot that one. The shit people come up with, I tell ya.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:40 p.m. CST


    by Windowlicker74

    Americans who dare to live in terrorist country kill kill!! that 'd teach those traitors! and what about all the Europeans and Americans who live in Saoudi Arabia? kill them too while you're at it?

  • July 24, 2006, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Modlight, it is you who doesn't get it

    by bubbha

    The roads are paid for by the gas tax, the education by state tax, etc... The feds don't pay for any of that shit you listed.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:43 p.m. CST


    by Sejanus

    Certainly, you don't need the approval or validation of anyone, let alone me, but just at the point that I thought, "Well, I disagree with him, but at least he seems to be able to have a civil, well-reasoned debate", you turn around and prove that the average leftist is a crybaby moron like Al Franken who, if they don't get their way, turn into a raving loon. What, Roboteer reducing it to the most basic i.e. us against them (which, by the way, that IS how it is my friend) too much for you to compute? This is exactly what I'm talking about, there ISN'T a magic reality where Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and Ward Churchill get to bring their own brand of hippy dippy pollyannaish foreign policy to the table. It is what it is. "They" don't want to negotiate and never will. "We" don't want to live in the stone age where people cut women's clits off for jollies. That's the choice, and by calling the guy a faggot for calling you out to explain what your choice would be of those two choices you pretty much lose any credibility when it comes to claiming any kind of morale superiority and certainly have no grounds for being a mouthpiece for the "billions of normal people who cover the middle ground between fanatical religious zealots". By the way, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Martin Sheen will be over to search your house against your will for using the word "Faggot". It's against liberal law and you'll need to go to one of the reeducation camps now. Be seeing you

  • July 24, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    chill dude. I'm just saying that the system is

    by modlight

    screwed up, which is what I think you were saying too. But if it helps, fuck Bush, Cheney, all republicans, all Jews, all Muslim Terrorists, Hilary Clinton, Neo Cons, and I don't support the troops cause their aint a draft and they knew what they were doing. there does that help paint me as an ignorant liberal who is so evil because he wished that the government would stop shitting on its people and help them out for a change?

  • July 24, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74... don't sigh baby

    by bubbha

    I never said we should kill them, but if you ask me, it's pretty fucking stupid of them to be living there and still expect our government to protect and save them. BTW- they don't pay taxes here, yet it is yours and my tax dollars that paid for their rescue from living in a terrorist friendly country. As usual, the government saves the stupid from paying for their own mistakes, and they do it with OUR money.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:48 p.m. CST

    I'm glad the government has dumbed you down into

    by modlight

    believeing that the world is black and white and us vs. them. And incapable of understanding satire

  • July 24, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST

    The Solution to fix America

    by glodene

    A Farakhan/Sharpton running ticket in 2008...Can't do any worse than Bush/Cheney. Kinda wierd that the Democratic Party is being non-agressive in testing the waters by pushing some potential candidates to run in 2008, but i guess since shit is so fucked up with the economy and the mayhem going on overseas, i think they've decided to take the path of least resistance and let Hillary roll with it by de-fault if she decides to run, (which i doubt, if she was smart). So don't be surprised if another republican is voted into the White House because i think the Democrats realize that it's going to take more than 4 to 8 years to clean-up this current administrations mess and we all know that the masses has a major attention deficit disorder and will start associating all the current ills with the newly elected administration after a year or two.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:51 p.m. CST

    they knew what they were doing

    by bubbha

    Do you support firemen? Liberals are just as crazy as conservatives. liberatarians and anarchists are the ones who get it the most, but they're insane too. People just suck. All of them. Bring on the armageddon.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Yeah well, guess what, we're not all peace loving

    by modlight

    hippees. That is another myth perpetuated by the right to make us seem weak and silly. But I'm sure that will all be found out in time. And I have no problem with anybody actually except conservatives and terrorists.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:55 p.m. CST

    HAHAA!!! jesus man, you took me seriously with all that

    by modlight

    But if you wanted pick it apart, a fireman's purpose isn't to kill.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Ashoko, there is something I can get behind

    by modlight

  • July 24, 2006, 7:58 p.m. CST

    A soldiers purpose is to protect and defend

    by bubbha

    by any means necessary. Sometimes that includes killing.

  • July 24, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Since when are liberals not against terrorism?

    by modlight

    Man that shit that spills out of republican's mouth sure works. Yes all liberals, are terrorist loving tree hugging, butt fucking baby killers who nibble on the fingers of the Crucified lord. Listen man, we want to get rid of terrorism just as much as the rest of you, but maybe an open land war against an idea isn't the best plan.

  • July 24, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    Bubbha, let it go, I was kidding about the troops thing

    by modlight

    but I do hate Hillary Clinton.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:01 p.m. CST

    it might be stupid of them and you can be angry

    by Windowlicker74

    at them for being rescued with your tax dollars, but still the weirdest thing is that your country is paying billions of dollars of your tax money to finance Israeli wars. Why is that? why can't they take care of themselves? it's not like it's a third world country or anything

  • July 24, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    liberals are a bunch of whiny assholes

    by bubbha

    who have nothing new to say for over 40 years now. Liberals never move forward for fear of perhaps running over something, while the conservatives don't give a shit, and run over everything. dicks and assholes.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    I would prefer

    by JudgeNXcutioner

    Scannable bar code tatoos on the forearm or back of the neck because you know they would look cooler. They won't be as itchy as under the skin microchips and you know you can lose those dang id cards!

  • July 24, 2006, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Schwarzeneger/Willis 2012

    by modlight

    We'll need it after Bush/Cheney's third term... yeah you heard me right.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:04 p.m. CST

    modlight- i agree

    by bubbha

    that bitch is the devil. And she wears prada.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:06 p.m. CST

    It's been said by anothbefore, and I'll say it again...

    by Johnny Smith

    BRUCE WAYNE 2008!

  • July 24, 2006, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Still the one

    by Shaboozie

    America is slowly degrading and it has nothing to do with left or right but I would still rather live here than anywhere else. I would like to see this movie.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:07 p.m. CST

    America Sucks, no It doesn't, yes it does.

    by Gargolito

    Why is it that when something that is wrong in the US is pointed out, by anyone, it is immediately interpreted as America sucks? The way I see it, that IS why America sucks.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:07 p.m. CST

    another before*

    by Johnny Smith


  • July 24, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Unfortunately liberals are whiney asshole pussies

    by modlight

    or at least the ones in power are. Whats that? War's not going well, Bush approval rating plumets, Indictments across the GOP ruling class? We'll find a way to screw it up and make them look even better. Just put that drunk pumpkinhead Kennedy on CNN, they won't take us seriously for long.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Wow, Windowlicker74. just wow

    by bubbha

    The US helps fund israel out of AMERICAN interests. Israel became our best friend when we were fighinig red russia (cause' we just love us a new democracy) and is now still our friend against terror (cause we just hate 'em ayrabs).

  • July 24, 2006, 8:09 p.m. CST


    by ganymede2010

    Conservatives are the biggest whinners ever. The complian about everything. 1. They complain about Affirmative Action, Immigration, Global warmming being junk science, they complain that abortion is legal. The complain that liberals don't let them kill enough Arabs. They complain about the consitution limiting their ablility to catch terrorirst. The complain about MSM, I can keep going. Both sides whine now be done with your partisan bullshit.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:14 p.m. CST

    ganymede2010- are you blind?

    by bubbha

    Conservatives don't whine. They act. Everything on your stupid list has been not a whine, but a battle, initiated and ultimatly won (or soon to be won), by the conservatives. Meanwhile, the fucking liberal bitchas cry foul and do nothing.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:17 p.m. CST

    America, Fuck Yeah!

    by The Dum Guy

    It's pretty obvious that the U.S. has essentialy become a police state, and individual rights/privacy is a thing of the past. However if your going to whine about taxes then try to find a civilized society where you aren't taxed... What, can't find any? Although one could renounce citizenship and therefore not have to pay taxes, but you wouldn't be eligible for government benefits such as Social Security (as if it would help you). I guess we should either stop caring about important issues and use drugs like the medical corporations would have us do (but not Marihuana, cause it's bad and will make you dumb, unlike prescripts such as Xanax). Or choose plans [B or C] you can just hope for Armegeddon and start a cult (or) quite your job, learn to live in the wild and move to the most uninhabited region on earth so you won't have to worry about another human being. Alas, most of the solutions would make it impossible to watch any new movies, or actually be practical.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:19 p.m. CST

    wow bubbha you're really not that smart are you?

    by Windowlicker74

    you should stop watching fox and do a bit of traveling. the way you talk/write is pathetic: the terrorists, our friends, red russia(i like that one), we love us a new democracy!! are you for real? joke of the week: US pays israel those absurd amounts of money because "they are our friends". priceless. Israel has the US by the throat and you don't even know it!

  • July 24, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    why do they call you The Dum Guy? Oh.

    by bubbha

    Saying you can't find better is not an excuse. If your home is a peice of shit, you clean it up, depite the fact that everybody else's home is shittier.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Man, I miss when Bill...

    by glodene

    wuz runnin' things - Unemployment was down, no war, the budget was balanced, etc. Too bad he can't run again and then after eight years of bliss the Republicans can run that tried and true political platform of "Bringing Morality back to the White House". i.e made up wars, forcing the Middle Class into extinction and padding the coffers of the Rich and Shameless.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Budda, Republicans only deal with Wedge Issues!

    by ganymede2010

    The Republicans are all about dividing and conquering the middle class. That's why they FOCUS on Race, Immigrants, INSIGNIFICANT ISSUES such as Flag burnning, GOD in the Pledge of allegence. Do you hate the activist Judge that "added " GOD in the Pledge of Allegence 70 years after it was made?

  • July 24, 2006, 8:26 p.m. CST

    lol Windowlicker74 lol

    by bubbha

    From your writing I gather you've been to the middle east and believe that makes you an expert on the subject. (if this is wrong, you're living in a glass house, throwing stones at others). I never said we should help israel because they are our friends, in fact, i never said we should help israel at all (learn to read). What I said was that the US helps israel for our own selfish reasons (weather we are fighting communism or islam). Get it now?

  • July 24, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST

    ganymede2010, no, they deal with all the issues,

    by bubbha

    we just pay attention to the bullshit ones. As you said, they're all about dividing and conquering the middle class. I agree. And their tactic is to declare war on anything insignificant and stupid, like ghay marriage and god. (BTW- If god gives a shit wheather or not his name is in the pledge, he's a petty little shit who doesn't deserve us.) While we're all distracted by the stupid little insignificant thing they're fighing (seriously, imigration?) they keep fucking the middle class from behind. Meanwhile, the liberals cry and bitch about the small things and do nothing.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST

    no I'm still not getting it.

    by Windowlicker74

    bubbhas exact words: we help fund israel because they became our friends back in the russia days, now they are our friends with the whole terrorist thing. you could call it selfish reasons because so much Jewish-Americans are in power in the US, but dumbfuck bible-belters like you, Bubbha, who have nothing to do with Israel and don't have a clue, are the ones who have to pay up. now ain't that funny? with traveling I mean: get out of your SUV and on a plane to brighten your view on things, not per se the middle east.

  • July 24, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST

    bubbha: God's answer to intellects

    by The Dum Guy

    So what exactly is your solution to the U.S.'s problems, vote our way to happiness? My point isn't that hiding in hole in the ground is the solution, it's that there probably isn't any solution at all. Sorry be labeled nihilistic, but come on, do you actually believe that anyone is going to be able solve anything? The fact is the WHOLE world is going to shit, and by regressing to the point of bitching about the "other" side, it goes to show noone has a solution, only a complaint.

  • July 24, 2006, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74, you're not only a complete idiot

    by bubbha

    but also a liar. You're stupid enough to misquote me on the same thread I poster what you're misquoting? Idiot. Here's what I said (a direct quote, stupid)- "The US helps fund israel out of AMERICAN interests. Israel became our best friend when we were fighinig red russia (cause' we just love us a new democracy) and is now still our friend against terror (cause we just hate 'em ayrabs)." end of quote. Read that again, dummy. I said we fund them out of our own interests, starting during the cold war, and continuing today. Still don't get it? go get help. And definitely don't have any kids, cause we don't need any more of you guys on this planet. Second- I live in LA. Third- I've been out of the country numerous times. Not that that made me or anybody else who travels any smarter. You're proof positive of that.

  • unconstitutional, since it by nature rewrites the constitution and overrides the judiciary (which is what normally decides constitutional issues). In fact one of the POINTS of the ammendment process was to give people the ability to make the unconstitutional constitutional.

  • July 24, 2006, 9:17 p.m. CST

    MrD- it's unconstitutional because it's never been

    by bubbha

    ratified. Read this -

  • July 24, 2006, 9:18 p.m. CST

    16th Amendment unconstitutional? BULLSHIT

    by Durendal

    It's a FUCKING AMENDMENT, which means it's now part of the Constitution, which means it CANNOT be "unconstitutional". Why the hell do you think there was a movement for a gay marriage ban amendment? Because that's the only way the fundies could make it irreversible law. The 16th Amendment makes income taxes constitutional by putting it into the fucking Constitution. Pretty simple, no?

  • July 24, 2006, 9:45 p.m. CST

    In case you were wondering, Democrats LOVE income taxes

    by Razorback

    So, the evil tax whores are the dems. Make sure you vote them back into power in the next election so you can give them more of your money so it can be lost in the red tape.

  • July 24, 2006, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Don't get all worked up, bubbha, it doesn't make you

    by Windowlicker74

    look smarter. your quote:"The US helps fund israel out of american interests. Israel became our BEST FRIEND when we were fighting red russia (cause' we just love us a new democracy) and is now still our FRIEND against terror (cause we just hate 'em ayrabs)." end of (dumb) quote" I read your claim about American interests. It is just not true. So I said: Those "american interests" are actually Jewish-American interests, since they control your precious country. only you think it's because Israel helps you out with your war on terror(cause you watch too much FOX), while they are only after their own interests. that's why I call you a dumbfuck whithout a clue. now why does that make me a liar? learn to read.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:01 p.m. CST

    If it weren't for Israel, we wouldn't NEED to fight

    by FluffyUnbound

    Arabs. There are no basic geopolitical reasons for the United States and Islamic nations to oppose one another. And no, it's not because "Islam is a crazy religion". Islam was just as crazy prior to the existence of the state of Israel as it is now, but strangely, no Muslims wanted to destroy the United States. So we need Israel as an ally, because we have to fight Arabs - but we only need to fight Arabs because we stick to Israel as an ally. Way to advance our interests there, guys. And Israel was an ally of Communist Czechoslovakia before she was an ally of the US, so the Cold War story doesn't wash, either. The history of US geopolitics in the Middle East since the end of the Second World War would have been a hell of a lot easier if Israel had never existed.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Throwing some matches on the fire

    by KCMOSHer

    I couldn't be bothered to read everything here, but here are a few random comments: the income tax is an immoral 'slave' tax, and should be abolished. Everyone needs to Google Dr. Alan Keyes and listen to some of his speeches on the matter. That said, this sounds like a complete batch of kookery. There's no way whatsoever to find out what money goes where, so to state 'income taxes only pay the interest on national debt' is inherently bogus. An amount equal to the income taxes collected in a year might be 'paid' on the interest on national debt, but we all know that those 'payments' often are forgiven debt, traded debt, non-monetary exchanges, all kinds of wacky political mumbo-jumbo. So the guy who produces movies for a living manages to ferret out the issue? Sure, sure...I think that smoker's lung was caused by that may-ju-wanna. Oh, and for one of the know-nothing idiots above, the Supreme Court does not 'pass laws'. If only most of you people knew just how ignorant you sound. We now return you to your idiotic conspiracy theory flamebaiting, already in progress.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:15 p.m. CST


    by KCMOSHer

    To all those who say America is already a police state and personal rights have already been destroyed, hands up all those who have been raided and injured or arrested by government forces without just cause or a judicially issued warrant. Yeah. Thought so.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Been raided

    by evil weavil

    I was raided two years ago for possession of pirated stick that in your hole and smoke it!

  • July 24, 2006, 10:21 p.m. CST

    I would agree that the income tax should be abolished.

    by FluffyUnbound

    But that is a bit different from joining up with the people who claim that the 16th Amendment wasn't even really ratified because Ohio wasn't really a state, or because there was some sort of conspiracy to falsify the records of which states reported ratification to Washington. I'm willing to be "crazy", but I draw the line at "delusional".

  • July 24, 2006, 10:32 p.m. CST


    by evil weavil

    They seized 20 copies of "The Butterfly Effect", 14 copies of "Bewitched", 20 copies of "Catwoman", 24 copies of "Farenheit 911" and 9 copies of "Radio" know as well as I do that they were there for Farenheit...plain and simple. My class action law suit is being heard in who's paranoid?

  • July 24, 2006, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Israel: some fucking ally.

    by Windowlicker74

    I'm really wondering what those good ol' American interests are. What did the Israeli's ever do to deserve billions of dollars from YOUR tax money, buddhyboy? I mean you built them the biggest, baddest army a small counrty like that could get. why? You could give it to the UK. they're an actual ally(i'm not from there btw), but Israel? I bet you never gave it that much thought until just paid and paid and paid..

  • July 24, 2006, 10:34 p.m. CST

    There is no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment

    by NapoleonDynamite

    If an amendment is ratified then it becomes part of the Constitution by definition. Amendments are not legislation, they are alterattions or additions to -- AMENDMENTS to -- the Constitution itself. "World Bankers" is code for "the Jews," by the way. This movie sounds like paranoid, crypto-anti-semitic raving to me. America IS turning into a fascist police state but it's not because of income tax,it's because of the monkey at the top doing things like spying on Americans, dipsensing with the Bill of Rights and deciding that the Constutution doesn't apply to him personally.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74, if you had an ounce of smarts

    by bubbha

    in that huge melon on top of your neck, you would have known that quotes should not be edited, but never mind that now. Of course, you're too stupid to understand that I was saying that Israel was our best friend because of our own interests. It would be impossible for you to understand that simply because I said exactly that. You're too fucking stupid to understand the words that you read. Sad. I don't watch Fox, not sure where you got that from, it seems you're so smart you don't need facts, you find all the information you ever need right there in your head. Also, of course you can't see why the US would need Israel in the middle east, that would be too much to ask of you. Now I'm going to make an assumption of my own- you're not collage educated, right?

  • July 24, 2006, 10:39 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound - Read up on your islam, boy.

    by bubbha

    It's one fucked up religion.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST


    by evil weavil

    The fact of the matter is that everyone knows that the oil companies and George Bush are plotting a coup...three terms you watch...mark of the beast...its all communist now or suffer the fascist rule of the Satanic cults!

  • July 24, 2006, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74- the stupidity continues.

    by bubbha

    Where did I ever say we should give Israel any money? All I said was- we give israel money out of our own interests.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:48 p.m. CST

    was that supposed to an answer, buddha??

    by Windowlicker74

    I mean what is this? instead of answering some questions I had, you start jabbering about melons and me being stupid and too smart and what not. complete jibberish. I'm still hoping for some answers. just for fun.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:51 p.m. CST

    bubbha i don't wanna get into this with you

    by Mechasheeva

    but if you're gonna make fun of someone's smarts, you should at least make sure you're spelling your insults right. Sorry man, it had to be done . . . And yeah, Bush is evil, income tax is evil, and I resent someone saying that Islam is a fucked up religion because a tiny percentage of its followers are violent extremists, when we live in a country whose leaders are trying to take away the rights of women and homosexuals because the Bible told them to. Now I'm going to bed.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Here's a link to each amendment.

    by JUSTICE41

  • July 24, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    " It's one fucked up religion."

    by NapoleonDynamite

    What religion isn't?

  • July 24, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74- i guess not,

    by bubbha

    I guess there was no college in your past. Interesting. And about your "questions" - Again, i never said we should give israel any money.

  • July 24, 2006, 10:56 p.m. CST

    i'll make it simple for you, buddha:

    by Windowlicker74

    question: Why does your country give Israel these absurd amounts of money? I know you "answered" that but that answer was too stupid to be true, so i ask again. and what are the now famous "american interests"? thats all. make it quick, cause it's bed time. my mom wants me out of her basement and into college!

  • July 24, 2006, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Mechasheeva, oh wow,

    by bubbha

    Spelling? seriously?

  • July 24, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    hey, just saying!

    by Mechasheeva

    collage and college are not the same word. what, you get a free pass to rag on people and no one gets to point out when you do something silly?

  • July 24, 2006, 11 p.m. CST

    NapoleonDynamite - QFT

    by bubbha

    All religions are fucked up, that is true. But right now, Islam is much more than the rest.

  • July 24, 2006, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by evil weavil

    Its simple...Oil+Bush+Stem cells= NWO...period. My humanities teacher told me all about the Cheney/Oil take over...he has his doctorate where are your papers you zit covered,redneck,goose-stepping, neo-cowboy,loon....WAKE UP!...GROW UP!!

  • July 24, 2006, 11:08 p.m. CST


    by NapoleonDynamite

    Personally, I have a lot of problems with Israel and think we give them too much money but I'll try to answer your question. One reason we do it is ostensibly because we want to preserve any sort of democratic state in the ME. Another reason we do it is because there is a lot of political and economic pressure to do so by all kinds of interests (not just bankers). One more reason we do it is because we are a country controlled by insane, fundamentalist Christians who think that Jesus won't come until Israel is restored to its historical borders and the Temple is rebuilt. They pretend to be friends of the Jews to further their own apocalyptic agenda but they also think that all the Jews will ultimately either bow down and worship Jesus or burn in Hell. Israel, of course, knows that Jesus isn't coming but is willing to okey-doke the fundies along and take their money.

  • July 24, 2006, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Windowlicker74, who's buddha, btw?

    by bubbha

    Where are you from? Lemme guess... and about your question- Israel serves the US's interests in many ways. You can read all about it here- it's an anti israeli site, so you should love it. Needless to say, Much of the aid to Israel is actually spent with U.S. suppliers so it recycles back to the United States.

  • July 24, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    a sane answer from napoleon. cheers!

    by Windowlicker74

    bubbha:"Much of the aid to Israel is actually spent with U.S. suppliers so it recycles back to the United States"..well that way you can support the whole fucking world! it was fun while it lasted but i gotta go now...btw: I'm from Holland. you know, that degenerate drug counrty. see you around!

  • July 24, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST


    by evil weavil

    by the way bubbha saying "Israel" anti-semetic in Europe...New World Order....starts in Europe...ends here!

  • July 24, 2006, 11:38 p.m. CST

    we give money to other countries to pay them off

    by JUSTICE41

    Otherwise they would all be at each others throats. We pay off Israel to not only be a proxy army in the middle east but to also keep them from using nukes on the idiots around them. Talk about suicide bombers. We pay off third world assholes to keep them from flooding our borders with boat people. We pay welfare so the poor don't up-rise and destroy the country. It's very simple and has been done for many many years in history. We went to Iraq to set up a strategic counterpoint to Iran. Iran is wedged between Iraq and Israel. If the monkeys from Mexico only came to sit on their asses collecting Welfare and not work the borders would be sealed shut in a year with many dead mexicans on the desert floor. Killed by our guys on the border. They have value and we want the savings they bring. Simple as that. For all the cowardly Libs stop trying to pick conflicts you know can be won easily to make yourselves look and feel good. Always with the Sudan crap or Rawanda shit. Fuck em. A people without the guts to take back their own country is not a worthy ally to throw money at.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:34 a.m. CST

    F#@%& it all.

    by The Dum Guy

    Sweet Jesus on a jumping bean, where do I start... [1] The 16th Amendment was ratified, unfortunately income tax is the law. [2] Every society as is, is hypocritical, Eutopia is not possible (Americans live in a place where homosexuals and marihuana are treated as the Devil's doing, even though "God" made both, yet we are the free-est nation). [3] We aid Israel because it's the (was) only stable democratic state in its region, and because we helped set it up after WW2. As well as the fact that it is in our "economic interest". [4] Everything, everywhere seems to be going down the drain, so for the most part everyone is just bitching about how bad it has gotten (I'm looking at you Darryl Hannah). And to KCMOSHer, I've been pulled over in my car just so they could make sure that "everyone (all of two people) was old enough to be out past curfew, or aka 11 p.m.", so if you don't believe we're (Americans) in a police state, do tell me, what color the sky is in your world? P.S. I'm well over the age allowed to be out (legally) past 11 p.m. and I'm neither Dem. or Repub., in fact I don't vote, "read Nitzche and do drugs" that's my motto.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Michael Moore is alive, yes.

    by ironburl

    And doesn't he make a nice whipping boy to have around? Sort of like Bin Laden, what would Halliburton's stock value do without him? Police State? Naw, the Government would never go beyond it's legal authority to spy on citizens' internet and phone communications on a massive scale or consolidate all of it's civilan spy agencies under the pentagon, or build a new secret command center under Denver, or put up cameras on every street corner, or track all of our finincial transactions, or develop databases to keep track of everything all of us freedom lovers do! I believe in Jesus, Apple Pie and that George Bush is from Texas! USA! USA! USA!! WOOO! BARK! BARK! BARK! WHOOF! COUGH! CHOKE!

  • July 25, 2006, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Ah, nice to see evil weavil here...

    by DoctorWho?

    With the consent of his Humanities Teacher. Sit down junior.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Fascism is allready rooted in your country...

    by Knugen

    Support the President! Support our troops! You're unAmerican! God bless our precious leader and our glorious country! Yay, a neverending war! Bush! Bush! Bush! Wait a minute... Shut up! Cut off his mic!

  • July 25, 2006, 3:26 a.m. CST

    Evil Weavil

    by KCMOSHer

    Yes, and there are currently at least two dozen copies of Farenheit 9/11 sitting in the used bin at my local Hollywood Video in the '4 for $20' section. Man, for a totalitarian police state, they sure do a shitty job of suppressing opposing views. Besides, you're saying it's a bad thing they confiscated copies of Bewitched and Catwoman? Hell, that should be enough to make you vote Republican.

  • July 25, 2006, 4:26 a.m. CST


    by The Dum Guy

    What exactly do you consider a police state? The fact is police in America only have to utter the phrase "Probable cause" and that pretty much allows them to do as they please. We may not have secret police, but fuck if I know what the Bush admin. has going on in order to fight their "war on terror". We know they track as many people's phone records as they can, they tap phones without warrants and they imprison individuals without due process. You need to realize we don't live in a free country, only a free-er country. And who cares what Michael Moore says/does, everyone knows he distorts the truth or just lies in order to fit his agenda.

  • July 25, 2006, 5:52 a.m. CST


    by Sicuv Uyall

    By just reading the title, the movie sounded like another left-wing propaganda piece... but after reading the review, this is on my list of docs to see on dvd, incl "Who killed the electric car?" and "Inconvenient Truth."

  • July 25, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST

    I've already begun my Gunkata training...

    by smackfu

    I'm ready for the dystopian future...

  • July 25, 2006, 8:07 a.m. CST

    i thought

    by ZO

    liberals LOVED taxes? taxes and more taxes and more taxes

  • July 25, 2006, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Unbiased Documentaries

    by BobParr

    Whenever a reviewer on this site claims a political documentary isn't leftwing or rightwing, you know it's leftwing. I bet you that when a Democrat is back in office all of these documentaries showing the USA as an oppressive state will suddenly vanish. Everything will magically become hunky-dory again. The funny thing is we pay the lowest tax rate of any civilized nation.

  • July 25, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    this should sum it up

    by Illinimac

    Save the $ for this movie and just read doesn't matter if the 16th was ratified or not...

  • July 25, 2006, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Bubbha, the question isn't whether Islam is fucked up.

    by FluffyUnbound

    It is. All religions are fucked up, and become more so to the precise extent that the followers of the religion actually believe in it - the only "safe" religions are the ones that people only adhere to by cultural rote and don't take very seriously. Like Anglicanism, for example. If people blow their religion off, that makes for a good religion. And right now too many Muslims take Islam seriously, and that makes it one of the most fucked up religions around. But the question is whether the particular way in which Islam is fucked up predisposes Muslims to be enemies of the United States, and I would continue to assert that it doesn't. Islam was in many ways even more fucked up a century ago. Where were the suicide bombers then? Where were the guys trying to blow up the World Trade Center? Where were the guys trying to blow up trains in Spain and Britain? For some reason, we didn't have any of that. What intervening event can we blame for the rise and spread of Islamic fanaticism? It certainly wasn't colonialism or defeat in war - the reaction of the Islamic world to colonialism and defeat was to attempt to secularize and modernize. So what else might it be? What event, other than colonialism, has dominated the sentiments of Islamic states in the Middle East and their relations with the West since the end of the Second World War? MAYBE you can blame Iran on US support of the Shah. But what about the rest of the Middle East? What has had their panties in a bunch for 60 years? Hmmm? Frankly, a very compelling case could be made that it was precisely the failure of the secular nationalists and modernizers in the Islamic world to attain enough power or respect vis-a-vis the West to obtain a satisfactory conclusion to the question of Israel that CREATED modern Islamic fanaticism. We taught the Arabs that no matter how much they modernized, we would simply give Israel more aid and a bigger stick to hit them with. We taught them that they would always be Israel's bitches. And they looked around and said, "Hey, maybe if this secular nationalism thing isn't working out as advertised, we might want to try something else instead." And that something else has been Islamic fanaticism. If Israel had never existed, Islamic fundamentalist radicalism and terrorism very likely would also not have come to exist in its current form. So I say, drop those motherfuckers like a hot potato as soon as we can. They've got the bomb, let them protect their fucking selves. It's actually insulting to my intelligence to have to listen to a NUCLEAR POWER pretend that they face some sort of security threat that throws into doubt their basic existence as a state. That's a crock. Unless a nuclear power collapses from within like the Soviets did, NOTHING fundamentally threatens the security of a state that has the bomb. Nothing. We could abandon them tomorrow and they could just parade their nukes around and their geographic integrity as a state would be permanently assured. But, we would no longer have to pay the price for carrying their water all the time. Sounds like a good deal to me.

  • July 25, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST

    really though

    by smackfu

    It's a natural, inevitable flow. Why do you think there was an American revolution in the first place? Each law is a control of sorts, some good, some bad. Anyone want to throw out a figure of how many new laws are passed each year in America? A fucking lot? And how many laws are repealed each year? Next to none. If each year thousands of new controls are imposed on us, but few or none removed, think of what things are going to be like in a couple of hundred years? or even in 50 years. Control grows, and never receeds, year after year, until reaching it's inevitable climax. Look at Britain, with it's security cameras on every street, watching everyone. If that isn't Big Brother, I don't know what is. And it won't be long before we start adopting it too.

  • July 25, 2006, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Russo's simply wrong

    by Stollentroll

    May be the money raised by the income tax is equal to the interest the US government pays for its debt. May be the FED is a private agency (although the Federal Reserve system was created by Congress in 1913). So what? Is anyone going to change anything about it? Could America clear its debt and abolish the income tax? Obviously not, otherwise they would hardly be spending billions on collecting the tax, right? Talking about economics, opinions are have deal with fucking reality!

  • July 25, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    We Gave Billions to Arafat Too

    by Roboteer

    It didn't take long for Dems in the form of a slightly hysterical Dennis Kucinich to come to Hezbollah's rescue with a proposed Congressional mandate for a Mideast cease fire. At least ya always know where they stand on terrorism. Just to add that we've also given Arafat billions of dollars, as has Europe and the Saudis. Enough to probably make every Palestinian man woman and child wealthy by their standards. Instead they are among the most impoverished. Besides being incredibly corrupt and stealing most of it, the PLO instead decided to pursue this dream of genocide against the Jews. Most of what we give Israel comes back in arms purchases, so it ain't all wasted. They need arms not cash. Despite the rhetoric, I think the Arab states need Israel. If they didn't have Israel, they'd have to invent it. Israel isn't really a threat. But it provides a boogyman they can gin up hatred against and distract the street from why the hell their societies are stuck in the 12th century, while the rest of the world prospers. (Opressing half their population [women] has a lot to do with it.)Only oil keeps them one notch above sub-Saharan Africa as the worst basketcases on the planet. But unlike Africa, they're very dangerous with a gullible, conspiracy prone, emotionally ignorant, hair trigger, xenophobic hatred of others for their problems. Even worse than the Democratic base. BTW, Clinton inherited a great economy that began to tank before he left. Bush has done a good job bringing it back with tax cuts. Plus Bill chose not to deal with foreign policy problems that are now crises. His 8 years may have felt like a guilt-free party-all-the-time utopia, but then the adults came home and had to clean up the puke, beer swill, and other, ahem, stains he left. Hence the most challenged President now since Lincoln and FDR.

  • July 25, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Where's Team America when you need them?

    by R.C. the "Wise"

  • July 25, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Sales-only / flat tax meant to shift burden downward

    by BrandLoyalist

    If the government is collecting the same amount of money, but collecting less from the wealthy, who's making up the difference? The middle class and the poor. That concequence is very obvious in the case of the flat tax system proposed by the likes of Steve Forbes and Montgomery Burns. With a sales tax-only system, this is the problem: only those with income beyond a certain threshhold can afford not to spend every single dollar they make, with the capacity to save and invest increasing with income. If you move from an income based tax system to a consumption based system, the well-off get to go from having all (most) of their income exposed to taxation (at some rate) to having only a subset of their income exposed to taxation, and at the same rate faced by the have-nots to boot. But, hey, the GOP has been doing a good job of shifting the tax burden to the middle and lower classes and their progeny without radically reforming the tax system via tax cuts that exponentially favor the wealthy and the super-wealthy in the presence of record budgets and deficit spending -- not to mention stealth efforts to enact the estate tax repeal they couldn't pass right out in the open through moves like the firing of half of the IRS' gift & estate tax auditors:

  • July 25, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Russo is not Left wing

    by Engineer_at_peac

    Russo is 100% Libertarian. He ran for president but lost to Badnarik at the LNC. I've met the guy who was his campaign manager. Russo is neither left wing or right wing. He is extremely conservative fiscally and what you would call extremely liberal on social issues. "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" refer to the extreme portions of the Democratic and Republican parties, and there is no bigger insult to a Libertarian. We know an amendment amends the constitution, and is therefore inherently constitutional. That's Capone's fault for using the wrong words there. The ideas in the 16th amendment WERE unconstitutional, and Russo claims in the documentary(with evidence) that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states and is therefore invalid.

  • July 25, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST

    bush is not doing a great job for the US economy

    by Lost Prophet

    The dollar is the weakest it has been in an awful long time- which will have a knock on effect in future. I know because I have a shit load of money stuck in America and daren't bring it across the pond as I will lose too much due to the dollar being weak.

  • July 25, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Who's paying more money?

    by Engineer_at_peac

    Question on the sales tax. The answer is that the sales tax expands the tax base greatly and collects money from places where money was never being collected before. An illegal who may not have paid income tax before now pays tax everytime they buy something. Someone visiting the country is now paying into social security every time they buy something. Money gained from illegal activities, income which is never reported, part of that money now goes to the government when that person goes on to buy something with his ill-gotten gains. At the same time, you are telling wealthy Americans they will no longer be punished for having large sums of money. There are literally trillions of dollars in off shore bank accounts which are sitting there doing absolutely nothing. When income tax is repealed and replaced with a consumption tax, those trillions can be brought back into America penalty free and used in the economy. In the meantime, there is actually a tax "prebate" paid to each family at the beginning of the month which is equal to the poverty rate for a family of their size times the tax rate. Essentially, they would not be paying taxes on the necessities of life(poverty rate statistics take into account food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc), as the cost of those taxes are given to them at the beginning of each month. So people at or below povert end up effectively paying "no" or "negative" taxes. The national retail sales tax can afford all this because a sales tax base is much larger than an income tax base.

  • July 25, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Don't you just love it when biases are so apparent...

    by Novaman5000

    Remember when SBC wouldn't let Dateline (I think) have the special where they read the names of everyone who died in Iraq as a tribute to them, saying that it was anti-american, against the war and obviously partisan, and then proceeded to show the Anti-Kerry documentary on every station? This whole fucking war we have going on now between the parties in our government is disgusting. As for Christianity Vs Islam, many of the sentiments are the same, the MEANS to the ends are just different. Islamic fundamentalists might be more quick to kill homosexuals, whereas in Christian America we just do everything we can to alienate them and take away their rights. They may oppress women in the middle east, whereas here we just pay them less, don't allow them to hold key positions in the church, and change history to make them whores. There is something to be said for passive aggression. And since this was originally a talkback about the movie: I'm not interested because I hate "documentaries" where the bias is so thick you practically choke on it... Michael Moore, I'm looking at you. And this is coming from a liberal.

  • July 25, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    And About this fucking T-Shirt incident

    by Novaman5000

    There was a dress code in place for the address, and Cindy Sheehan broke it. She got thrown out, and damn well should have. I'm as much for a protest of the war as anyone, but that wasn't the place nor the time. It just reeked of trying to cause trouble and get on the news.

  • July 25, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST

    And I can't believe that there is anyone out there

    by Novaman5000

    Who believes that Conservatives are the only ones who oppose terrorism. You fucking people have such a martyr complex.

  • July 25, 2006, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Not an original idea...

    by swfreak72

    This idea was explored in a great book called, "The Creature from Jekyll Island." It's the story of the Federal Reserve System and how it works to effectively run our lives. And it's not just one guy's opinion - this is just the way the system works. It's written by a CFA who tries to boil down the "system" so that everyone can understand it. It's a very brilliant system - and wickedly corrupt. Because of the way the Fed works, the government can create as much money as they want without income taxes. And they do. How do you think wars get funded? The income tax barely brings in enough to even partially pay the interest on our debt. The rest is just made out of thin air. It's a crazy system that mostly the poor and middle class pay for through inflation. Check out the book if you want the full scoop.

  • July 25, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Taxes and stuff

    by radio1_mike

    Great, sounds like another whack-job film that has some nice theories and no meat. For instance, taxes. What law allows income tax? Section I Article 7 and 8 of the Constitution. 7 gives the US House the power write bills to raise revenue. 8 gives Congress the power to collect revenue as it sees fit. Oh yah, and Amendment 16 stating Congress has the power to specifically raise income taxes. Oh and a numerous Tax, Circuit Appeal and Supreme Court decision on the legality to matter. Lose freedoms? C'mon. Most people have give away their freedoms by 1)not voting and 2)supporting security of over liberty.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Swifreak's post is an example of what I mean.

    by FluffyUnbound

    The problem with this particular goldbug argument - "...mostly the poor and middle class pay for through inflation..." - is that the inflationary aspects of a fiat currency were originally aggressively sought by populists because they BENEFIT the poor and middle class. A metals-based currency is, in an industrial or post-industrial economy, inherently deflationary, because the amount of metals available is finite and fixed [or, at least, it only grows at the rate the metals in question can be mined, which is also finite and fixed] while the number of goods and services available grows on a compound basis. This means that a static or arithmetically increasing supply of metals is available to purchase a geometrically advancing supply of goods and services. Voila - deflation. And the thing about deflation is that it BENEFITS THE RICH, specifically the class of creditors. Inflation is good for debtors, deflation is good for creditors. William Jennings Bryan and every other member of the populist and progressive movements campaigned against gold, first in favor of silver and then in favor of a fiat currency, because they could see how gold favored the rich, and had experienced it first hand. Now, since I don't see anything particularly wrong with favoring creditors over debtors, I personally don't have a problem with this. But you can't sit there and say that the poor and middle class don't benefit from the inflationary aspects of our current monetary system, because they do, and because they were INTENDED TO in the first place.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    16th Amendment Wasn't Ratified?? Bullshit

    by evolution1085 The arguments these people used in this cases are laughable... "There were spelling and punctuation mistakes", Nobody likes paying taxes, rich or poor, democrat or republican, but we bitch and moan about paying average percentages lower than basically all of Western Europe... Of course, they have free healthcare and college and whatever, but how many people out there are ready to hand over up to 70% of your annual income for systems controlled by the same government we have... Work the problems we have, and stop complaining about em

  • July 25, 2006, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Oh and,

    by radio1_mike

    The 16th Amendment really answered the question about being directly vs. indirectly taxed which is at the heart of personal income tax issue. If you are against the income tax and the tax system (at present) AND realize that a country must collect taxes to cover the defense of it citizens, then you should have voted for Steve Forbes and 17.5% flat tax.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Just watch the movie

    by bubbha

    All you idiots who keep bashing it before you see it. Just. Fucking. Watch. It.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound- Islam wants you.

    by bubbha

    It wants you to convert or die. Just read some Koran.

  • July 25, 2006, 1:31 p.m. CST

    evolution1085- even if you don't buy the ratification

    by bubbha

    argument, you should check this out- - "The 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on incomes, but only authority for an indirect tax on incomes. A direct tax on incomes is a tax that diminishes the source of the income. An indirect tax on income is a tax on unearned income or profit; such a tax leaves the source of the income undiminished. Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate. Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax. At a minimum this is scandalous. In reality it is probably criminal."

  • July 25, 2006, 1:43 p.m. CST

    evolution1085- check this

    by FinalSolace4

    evolution1085- read third post down its real- unapportioned tax is illegal un the constitution- but 3 congress members the only ones in session as the session wasnt closed when congress left for un-called recess, ratified the bill allowing the fed reserve to put thier money grubbing hands up your ass and pull out hundreds...

  • July 25, 2006, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Bubbha - Christianity wants you.

    by FluffyUnbound

    They want you to convert or die. Just read their Bible. Just look at their history. They also want to make sure you can't mislead the innocent if you don't convert. And they want you to suffer for all eternity if you don't convert. That is, the people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THEIR RELIGION want these things. The people who don't really give a shit aren't much of a threat. But can you really count on them not giving a shit?

  • July 25, 2006, 1:59 p.m. CST

    I'm not saying it's not ratified,

    by Engineer_at_peac

    I'm just saying that that is the argument made in the film, NOT an argument that an amendment is unconstitutional, because obviously that would be ridiculous.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by Engineer_at_peac

    You do realize there are Christians who do not take every word of the Bible literally? Many Christians realize that the Bible was written by men, and can't be fully trusted, but that many of the messages found within are good words to live your life by. I believe in Jesus Christ and the power of redemption, but I don't believe other people go to hell for not believing that, despite what the Bible says. What kind of God would sentence good people to an eternal damnation simply because they didn't believe in him. Not any God that I would want to worship. Take a look at the Jews, their religion has no conept of hell. Mormons believe in three layers of heaven that everyone eventually makes it to. Not every Christian believes in some of the more hateful language in the Bible.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST


    by IncompetentNinja

    It's good to know 20-30 percent of everything we make goes to our Chinese overlords.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Why Do people Fear Being Called A Conspiracy Theorist?


    Either the info presented in the film is factual or it isn't. If it is then there truly is a conspiracy and you can theorize about who is really behind it. Perhaps that's where the loonacy comes in because some people go overboard not sticking with humans as the culprits. However, the facts are still the facts and there is a conspiracy if the facts hold, no matter who is behind it. If there's no law then I'm not paying my federal income taxes anymore. Thanks for this!

  • July 25, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    how many christians are running around and cutting people's heads off in the name of God? How many are using terrorism to kill innocents around the world? Islam is what Christianity was before the enlightenment.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    "Love it or leave it"

    by Yamato

    I laugh when ever I hear that. So the nation or its government is incapible of mistakes? Isn't the thought behind "love it or leave it" anti-democratic" at its core? "Ceaser can do no wrong!" The current confustion in the US is this sentiment. To hate what the Bush regime is doing has been protrayed as un-patroitic. Even the democrats fell victim to this nonsense, look how guarded they were in attacking Bush's war and other policies. (big surprise). People who spoke out against the policies of this government have been slapped with the "love it or leave it" line. But the heart of democracy is the right to say the the current government in power is wrong, and that it must go in the next election. "Support our troops" was hijacked by the right wing to mean "support our president". Attacking the war, or those who ordered it was equated with "betraying the troops". I've have heard so many times how it isun-patroitic to attack the president in time of war, no matter what the president says or does. Since when is the president infallible? When did people stop separating the man from the position. To attack the idea of the presidentcy is unpatriotic To attack the man in the position is democractic. Wow, what a tangent, I'm sleepy now... "love it or leave it" only a Sith deals in absolutes

  • July 25, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST

    America IS becoming a Fascist country

    by ninpobugei

    First off, anyone who thinks the U.S. is NOT becoming a fascist country needs to look up the word and read this link: Furthermore, I am extremely familiar with the IRS and the income tax. In fact, I know some people who did, in fact, "untax" themselves. It's basically done by submitting requests for information from the IRS declaring the laws requiring U.S. citizens to pay the Federal Income tax. It goes on to submit the numerous court cases that have upheld the fact that there is no such law and that private citizens do NOT have to pay the income tax. "Income" was defined in the Constitution to mean corporate profits, not the money/payment produced from a private citizen's labor. The end result for the people I know (who happen to be relatives) is that the IRS admitted that they didn't have to pay. There was a HUGE amount of intimidation involved on the part of the IRS, but they had no choice but to surrender to the proof that they are wrong. Their final letter said, basically, that they (my relatives) had a "responsibility" to pay their taxes and the IRS would "be there when they were ready to make good on their responsibility". And that's it...and it was years ago. Even more to the point, the film notes that a whopping 67 million people do NOT pay the Federal Income tax...and no, they are NOT in jail. The Supreme Court declared in 1913 that the 16th ammendment did NOT give the Federal Government new powers of taxation and that they could NOT tax the wages of private citizens. Numerous lower courts have referred to this and let off many "tax dodgers". The IRS snuck this law into power by making it "voluntary" (you "volunteer" by signing a W4). If you read the instruction book for filling out the W4, the intro page used to read, "Congratulations, you are now one of millions of Americans participating in this voluntary tax." I shit you not, that was in the W4 instruction book...their own words, not mine! It's not tax dodging to stand up for your rights, nor is it unpatriotic to criticize your country when it's wrong. Yes, American has many positives, but most of them are there DESPITE the government, not because of it. Our freedoms are slipping away one by one and if we don't stand up for them now, they won't be there tomorrow. Name any right you want and it's a mere shadow of what it once was (and what it is supposed to be).

  • July 25, 2006, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Shaner and Engineer - Once again, I have not said that

    by FluffyUnbound

    Islam isn't crazy. Islam is crazy. Christianity is crazy too, but we can stick to Islam if you want. My issue is whether the fact that Islam is crazy makes it inevitable that practitioners of Islam would seek to destroy the United States and/or kill all Westerners. And if this was in fact the case - if there was a one-to-one correlation between fundamentalist Islam and America-hating - then Muslims should always have hated America, and should always have sought to kill or destroy Westerners. Since this is not the case, I'm seeking to understand what's different NOW. And in very large part, "what's different now" boils down to "We hand the Israelis a new stick to beat Muslims with every time they break a stick over some Muslim's head".

  • July 25, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Just because Islam is more violent in their means

    by Novaman5000

    Doesn't mean it's any worse than Christianity. In a way, you have to respect the islamist radicals for having the balls to just come right out and kill people who they don't agree with. It's a little more to the point than the Christians with their ammendments and fostering of bigotry. Which is more dangerous, a group who is outrightly violent or a group that uses it's power and "righteous" image to manipulate the world into doing what it wants? I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think it's an interesting question. Oh, and for the record, it is the radicals who are killing in the name of Islam. There is such thing as a peaceful muslim. Let's not start with the generalizations based on a small segment of the muslim population. Let me guess, every Muslim is a terrorist, too, right? If only it were that simple.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Gee, Luscious...

    by Childe Roland you suppose you could've trotted out one more stereotype to make your case above? I'll bet you could've worked a bunch of illegals living in the same apartment in there somewhere if you'd really tried. For all your talk about "the real world," you have an incredibly simple notion of it (specifically that those who work hard and persevere will be rewarded by a somehow fair system). The real world is messy. It's complicated. It rarely, if ever, works according to the best laid plans of those who should know better (despite the terrifying predictability of most people's behaviors). Good people can't find work, and that doesn't make them lazy or crackheads. Working people can't afford healthcare, and that has nothing to do with how hard they work or how bad they want it. It's easy to sit in a comfortable job with good benefits and bitch and moan about every dollar the government (State and Federal) takes out of your check, especially when you've racked up a bunch of debt getting your lifestyle to a level you believe you should be living at, but taxes are the price of participation in the system that enables your relative success. Taxes (when not being funneled into wars started under false pretenses) go toward supporting the society that your job serves...the society that enables your job's existence and, based on the value you obviously place on your earnings, defines you as a person. The more you benefit from that society, the more you should pay to keep it functioning and, like any closed system, it functions only as well as the sum of its parts. Those parts, if you aren't following the analogy, are its people. All of them. From you and I with our collegiate and credit card debt to the guy I can see right now from my 18th floor corner office window, sleeping on a bench in the park my local taxes help maintain. Either we're all Americans with the same sense of responsibility to all that means and to each other, or we're all a bunch of selfish pricks who only want to support the aspects of our system that benefit us directly (a.k.a. hypocrites). If I hear another right-wing diatribe on how "it is the U.S.'s moral responsibility to better the lives of those poor oppressed people in Iraq" followed up by another "if those poor, hungry Americans can't afford decent health care they obviously aren't working hard enough" tirade, I'm going to start slapping folks on both of their faces.

  • July 25, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST

    I meant "Islamic"

    by Novaman5000

  • July 25, 2006, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by ninpobugei

    Patriotism is not buying into the party line, it is standing up for the Constitution and asking questions of the government and our representatives. Patriotism refers to your loyalty to the Constitution, NOT to the government. That is a very important ideal that the Feds would like you to forget. Government can become corrupt and the Founding Fathers knew this (they knew it very well because they saw the Articles of Confederation (their form of government before they disolved it and wrote the Constitution) become corrupted in just 9 years). I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who told the people after the ratification of the Constitution that they had given them a Republic, if they could keep it. They well understood that the government could become corrupted if the people weren't vigilant in preventing the government from seizing power without the OK of the people. This is exactly what the government does every day. When was the last time you were able to directly vote for anything the Federal government did? The answer is never - they make decisions every day that affect us, but we have very little say (which is why lobby groups have a means to pierce the veil of secrecy around the feds and their every day actions). Furthermore, the government is pretty much controlled and run by members of think tanks (in particular, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Counsel on Foreign Relations). These are unelected private groups of very wealthy individuals and corporations that "advise" the federal government. Unfortunately, they have gone much further than that...they appoint fellow members to other positions of power. Now, most of the highest officials in power are members of these groups - the greatest "members only" club in the world. And they aren't hidden. Here's their website: and here's a great site that has done the research to show that American citizens do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax:

  • July 25, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Exactly, Fluffy

    by Novaman5000

    I hate when people try to paint Islam as "hating our way of life", when I think what they really hate is America's meddling in the Middle East conflict. I don't think they give two shits if I have an iPod or not.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:05 p.m. CST

    For me it's not my personal taxes so much...

    by FluffyUnbound the stench of injustice attached to the post-FDR system. I would gladly - GLADLY - keep my individual taxes exactly the same, or even increase them, if I could go down the checklist of the party platform of the Libertarian Party of America and enact into law the parts I chose. GLADLY. I would no longer walk anywhere because I would always be skipping, with a big stupid smile on my face. The set of things I consider rightly part of our "common project" is just more limited than Childe's.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Taxes and Childe Roland

    by ninpobugei

    Unfortunately, Childe Roland is wrong on many points. What he/she attributes to the government is actually attributed to private business. The government is far, FAR larger than was ever intended and also far larger than we need to maintain our country. We do not owe the government ANYTHING! Since when are we the servants of the government? Our standards of living have blossomed DESPITE the government, not BECAUSE of the government. We've lost so much money and resources due to illegal and Unconstitutional government actions that the losses can not even be measured. Government has become an entity unto itself, growing itself just because it can. The little positive it ever does is overshadowed by the immense amount of negative it causes. No government employee is ever laid off or fired, no agency ever closed. Government just continues to grow and grow and grow - for its own sake, not our own. The numerous regulatory agencies do far more harm than good and hinder progress at every turn. The Federal Government was intended only to regulate commerce (i.e. coin money - which it no longer does), form treaties with other countries, and direct the military. That's it. Instead, they now dictate virtually everything in our lives. Very little that we do is outside the preview of the Federal Government and this is patently unconstitutional. The facts remain that our vaunted government has run up a National Debt of more than $8.4 trillion dollars and run an annual deficit of nearly a third of a trillion dollars - all under the watch of both Republicans and Democrats. The FACT is true that the Federal Income tax only pays the interest on the debt (it actually makes up very little of the more than $2 trillion they make in taxes each year). If you look at the sheer number of taxes we pay, you'll see that this is true. Other examples of massive government failure that we pay for: social security and medicare, also unconstitutional entities that were intended to be voluntary, are extraordinarily expensive and have failed in most every way possible. Every American could take all the money they pay to social security and simply place it into bank CD's and they'd still end up with more than double what they get back when they retire from the government - that is criminal! It is a system that actually keeps people in poverty when its intent was to PREVENT poverty. Just one more example that Childe Roland doesn't know what he/she is talking about. It sounded good, but it's patently false for anyone that actually knows history and economics.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Libertarian Party

    by ninpobugei

    FluffyUnbound...if you could go through the checklist of the Libertarian Party, you'd find that you could keep all your income taxes...and then some! Constitutional government can be run on just a few billion dollars. This has been proven conclusively and shows just how far afield our $3 trillion-dollar-per-year government has gone from the Constitution.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Ninpo, my point was more that...

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...People reflexively turn to libertarians and say, "You cheap bastards just don't want to pay your taxes!" and I just happen to think that's an unsound characterization. The average libertarian I know [and I know many, inside the party and out] is motivated much more by profound theoretical indignation at the current state of affairs than by their own taxes. I've never commissioned a poll, but I would guess that since most libbies are so obsessed with the idea of being RIGHT that the vast majority of them would take the same deal I just proposed - they'd leave things the same for themselves if they could smash the state for everyone else, because knowing that the injustice that motivates and sustains the modern state BURNS THEIR ASS so much that it outweighs the mere money. You don't leave the major parties unless you're an ideologue, and an ideologue is just an idealist in a bad mood.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Question Novaman 5000...

    by DoctorWho?

    My wife is Muslim. She understands the roots of this better than you or I. Do you equate todays Christianity with Islamic Jihad? After all, you have such "respect" for people who "... have the balls to just come right out and kill someone they don't agree with." Ya. That's a GREAT thing isn't it?

  • July 25, 2006, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Novaman5000: Here's a story just for you.

    by DoctorWho?

    "A teacher has been shot and killed in front of a classroom of children in Southern Thailand...The gunmen disguised themselves as students to shoot the Buddhist teacher..." Wow. Youv'e just got to respect that kind of commitment and dedication eh? Your a moral idiot.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:39 p.m. CST

    I agree FluffyUnbound

    by smackfu

    And too many people make the association that being anti-Israel is anti-Jew. It's not. If you think Syria is a shitty country that we should have nothing to do with, does that mean you're racist against arabs? But pretty much anyone who expresses even the slightest displeasure at Israel's actions or behavior, gets accused of being antisemetic...

  • July 25, 2006, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Yes, Fluffy

    by Engineer_at_peac

    I would gladly, GLADLY keep paying Social security taxes if they promised to end social security. If they said "Ok, look, we are going to end social security, but we still have to pay these other guys, the old people who already payed in. Your generation is screwed though." I would be incredibly happy because the next generation and the generation after that would be free of social security payroll taxes and free to save, invest, or spend that money however they pleased.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Doc, I was simply asking a question about

    by Novaman5000

    how dangerous "non-violent" means could be, that's all. There's something to be said for not hiding behind pretenses. Nowhere did I say I agreed with such behavior, I was just saying in a way, you have to respect the blunt thought process. It's almost refreshing, not to deal with the whole "well, WE love everyone, but we're not going to let this group do what they want because the bible says so" passive aggressive bullshit we get alot in this politically correct age. At the least the radicals come right out and say what their intentions are, that's all I was saying. As for Jihad, as I understand it, it has multiple meanings, doesn't it? Sure, today's Christians aren't as outwardly violent as Muslims, but they still seek to further their religion, convert others, and punish/judge those who they believe sin... That could be considered a type of Jihad, couldn't it? Doesn't have to be violent. I am far from a resource on the subject, but it seems to me there are alot of ways to force your views on others and to further your own religion. In our present time between these two religions, the means are just different. Neither one is right or just, in my opinion. And we can't forget that way back when, Christians took up the sword as well. Who knows how Christianity would fare if it wasn't a first world country. Perhaps it would be as violent as Islam is said to be? Really, I think it comes down to this: Is your wife devout? If so, is she an evil person? Does she want to kill those who aren't Mulsim? I would think not. If she were evil, you probably wouldn't have married her, and if she wanted to kill non-muslims, I doubt she would have married one. My entire original post was born from the idea of many on here that Muslims were evil and wanted to destroy every other non-muslim, and that Christianity was good because it was all about love and what have you. I was just saying that it's not that simple, and that just because something isn't overtly dangerous, doesn't mean it isn't.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    So, ninpobugei...

    by Childe Roland're suggesting that you (specifically you, not some theoretical citizen of the world you) could make your living and enjoy the lifestyle you enjoy now (complete with Internet access and the freedom to post your opinions on this site) if the United States didn't exist? I don't know you from Adamm but I can say with 100% certainty that if you work for a U.S. company or a foreign company that provides goods or services to the U.S. and you live within the U.S. (or even a commonwealth), you are grossly mistaken. The system enables your success and your very existence (don't believe me? renounce your citizenship and move to a country with a different system...see how you fare). Or perhaps you simply misunderstood my point? Either way, I'll just chalk it up to you typing without thinking hard enough about what's actually being discussed. If you call yourself an American, you have to live by the American system. Yeah...that's a capitalist system (where businesses are often provided tax breaks as an incentive for being a part of that system)...but it's not a cut-throat Darwinian exercise in survival of the richest, despite what right-wing dogma dating back to the Reagan era would have you believe. It's a republic founded by, of and for the people...not just the ones with money. That means the closed system is bouyed up by those who prosper under it. You can believe you don't owe anyone anything for the opportunities you've been given, but you're dead wrong. You're apparently looking for that dystopian future corporate state from Blade Runner or Alien or something. That's all well and good for a guy like you, but don't expect everyone who does have knowledge of history, economics AND philosophy (can't leave that one out when discussing the ideals upon which this nation was founded) to rally behind you as you rush toward the edge of the pier.

  • July 25, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    *Who knows how Christianity would fare if it wasn't

    by Novaman5000

    Based in predominantly first and second world countries.

  • July 25, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the reply Novaman 5000

    by DoctorWho?

    Your right about my wife. She's not devout. We follow this stuff quite closely and she's heartbroken that nutjob Wahabi's have hijacked her religion...AND the lack of Muslim outrage against it. I personally never comment on a religion...ONLY THE PRACTITIONERS of that religion.You did say that Christians seek to "punish/judgethose who they believe sin." In fairness to the Christians out there... I think they leave that part up to God ultimately. Nevertheless, it should not be framed as Christianity VS. Islam.No. It is the West VS Islamo Facism. BTW, I apologize for calling you a moral idiot. I shot from the hip.

  • July 25, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    I think to an extent the do hate our way of life

    by smackfu

    but it's not entirely unjust. Because we do value our material possessions our physical appearance above all else. Not everyone, but an overwhelming majority. Most americans eagerly say that yes, if they caught someone stealing their TV they'd shoot them dead. Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property, but the ultimate implication is that to that person, a human life is worth less than a $300 TV that will probably only last for about 6 years before they have to buy another $300 tv. Thieving asshole or not, you're still a murderer if you kill a guy over possessions, junk, collections of atoms that you've decided have worth for a brief period of time. Mind you hardcore muslims tend to be just as rutheless, but even still, they tend to kill over moral\religious issues, where we are still killing over maintaining a level of comfort. At the end of the day, which is better, to kill for God as you believe he desires, or to kill for the box you stare at every night?

  • July 25, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST


    by smackfu

    The physical appearance thing. If you lived in a world where struggling to survive was a daily reality, where you don't have plumbing and your house is made of dirty, yeah, you're probably going to have a bit of hatred for a culture of people who spend money that would feed your village for a month on getting their eyebrows raised by a half a centimeter.

  • July 25, 2006, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I'd shoot someone dead if I found them stealing

    by Engineer_at_peac

    my stuff. Mainly because they would be in my house and there is no telling what kind of weapons they might be carrying. Is a human life worth less than $300? No, of course not. But a human life of someone who is stealing my shit is definitely worth less than my human life, and I'm not taking any chances that they might end mine. If anyone is in my home stealing, I'm going to assume they have a gun and take appropriate action. And that has nothing to do with religion.

  • July 25, 2006, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Novaman5000- please do us all a favor

    by bubbha

    and castrate yourself. Thanks.

  • July 25, 2006, 5:45 p.m. CST

    We know exactly how Christianity faired in the 3rd Wrld

    by detinue

    Judeo-Christianity was (and is) a major positive influence on the Western Civilization that has built most of the prosperous and successful First and Second World countries existing today. Whereas Islam was (and is) a major negative influence on the Middle Eastern Civilization that has left that region in 3rd World poverty and squalor for the better part of a millennium.

  • July 25, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Society is not a closed system, Childe.

    by detinue

    Society is most certainly a dynamic system containing many constantly changing, expanding, new, old, growing, and dying parts that aren't always linked. If society wasn't dynamic then the never ending stream of innovations, growth, and progress through the eons which has propelled mankind from simple sustenance cavemen to globe trotting cosmopolitans could not have occured. In a closed system, with everything finite and linked, it would have been impossible to get from there to here. Yet, here we are indeed.

  • July 25, 2006, 6:24 p.m. CST

    This sounds like a low-rent Alex Jones doco to me

    by crayotic

    A guy who I'm surprised Harry hasn't pimped on this site yet, given his Austin TX proximity and loving from guys like Richard Linklater and Chuck Sheen. Regardless what you may or may not think of his theories.

  • July 25, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland - a difference of opinion

    by ninpobugei

    The discussion is that you seem to think that our enlarged government is necessary to our current standard of living and it is this point I disagree with. Our system, as dictated by the Constitution, is far superior to what we have now. Saying that I or any other American owes his current standard of living to our government is a serious misnomer...unless you mean it in a negative sense, that is. The standard of living for ALL Americans would be much higher were we to reduce the Federal Government to about 1/8 its current size, end the intrusiveness of garbage like the Patriot Act, bring ALL our soldiers home, and turn our attentions to solving our own problems and not those of the rest of the world (our own increase in science and medicine would likewise raise the standard of living for the rest of the world - just as it did during the Industrial Revolution). You also seem to tie the "United States" to the government, and that is again a philosophical blunder. Just as true patriotism is questioning the government and reining it in as necessary, so too is the United States much more than its government...our government falls fall short of the ideal and the people that make up the "United States".

  • July 25, 2006, 6:50 p.m. CST

    ninpobugei, you may have some good points, but....

    by DoctorWho?

    Living in a 21st century isolationist country isn't one of them. If we packed it in and came home and told the rest of the world "your on your own, good luck"...we would surely regret it. It would be a defeat that would not only cede Iraq to the Iranian mullahs, but Lebanon to the Hezbollah and the world to the chaos that will follow. And Btw, give me ONE example of how the Patriot Act has been "intrusive" in your life. No one has ever been able to give me one yet.

  • July 25, 2006, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Doc, re: Christians

    by Novaman5000

    I think that many do leave the judging up to God, as the religion says they should and I can absolutely respect that. I, too, am trying to comment on how people are using their religions, not so much on the religion themselves. Still, there are many Christians in present day America who have no problem telling others that they are going to hell for living a certain way, even though it ultimately is not up to them. In fact, I'd imagine God might be a little annoyed to have people assume how he's going to judge others.

  • July 25, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    The question, Childe, is the extent of the obligation

    by FluffyUnbound

    each person owes, and how one goes about defining that obligation. Unless you believe that this obligation is infinitely elastic [i.e. that society can demand literally anything it wants from any of its members, up to and including death, body parts, "honor", liberty, etc.] then it's a question of establishing where the limits are, and [perhaps more importantly] the mechanism one is to use for defining those limits, and for discharging that obligation. One could use a model of reciprocity, in which case each of us discharges our most basic obligation when we mutually agree not to murder each other at random. We advance further on this obligation when we refrain from enslaving one another or stealing from one another. And we advance still further when we agree to mutually contribute to the maintenance of the administrative structure that formalizes our agreement not to murder each other or steal from each other - the state, the police, the courts, etc. I think one could reasonably argue that we advance still further when we undertake basic measures for public health - I used to think this should not be the state's concern, but I now recognize that there are externality benefits experienced by all when measures are taken to see to it that poor people aren't dying in the streets of communicable diseases, and on that basis everyone should be made to contribute to those measures. But do we continue to advance in this area when we use tax money not for these general activities of universal benefit, but to undertake specific actions like roadbuilding, or specific transfers like "take tax money from person A and give it to person B to live on"? I think that's an open question and reasonable arguments can be made on either side. I tend to favor the "no" position here. After all, the fact that the existence of the United States makes it possible for me to live in a semi-capitalist society does not automatically make it morally valid for a specific individual to demand part of my paycheck. It's one thing to say that I need the context of the United States [or any particular society] to operate in - it's another thing to say that Joe Blow from Podunk, Arkansas makes my success possible, and therefore has me in a state of moral obligation. He didn't and doesn't. The overwhelming majority of the people with whom I share this society who actually contributed to me in any way have already been paid.

  • July 25, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Direct vs. Indirect Taxation

    by evolution1085

    Not being as versed in constitutional law as most people in a country should be, I have to concede the language of the amendment doesn't necessarily allow for such a law, Congress has the abilty to basically pass anything it wants if it deems it "necessary and proper" (hence the necessary and proper clause that gave us all the nifty stuff Congress couldn't explicitly handle because it wasn't written on the piece of paper back in the day), so the constitutionality of the law will never be truly challengable... As for the direct vs indirect question, the way I'm reading the particular point of contention is that since the law doesn't allow for a tax on wages, and instead a tax on non wage goods (property for example). What then would prevent the government from taxing the hell out of your land value, which would cause rent prices to skyrocket, and the have nots would have less while the haves would still have plenty. A national sales tax, to this simple college student, seems to be the simplest way to collect taxes. The people who spend the most money pay the most money and it eliminates the tax code (which panders to the rich who can afford to find tax attorneys and accountants to find all the loopholes in the system). You're never gonna please everybody when your asking them to hand over part of the income they toil for, but at least streamline the system, get the money from the people who have it, and it eliminates those people who are working off the books, helping to discourage that whole illegality (which is another rant for another talkback)

  • July 25, 2006, 10:11 p.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    I too have had Christians tell me (albeit politely) that if I don't accept Christ as the savior etc. that I'll be going to hell. That's fine. If I don't believe it, then what's the problem?(Just for the record, I'm not an atheist). If someone says that I'm gay, and I say "no i'm not" yet they insist that I am...that's fine. Just because THEY believe it, doesn't make it any more true. I think its funny/odd how people get "offended" when Christians do that. If your not buyin' what they're sellin' in the first place...then what's the problem. Just pat them on the head and tell them to have a nice day.

  • July 25, 2006, 10:33 p.m. CST

    We'll all be kickin it with Hitler in Heaven

    by smackfu

    if at the last minute he accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal savior. He was a christian to begin with, wasn't he?

  • July 25, 2006, 11:35 p.m. CST

    It doesn't matter what they believe, true,

    by Novaman5000

    I was just responding to your comment that most Christians leave it up to God to judge others, when I think that many of them don't. I'm not too bothered when someone tries to force their beliefs on me, though I think the world would be an infinitely better place if that didn't happen.

  • July 26, 2006, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Main page poll

    by RaulMonkey

    Hey, Capone! Cheers, buddy. You've been duking it out with Moriarty and have often been neck and neck with him, but it looks like more AICNers want to blow you! You've got a lead of about 900 at the time of this post.

  • July 26, 2006, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Foolish Mortals!!!!

    by Sean Arronge

    Ok, First of all facism is a system. Whereby corperations and the state collude together to quash free markets and all competition.The despotism and restrictive laws on our liberty and rights are merely the Symptoms.Or the clear, appreant real, and substantive actions by the state that one would finaliy come to the conclusion wow...I live in a police state.I challenge any person to name one right within the bill right's that connot be infringed without due process of law the 5th amendemnt of the constitution. Article 1 section 9 of the U.S. constituion reads as foillows "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken". the 16th amendment reads. The 16th amendment reads as follows. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". The point is that no American citzen who works in the United Stats of America earn's an "Income" from his, or her labor the money derived from your sweat is yours.As defined In title 26 of the taxing code. What title 26 does say. If you have a U.S. corperation operating outside the U.S. on foriegn soil.Or you are U.S. citizen working out side the U.S. you are liable for the tax.The 16th amndement did'nt change that at all. The supreme court has ruled not wheather 16th amendment was constittutional although there is some argument wheather it was legally ratified,but wheather or not it gave congress new powers of taxation. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103)), "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress

  • July 26, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Those who fall back on the 16th are IGNORANT!!!!!

    by Fogy

    "No new powers of taxation - The Supreme Court": Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..." "And Congress Agrees": House Congressional Record 3-27-1943 page 2580 "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. IT IS AN EXCISE TAX [see four paragraphs above-Geoffrey] with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." "And again": From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725 titled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws", dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984 "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity. Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property."

  • July 26, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    The Patriot Act

    by ninpobugei

    Someone asked in an earlier post how the Patriot Act has affected me. Well, so far, it hasn't directly affected me AS FAR AS I KNOW (since most everything under the Patriot Act is done in secret). However, I do know many people who were themselves affected by these new policing powers. Most of them are peace protesters, so they are in a unique position to be bothered by Big Brother on a more regular basis than the regular Joe American. Also, I read a great deal on this subject and there are amazingly horrible things going on under the banner of the Patriot Act. Never was a government action more detrimental to the rights and Constitutional protections of Americans than the Patriot Act and its follow-up laws. The government is successfully flipping the rules of our so-called Constitutional Republic and this is an amazingly dangerous thing. The Founding Fathers were aware of the issues of security because these same issues had been raised by monarchs the world over for centuries prior. This is exactly what moved Franklin to note that those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither. They envisioned a participatory government where the people actively directed the government. However, we are now merely passive sheep allowing the government to run rampant and dictate our "rights" to us. Remember, our government does NOT grant rights, its intented purpose is to protect rights. My favorite quote: "People should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of its people."

  • July 26, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST


    by ninpobugei

    In earlier posts many of you have tried to suggest alternate means of raising money to run government. The NRST is an excellent choice, as are the ideas of raising tariffs (however this would ruin our importation-based economy). But what most of you are missing is the fact that government should be CUT. No serious cuts are ever made to government; instead it grows steadily every year. Facts have been stated that if the federal income tax were ended tomorrow and government cut proportionally, we would still be left with a federal government the same size it was when Clinton was in office. This shows how massively government has been grown (under both Clinton and Bush). This is exponential growth and someday we will be unable to even afford the basics (military and entitlement/social programs). So while trying to figure alternative ways of funding government that are more fair, we should likewise consider what to cut in government to return it to its Constitutionally limited size and scope.

  • July 26, 2006, 10:45 a.m. CST

    The 16th Ammendment

    by ninpobugei

    In 1894 the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional. In 1913, after the passage of the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve, it ruled that the 16th Amendment did NOT grant Congress new rights of taxation. The income tax was still a direct tax and unconstitutional. Further, "income" was defined as corporate profit, not payment for labor. And under still other laws (as noted in another post) only government employees, members of the military, and U.S. holdings (such as Guam) would be required to pay the income tax. Regular citizens of the United States are NOT required to pay the income tax and absolutely no laws have been produced to show otherwise (and this is not a new movement...people have been looking at it for many years). The IRS survives by loopholes in their code and intimidation. The more this comes to light, the more people are going to jump on the bandwagon of not paying. And this is not tax dodging, it's sticking up for your rights. And as an issue of fairness, how is it fair for Americans to pay between 40 and 55% of their total gross income to taxes? The American Revolution was started, in a large part, due to taxes...and their tax rate at the time was only about 2%.

  • July 26, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Here's the actual law requiring you to pay.

    by from_beyond

    I did a search for the actual law requiring US citizens to pay income tax. I found it in five minutes. It's in United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, Section 1. You can read it here:

  • July 26, 2006, 12:15 p.m. CST

    ninpobugei, your paranoid...

    by DoctorWho?

    "The Patriot Act doesn't affect me AS FAR AS I KNOW"? you said. Well that's great! Let's all freak out and scream the sky is falling.And as far as your friends being aeffected by it?...I call BULLSHIT! Gee... We might be being observed by aliens too. Perhaps I have cancer. I might get struck by lightning today. Maybe the govt. is monitoring me thru my microwave.

  • July 26, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST


    by ninpobugei

    Believe what you will, however the facts back me up. The Patriot Act allows the Federal Government to overstep its bounds. Period. It is "legal" merely because the Federal Government says it's legal. The final arbiters of what is and is not legal are the American people...and by and large they would disagree with you. I have a great deal of experience with issues relating to the Patriot Act. And it is a simple enough thing to look up for yourself - news sources such as NPR are full of the issues. I could make a list, but I don't have that much time to waste. And it has nothing to do with "freaking out" and screaming that the sky is falling. It DOES, however, mean that we as Americans need to be more vigilant and get this damn law revoked. The fact remains that the government is getting too big, too costly, and extremely unconstitutional in its dealings with its own people. We no longer have much of a say...and they are cracking down on how, where, when, and why we are "allowed" to say what little we're allowed to say. So believe what you will, but the government is out of control.

  • July 26, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    from_beyond - that's not the law

    by ninpobugei

    You were simply looking at IRS tax code. It's not official law because it is based upon assumptions made back in 1913 that were already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. People from both the IRS and the FBI have been investigating the law and its ratification by the 48 states existing at that time for many years and have not found any conclusive proof of a law that LEGALLY requires American citizens to pay an income tax (a direct tax which is specifically prohibited in the constitution). Many lower courts have upheld this, but it's taken years for the information to finally begin to leak to the public at large. The IRS only survives now by intimidation, but their days - thankfully - are numbered.

  • July 26, 2006, 12:51 p.m. CST

    America: Freedom to Fascism

    by ninpobugei

    The original point of this thread was with regard to the movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. I strongly encourage everyone that is able to go see this movie, look up some of the facts for yourself, and then render an opinion. It is not an entertaining movie, but it is serious and in-depth in its facts and statistics. The movie comes out in limited release on July 28th and they are trying to raise funds to get it into more cities. People having seen it have given it a standing ovation. I saw it about a week ago and was stunned that a serious movie has actually finally been made on the subject. I became aware of much of what the movie covers back in 1993 when some relatives of mine "untaxed" themselves. That was 13 years ago and they are not in jail or even being pursued by the IRS. That alone makes one stop and question. Add to that the fact that 67 million Americans do NOT pay the Federal Income tax and you really have to wonder what's up. Check out this link for more info: The media link covering the interview with the director is a great eye opener and well worth the 38 minutes it takes to watch it.

  • July 26, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Ninpodugei Is right...on the right track

    by Sean Arronge

    Yes, that is a table for married people and individuals who are liable for the tax, yes....The code is well for lack of better word codified which means that the previous provisions like the definition of "Income" and "Individual"Tell you who can be liable for the tax.As i said in my previous post. No U.S. "citizen" earns an "Income" as defined by the title 26 of the Internal revenue code. If you were born in the U.S. or natraulized "citizen".If it were constittuional for direct tax on labor the legislature would have said "Citizen" and not "Individuals".Because congress has no power to set a capitation tax on "citizens" of the U.S. which means if they did write such a law it is dead at birth.So yes "Individuals" are liable for the tax as I said before.I and most people living and working in the United States are "citizens" as defined by the code. Not "Individuals" the most important thing also to understand is yes these are terms of Common usage but not by the definitions in the code.Can I describe myself as an Individual in common usage yes.This concept is always difficult for people who have never read many codes because they start thinking of the dictionary definitions.Heres another example The definition in that title is a "Tax Payer".Now in common usage you might think well Im a tax payer. Im somone who has paid a tax.Ive bought a candy bar and beer other items before that had a sales tax.these are Inderect taxes because I can avoid the tax by simply not buying that taxable Item.In title 26 A "Tax Payer" is somone who is liable for the "Income Tax".I know it's arcane most people like myself who have spent hours pouring over the code reading over the constitution.Conclude that it's meant to confuse people by implying that it's the meaning's as we understand them In common usage.If you volinteer for the tax you have no recourse If I was to write a contract that said Joe smith you owe me 1200 dollars and joe say's Im not sure why but signs it wheather he recieved any services or any property dosnt matter the contract is valid the judge would order payment the same is true of the government.So I say to any one this is not a political question it's a legal question.Im not "Tax payer" or an "Idividual" in the eyes of the law.Are you?Aaron Russo asks these and many other important questions to the former head of the I.R.S.Don't beleive me watch the movie and pour over the pages and pages of title 26 and find out your self.

  • July 26, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    The Table I was referring to was the one

    by Sean Arronge

    From_Beyond Provided by the way sorry about that.Im not an english major either or a typist but the info is good I can read aswell as anyone.Im not particularly a political person either or wish to emberass myself by writing blogs with typos and misspellings. But if I see my countrymen and women getting screwed over. I think it's our duty to get the word out.Some times wonder why I even bother.I have no agenda.Im not against paying taxes Im against paying taxes that can't be legally authorised by our constittuion the supreme law of the land the contract that constrains the government without the constitution the "the officials as there called" i like to call them "servants" would not have any authority at all.So those servant's who say They don't have to follow it are nullifying the very document that gives them the authority to act in our behalf.Go figure.

  • July 26, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    One other coment on the patriot act 's 1 and 2

    by Sean Arronge

    Here as I was reading coments on that subject .and yes the second time it was ratified was part 2 not just reviving the orginal body of law but rivised with many more disturbing provisions.Read it and You'll see it gut's the Bill of Right's in it's entirety.Every provison one by one.You may go run outside and see no police rounding people up indescrimatly. But the body of law surly attmpts to authrise it.I don't know about you If some dude say's Im going to go over there and punch you right in the nose.I don't beleive I have to wait for him to stroll over to feel threatened.So my question to the government is why pull your pistols if you don't intend to use them.We are dealing with people by virtue of their policy who kill people all day.Invest money in how to kill people more effciantly.Those who would not be "paranoid" about those people weilding such authority.Are operating on the assumption. one that you have the authorty.And 2 your a good person people just don't act that way.I think your wrong on 1 count.Who have you killed today.Im not against war either. Im against war not authrised by congress that's open ended never ending.That say's terrorism is even asking the quetions Im asking here.

  • July 26, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Pearl Harbor reubenreviews??

    by Kenny8

    "Complain all you want about this country you've still got it better than a LOT of people out there." And that's how they creep up on you, complacency

  • July 26, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Americans are not "complacent".

    by DoctorWho?

    We may be alot of things, but damn, we'll take every godammed thing to the Supreme Court if we have to. Everybody's up in arms about something, and free to shout about it from the rooftops. People oan all sides are active and vocal. Voices are being heard and ideas vetted every single day on talk-radio and the internet. Of course if your a conspiracy nut, then of course one monolithic over-riding power that no one can define yet rules all and pulls all the strings concerning modern it's all folly, were all victims, slaves and its all meaningless.

  • July 27, 2006, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Complancency is an Understatment

    by Sean Arronge

    Every freedom group in the country has a pet amendment.One that they are beating there drum to defend.The group I am a member of is "The We The People Congress".The founder and chair is Bob Schultz can be found here We a are not for profit,non political orginization. Our group as served on all the branches of government reasonable questions written in deposition form to be answered by either yes/No.In 4 petitions.Namely regaurding "The money clauses","The taxing clauses","The war powers clauses" of our contitition.These were served by hand and proof of service was made.and asked respectfully when we might recieve answers to said questions in public and be given notice as to inform the media to inform the public.To this day the government refuses to answer.So we filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Columbia with 1700 named plaintiffs to compell the government to answer the question's per the last 5 words of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The case has been dismissed in the lower court and waiting to find out wheather it will be heard By the supreme court.SO WE ARE ASKING EVERYONE who is concerned about the direction of our Republic.Wheather a freedom group or conerned citzen to enjoin us bring your petition.And colice under one tent.To seek answers,shift the power from government back to the people which it inherantly belongs.It is your first.Amendment Right.Go see freedom to facism Aaron Russo is no democrat or Republican.Both of our political parties are working for the same end.One maybe communist and the other facist.But there not even Liberal or conservitive what is conservitive about an 8 trillion dollar dept. unauthrised wars,cetralising government,limiting states Rights.Limiting privacy,changing burden of proof,cart blanche to excutive power,not defending the borders, and authorising torture in your name.Why would the rest of the world be little upset with us?Most people in the world don't care about the fact that we have ipods and watch the Simpson's they wonder why our "Officials" carry out actions against them with out our consent.I love our country.What does that mean?I love my yard.The little peice of ground the government let's me reside on.As long as im willing to pay tribute on property I already own.Is it mine or does it all belong to the conglomerate.Enchanging liberty for security is not a new and progressive ideal it's older than our 235 year old constitution.The constititions of our states and our Beloved "Homeland".Who in history used words like Homeland,Motherland,Fatherland?Who is the soveriegn The State?or the people who own and reside on it.Can the State be alive I don't know about you. last time I ever heard the states bled was Amercan men and boy's when the U.S. was striken by civil I digress do what you can.Check out the movie.Compare governments behavior to our constititions.I say challeng it every time even small infractoins at your city and state lvl don't go and just plead guilty to every ticket or or citation. know your rights.That's being a good citizen not sitting idly by as my neigbor get's steam rolled by government force well better him than me.At that point your trading one day to the next they'll be back for you later.It's not too late aaarrrrhhhg.

  • July 27, 2006, 5:52 a.m. CST

    The fourth Pettition was

    by Sean Arronge

  • July 27, 2006, 5:54 a.m. CST

    the fourth pettition was ragaurding the U.S.A Patriot

    by Sean Arronge


  • July 27, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST

    The Supreme Court

    by ninpobugei

    Someone asked why these numerous court cases haven't been heard by the Supreme Court to make a final and lasting ruling. The fact is, many groups are trying. However, it takes time, HUGE amounts of money AND you have to "ask" to get your case heard. The Supreme Court is HIGHLY reluctant to hear this case as it would send a gigantic political shockwave across the country and literally rock our system. The very idea that every American, their parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great-great grandparents have been paying an illegal tax is almost unthinkable. Yes, many people have been jailed for "tax evasion" and just as many people have been let off. Each case is being forced to be judged as an isolated case and the prosecutors and even judges are completely bending over to the power of the IRS. As I noted earlier, it's an intimidation game. And some judges and prosecutors are scumbags...and have been recorded in court records as suggesting that the Supreme Court case of 1913 is "irrelevant". Many other courts would (and have) disagreed with them. How could anyone possibly say a ruling by the Supreme Court is irrelevant? What could possibly be more relevant in a Federal issue?

  • July 27, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    The Patriot Act and other unconstitutional things

    by ninpobugei

    Regarding how we are affected by big government running's something many of you might not have heard about: During the lockdown of New Orleans, the National Guard went door to door and confiscated guns. Yes, legally owned guns from people's homes! Those that resisted were arrested. This is shown in real video in the movie America: Freedom to Fascism. And if you don't believe it, just look up the court cases being won right now by the NRA fighting this illegal search-and-seizure. There are many ongoing battles, but they've already scored some major wins...some victories for We the People. This is where fascist states begin...the Nazis disarmed the Jews just before rounding them up. It only makes sense to disarm people when you want to take advantage of them. There are many executive orders in existence right now that give the President broad and sweeping powers during times of "crises" (and of course the government gets to determine when those times are). These scary "laws" are covered in detail in the movie, America: Freedom to Fascism. Miss this movie at your own peril! It starts tomorrow in select cities.

  • July 28, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST

    The movie and income tax

    by nontaxpayer

    Durendal, please do not make pompous statements without taking the time to research the topic. The 16th amendment did not give congress and new power of taxation as they already had the power to impose tax whether direct or indirect. If direct, it must be apportioned and if indirect it must be consistent across geographic distance. Please read the following Supreme Court case to understand the 16th amendment gave the fed no new powers. "[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court". Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921) "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918) The main key is that they only have the power to tax corporations and federal citizens (to whom the 14th amendment applies) or federal employees. Now once you accept a Social Security number you have become "Federal Personel" (see USC Title 5 Section 552a(a)13 as support. I highly suggest every person reading this takes the time to go to and read every item in the left hand column on this subject at least twice. Take the time to look at the law (this can even be done on-line) and decide for yourself it the income tax as written applies to you. This country is no longer great as some have stated here. And no, I will not leave it but will try to fix it. This country has become what it is because the majority of Americans are too ignorant and too lazy to due anything about it. They have their toys and are happy being slaves. The federal and state government combine to take up to 55% of your money in tax not including sales tax or communication tax, or liquor tax, or cigarette tax, or gasoline tax, car tax (registration), property tax, and the list could go on. Once you add it all up you are over 75% of your money (labor and time) going to the government. How is that not slavery? Wow, they give me the scraps that are left over. Go ahead and argue that Americans live well and I will argue that Americans could live better. How much money is wasted by our governement who currently holds a $14 trillion dollar debt load? Any further comments or questions can be addressed to