Disclaimer:  I'm not necessarily supporting all of the above films contentions, just interested in discussing the assertions made by the film.

How about if I go to the film's website, read this;

Dear Lovers of Liberty, the struggle is just beginning! Get ready...

and save my self a significant portion of an hour and 45 minutes of my life? 

And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?

Who got bounced tonite?

Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

As far as the Fed Reserve stuff, I'm not too sold (although my interest is peaked a little).

The tax stuff is absolutely flooring though. 

BondGuy: to answer your question...I think that the fact that there are multiples of people actually winning in court over this, including former IRS agents, gives this enough credibility. 

The main reason I posted the above link is that I was curious about anyone else's ideas on how to verify.

[quote=mikebutler222]

How about if I go to the film's website, read this;

Dear Lovers of Liberty, the struggle is just beginning! Get ready...

and save my self a significant portion of an hour and 45 minutes of my life? 

[/quote]

Yeah Mike, you would throw the baby out with the bath water. 

You'd be suprised Mike, there's a lot of good stuff in that movie (and some wacky stuff too).  Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   

There are some places where the movie jumps to some conclusions which I think are stretching it a bit, but for the most part, it does a great job of exposing the reality of our tax code and how the current system violates the consitution.  It backs this assertion with real life cases and successes in the courts.

But I wouldn't expect you to get it anyway.  Good luck amigo.

I remember a case about 25 years ago, where a Connecticut woman who

owned a machine shop refused to deduct taxes from employees wages. Her

contention was that her firm’s accountants were not paid IRS agents, and

therefore she (her company) had no obligtion to do the government’s work

for it. Income tax, she felt, was a matter between the IRS and the employee

and had nothing to do with her. They fought that for years until the lady

died. The premise seems reasonable, but I can’t see the tax courts letting

ANYONE get away with that!

[quote=dude]

As far as the Fed Reserve stuff, I'm not too sold (although my interest is peaked a little).

The tax stuff is absolutely flooring though. 

BondGuy: to answer your question...I think that the fact that there are multiples of people actually winning in court over this, including former IRS agents, gives this enough credibility. 

The main reason I posted the above link is that I was curious about anyone else's ideas on how to verify.

[/quote]

Dude, there are people losing too. Ivin,(was that his name?) did 13 years. Still, it is fasinating that there are people winning. A former friend of mine is finishing up a 14 year stretch for tax fraud. Watching what happened to him was maddening. The IRS doesn't play fair.

There are problems. Being that I'm not a constitutional lawyer I don't have a big enough set to take a stand. I'm not betting my net worth, controlled as it may be by secret bankers, on my ability to beat the IRS at a game it has perfected. Or close enough to perfected that taking a stand exposes my liberty and net worth to a process that extremely stacks the deck against me. Call me sensible, call me conservative, call me a pussy, either way I'm definately not going first on this one. 

On the big brother RFID issue and the Real ID program, this is a problem. The probem being that the nation of sheep in which we live is willingly moving towards that May 08 entrance gate. There is resistance, Montana, New Hamshire, California, and a few other states have passed laws or have legislation pending which will limit the info included on the card and either eliminate the RFID or will add protections which at least partially address the personal ID threat. One disgusting aspect to this fight is that some states aren't fighting for the ID concerns but rather because the act is an unfunded mandate. These states want the money to implement the program. The process of signing people up and getting fifty state governments to comply added to, all the info flowing to and through the Homeland Security Dept will be a massive undertaking. I feel a Katrina moment coming.

As for Montana, the only state that has completely rejected the program, their residents will be non compliant. All the negatives that were brought up in the film will apply. For the rest of us, it's either sign up or watch life as we know it come to a screeching halt. That's a problem if protections aren't implemented. Anyone care to take a life changing stand?

Of course there is one alternative:

Montana, that's one of those big rectangular states west of the Mississippi, right? They've got some decent neighborhoods there don't they? What's the weather like in January?

[quote=dude]Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   [/quote]

Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.

[quote=BondGuy]

And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?

Who got bounced tonite?

Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

[/quote]

Joey Lawrence left (my wife watches it). 

[quote=BrokerRecruit][quote=BondGuy]

And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?

Who got bounced tonite?

Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

[/quote]

Joey Lawrence left (my wife watches it). 

[/quote]

Thanks, still going with Emmitt

I will never accept a RFID device and may even refuse a national ID card!!!  I believe that such developments are an egregious theft of individual liberty and will do little to fight the actual war on terrorism. 

I believe that fear is a powerful tool to motivate the masses and unfortunatley, it seems that the masses are too fattened on our current consumer culture to risk their 'way of life'.  It seems that the current propaganda focuses on preserving our way of life more than anything.  Sadly this is the average American's achilles heel...the EXPECTATION that their way of life is preserved.  They'll trade security and freedom for the governments' tit and narcotic promise that their way of life won't be inconvenienced.

Unfortunatley, our way of life is not currently sustainable...it will have to change whether we like it or not, as more and more countries compete for fewer resources.  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population.  Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?  An even more important (because in the end it doesn't matter what you think about it) question is: Do the Chinese people feel like they deserve the American dream too?  It's figuring out how each party can meet their needs that will determine how much of our current way of life we'll be able to preserve.  If we persist with this 'manifest destiny' type logic, that we deserve the American Dream (as it is now defined) the only outcome will be conflict...and of a far more heinous kind than the current War on Terror/Freedom or whatever you want to call it.

Why are most people cynical about the candidates they vote for...why do so many people feel like it won't make much difference for who they vote for?  Maybe it's because it's obvious that party lines and special interests have the influence, not truth.  Everybody's saving their own a*ses. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   [/quote]

Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.[/quote]

Since you didn't watch the film MikeB, your input is dreadfully worthless.  Thanks for watching, but...sorry.

I love when people start making assumptions and having opinions about something they have not experienced.

I specified that those who comment should at least watch a significant portion of the film.  This is a subject I am interested in discussing with those who have seen the film.  Other input is off topic. 

When you watch the movie c'mon back and I'll gladly entertain any of your input amigo.  Until then....FLUSH!!!!

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=dude]Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   [/quote]

Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho.

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.[/quote]

Since you didn't watch the film MikeB, your input is dreadfully worthless.  Thanks for watching, but...sorry. [/quote]

Wait a sec, dude, I read their webpage, I read numerous reviews, pro and con of it. Now, are you going to tell me they presented both sides? Really? Reviews of the film, pro and con, mentioned that as a significant shortcoming.

I love when people start making assumptions and having opinions about something they have not experienced.

ecified that those who comment should at least watch a significant portion of the film.  This is a subject I am interested in discussing with those who have seen the film.  Other input is off topic. 

Fine, if you’re interested in a discussion of a single side of an issue, be my guest. I meant no insult to you, I was simply commenting on the nature of the beast, the crockumentary or “advocamentary” if you prefer.  I can't imagine it's worth the time involved.

When you watch the movie c'mon back and I'll gladly entertain any of your input amigo.  Until then....FLUSH!!!!

[/quote]

Perhaps, then,  we can discuss sometime the value of indoctrination (which is what these things are, regardless of the source left or right) over a presentation of all sides of an issue.

[quote=dude]  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population.  [/quote]

We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."

Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.

That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population.  [/quote]

We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

[/quote]

Mike...c'mon, you're smart enough to know that I meant 'consume the majority of the currently consumed resources'.  Let's not play word games, you're above that my friend. 

Again...your input on the movie (the topic of this thread, in case you didn't realize it) is pretty worthless.  I don't care what reviews or 'snippets' you've read.  This is a thread on the movie, it's presented evidence and conclusions. 

I can't have a conversation with someone about some of the specific cases and evidence in the movie with someone who hasn't even availed themselves of that information now can I?  Nothing personal, and in fact I'd love to hear what you (not some reviewer etc..) think of the info presented. 

Knowing you as a smart and literate individual and as someone who is fair minded, keep in mind that I posted a disclaimer at the beginning (mostly in anticipation of your comments to be honest).

Whether you think the concept is 'wacko' or whatever...there are quite a few people winning court cases based on the argument this movie is contending (and yes there are some loosing too).  If you think that this topic is still in the realm of wacko's...you may be implying that our Courts' are siding with the wackos in many cases.

In my view, people asking to be provided the exact law, which unequivocally requires us to UNVOLUNTARILY forfeit a portion of our wages is completely reasonable and in the realm of the dreadfully ordinary, not the extraordinary.  If we are a country that is ruled by law (as we claim) then this request should be completely reasonable and supported by you MikeB.

The point is that no one to date has been able to come forward and clearly point out a law, which is why people are winning these cases.  

In fact, based on the constitution and precedent set by the Supreme Court...the current tax system is illegal.

Some of the other conclusions the movie makes are tenous and speculative in the extreme...I wish he would have stayed focused on the tax issues frankly. 

The other aspects of the movie are worthless to discuss since they lie in the realm of extreme speculation.

Anyhow, I really don't give a crap what you think until you've seen the movie.  Don't waste your time since you're not going to persuade me of anything until you can intelligently comment on the movie's points and evidence.  And, I am open to persuasive arguments on this topic.

http://www.fairtax.org/index.htm

The above orginazation is more in line with what I believe to be a sensible tax system. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   [/quote]

Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.

[/quote]

I didn't think it was a waste of time. It was thought provoking. The parts about your rights in front of the IRS were spot on. Not exagerated one bit. As was the "you are guilty until proven innocent" if charged by the IRS. And the seize and ruin nature of their agents was accurate, if a bit under played in the film. These guys are mean and they are liars. Hopefully you'll never find this out from personal experience, but the movie DID NOT exaggerate this. What other side is there to the IRS acting on no more than an unsubstanciated tip to turn your life upside down.

I know this from personal experience. A long time ago while embroiled in bitter custody fight with my ex-wife, she called the IRS with a claim of tax fraud against me. These people we not gentle. They turned my life upside down based on the word of a bitter woman. She later, in open court, recanted the accusation. That she was a drug addict had no effect on the IRS going through seven years of my tax records. So yeah, the movie is not crap on that point. Did you know that the accuser in these cases shares whatever is collected? At least that was how it worked in those days. Play the odds, drop a dime on those asshole neighbors and coworkers, and collect a bounty. Ruin innocent people's lives and get paid for it. Nice huh?

Not liking the name calling.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population.  [/quote]

We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

[/quote]

Mike...c'mon, you're smart enough to know that I meant 'consume the majority of the currently consumed resources'.  Let's not play word games, you're above that my friend. 

Thanks, but smart as I am, I didn't know what you meant.

Again...your input on the movie (the topic of this thread, in case you didn't realize it) is pretty worthless.  I don't care what reviews or 'snippets' you've read.  This is a thread on the movie, it's presented evidence and conclusions. 

Well, since it only presents evidence it wants you to see, and not the whole picture.....

I can't have a conversation with someone about some of the specific cases and evidence in the movie with someone who hasn't even availed themselves of that information now can I?  Nothing personal, and in fact I'd love to hear what you (not some reviewer etc..) think of the info presented. 

The point, dude, is that it's just one side, it doesn't even pretend to be objective.

Knowing you as a smart and literate individual and as someone who is fair minded, keep in mind that I posted a disclaimer at the beginning (mostly in anticipation of your comments to be honest).

I honestly don't even get what your point is here. It seems as though you want to protect yourself from me associating you with things said on the film. I haven't, and wouldn't do that.

Whether you think the concept is 'wacko' or whatever...there are quite a few people winning court cases based on the argument this movie is contending (and yes there are some loosing too). 

That's my point too. Objective reviewers have said the film distorts the results and leaves out defeats in court of the theory.

If you think that this topic is still in the realm of wacko's...you may be implying that our Courts' are siding with the wackos in many cases.

I didn't say that, either. I simply questioned the value of watching something that only shows one side of an issues, especially when objective sources say it's distorted facts.

In my view, people asking to be provided the exact law, which unequivocally requires us to UNVOLUNTARILY forfeit a portion of our wages is completely reasonable and in the realm of the dreadfully ordinary, not the extraordinary. 

The problem is they reject the law named to them, calling it a regulation. The courts have spoken on this one, it's law.

The point is that no one to date has been able to come forward and clearly point out a law, which is why people are winning these cases.  

They aren't winning on the grounds they claim and the courts have spoken, it is law.

In fact, based on the constitution and precedent set by the Supreme Court...the current tax system is illegal.

Now you're supporting the movie, care to discuss the lawyers who say this is bunk?

Anyhow, I really don't give a crap what you think until you've seen the movie.  Don't waste your time since you're not going to persuade me of anything until you can intelligently comment on the movie's points and evidence. 

Just for you, dude, I'm going to piss away the time required to this this thing. Then I'm going to bring you leagal sources that make the acse that watching propaganda isn't the same as watching an objective discussion....