America: FTF

http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/991/default.aspx

Looks pretty sweet. 

TIP:  Let the movie load totally first so you can watch it without bumpyness.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/downloads/dvd.html

You can buy the DVD, or watch it free on google there. 

Enjoy folks!

>>2
Amazon has it even cheaper, lol.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Freedom-Fascism-America-Freedom/dp/B000JVSUSE/sr=8-2/qid=1164055620/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

>>1
Great promo.  I'll be looking into getting the video.

Think about that debt though, INCOME tax doesn't even pay the debt we have, can you say foreclosure in chinese?

>>5
LOL. 

Yeah, we gotta get as many people as we can to see this film.  Spread it around the net. 

>>5
They are using it to pay the INTEREST on the debt.

This movie rules.. spread it far and wide people.

Here's the link to the free google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=

I'd encourage you to purchase it though, its only 14.99 from amazon, and its a superb little film.

These people are somewhat....retarded.

When the hell was this made?  I did a fucking google search on "income tax law" and found this law that none of those retards could find requiring citizens to pay an income tax.  Look: http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1.html

Black and white.  And the whole argument that the 16th amendment was never ratified is sketchy and without too much merit, even if it were true.

What I DO like about the film is that it attacks a federal income tax as inefficient, needless, and undesirable.  But goddamnit, no one will ever listen to these kool-aid drinkers' arguments for a change in tax law because they insist on trying to grab attention with these idiotic sensationalist arguments. "Fascism ZOMG, they never ratified the amendment!!!1ONE."

Fucking asshats.

>>10
Oh really? Go and collect your 50 grand then dumbass.

>>10
Which subsection and part would that be, I'm not seeing it.

>>12
I want this answered.

I'm still fucking waiting, ten.

10 got owned.

Wow I just saw this movie... good stuff.  EVERYONE should see it asap!

I thought massive national spending helps economics in times of need.(Like in the Depression, the first time we ever did this) what I don't like is spending tax dollars on stupid shit like a war that we won't ever win. We set objectives for Operation Iraq Freedom way to high, there is no way we can win this and need to stop messing with foreign affairs and start working on domestic affairs.

okay this movie is now officially stupid
"why would the American Government pay fees for a debt when they can just print the money themselves?"
That has to be the fucking stupidest thing I have ever fucking heard, this would cause massive inflation.(American dollar would be worth an American dime)

>>18
i was about to watch it but after i saw that i loled and figured anything else they say would not be trustworthy. ty anonymous

This is the basis that these conspiracy nuts have for their "omg no law" theories:

"Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In other words, they are FUCKING RETARDED.

>>12
Read the law you moron:
"The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision (see Knowlton v. Moore[4] and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[5])."

>>18
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
omg good stuff. Sorry, Russo, it's been done, and failed every time, even here in America! See: the Confederacy.

>>19
thanks for agreeing with me
Its so fucking stupid
"AMERICA WANTS TO GET RID OF THE MIDDLE CLASS"
and get rid of skilled labor and professionals?
America would become extremely weak if they did that, the middle class has been probably one of the best wealth classes to have in the economy. Yes, I'm talking about the French Revolution

Also the American dollar is equal to the Gross National Product, it is also a product, has supply and demand, and is worth something. The federal reserve is what protects the value of it(or at least tries) it also makes sure your money is safe

the federal reserve is evil

>>23
no its not, it actually does a great job of protecting the American dollar(since the FDR days) It was however the federal reserve that helped cause the depression, but since then they are way more careful

>>24
Nothey haven't, they have just been consistently leaching from the economy so it looks like the economy as is as good as it gets and we are not in a major vicious pointless depression. We could in fact be a lot "richer". I put "richer" in double apostrophes because we are in fact poor as a result of the federal reserve and would be average if currency was privatised.

>>25
you just proved my point, we could be alot "richer", and any basic economic student knows, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. So the question is..
do you want a stable economy or crazy thrill ride of money?
the crazy thrill ride is bad for human physiology

>>26 But at least it would be a *decent*, *good*, *honorable*, *just*, *fair*, *gorgeous*, *creamy* and ****LIBERATED**** thrill ride that would be really bad for us.

Libertarianistism -It's all about being orthodox and pure, since at least the suffering will be approved by the high council.

>>27
Xel you are such a faggot
How could a Libertarian pay off the national debt?

>>28
by not creating one

>>29
yes, true, but its there, America will just go down the drain probably, unless we start acting fast

>>30 You can privatize Soc. Sec. Yes it is a stupid, unnecessary, useless and risky step but it is privatization so it must be excellent! And Good! And Just! And... CRISPY! PRIVATIZE!

Actually, last time they tried that in Chile in the exact same way they got fucked. But at least they got fucked justly, beautifully and rightly. PRIVATIZE!

Idiots - focus on Health care costs and leave Soc. Sec. the fuck alone for now. Fuck Bush.

>>31
Privatisation is more efficient and will provide better services to social security recipients. If you think it should continue to be nationalised then you must hate poor people or something.

>>32
It's not quite that simple.  Privitization OVER TIME is more efficient.  There is, however, a transition period to be considered.  Secondly, all forms of privitized institutions must still be regulated in some way by the government.  That said, regarding Social Security specifically, you're quite right in that government control over the system is spiraling towards failure because it is funded ass-backwards. 

But fixing the problem is  much more complicated than putting it in the hands of the market, in my opinion.

>>33
Of course there is a transition period, but the market sorts that out. The government puts the service on sale and businesses buy it and set up their own companies to increase the value of their shares. Some very well organised businesses with intelligent determinned people would be involved in the buy outs, since their shares would increase significantly. The government may ask to retain shares in the services for a period of time so that they can influence the decisions of the new business without having to resort to "regulation".

>>31
Rather than privatizing social security, we should just axe the whole fucking system.

>>35
There might be a market for social security. It's like a cross between savings and insurance.

Yeah, people should be allowed to do with their money what they want.

>>33 Secondly, all forms of privitized institutions must still be regulated in some way by the government.

At present, sale of shoes is unregultated.

If the government suddenly started making shoes, they create a government institution.

If we privatized it, do we have to regulate it in some way by the government?

No. Let's privatize it, not take socialized institutions and fascize them.

>>31
Fuck Kerry and the democrats too for fucking up market health care.  Fuck them again for wanting to nationalize it and blaming the market for high health care costs that are clearly the fault of their own party.

>>39
National health care is awesome, fuck you. Everyone should have the right to health care, it is a goddamn human right. "Shit, sorry sir, I can't cure you, you don't have enough money to buy your life. Umm ok lol gtfo"

"Negroes for instance have by far the smallest brains, whereas whites and mongoloids have about the same size brain, but with asians beating caucasians, which explains their higher IQs with the Chinese scoring higher than many european counties with higher standards of living." -

Sorry - but ther is no corellation between brain size and intellegence. "Size" of the brain has never been scientificly shown to have any imapct on how smart you are -
Read "Broca's Brain" by carl sagan . . .

>>39
Health care shouldn't be fucking expensive, if the government was in charge of it then it would be free or very cheap

>>42
The first thing that springs to a sane mind if it were to think of a way to generate cheap healthcare would not be to persecute doctors and poor people by forcing a government monopoly over such a vital service. What are your true intentions?

>>43
you are a retard.

>>43
what?
Government and business are 2 different things, the government can monopolize things but may or may not take advantage of it. A company will always take advantage of a monopoly

>>45
The government controls the law, so if it controls a sector of the economy it can fuck with it all it wants and use the resources it leaches off to corrupt the democratic process as much as it can as that often gains more votes than rational debate and advanced policy. Every political party is in on this except the libertarian party, it's almost expected and they do it without any moral inclination because they believe certain human rights can be placated in favour of their ideologies.

It's easy to say "U R GEI MORAN LOLZ" when you hear someone say something you don't hear often. But it's right in front of your face, so don't shoot the messenger.

Regulation is necessary, heavy regulation if needed, but we need to put the power of medicine in the hands of the people, not a few elites who can declare what is true and what is not.

>>45
Name for me a single monopoly in all U.S. history that was established -without- the help of government in which the company took advantage of the people. 

>>40
"National health care is awesome, fuck you."

National health care sucks nuts.  Fuck you.

"Everyone should have the right to health care, it is a goddamn human right."

So it is a human right to violate the rights of other humans?

>>42
"Health care shouldn't be fucking expensive, if the government was in charge of it then it would be free or very cheap"

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If the government did health care, someone, somewhere along the line, would be paying for something that they would not be recieving.  They would be forced to work, and then be taxed to pay for services for another person.  Again, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and likewise, there is no such thing as 'free' healthcare.  It might be 'free' to you, but without a doubt, someone is going to be picking up your bill for you, and they won't have a choice in the matter.

You say 'health care shouldn't be expensive'.  Have you considered all the activities the government has done and does that raise the cost of health care? I somehow doubt this.  You submit to the knee-jerk reaction of the socialist/fascist democratic party:  'zomg, high health care costs = market failure, lolz'. 

The government has many activities, rules, and general regulations that raise the cost of health care unnecessarilly, and have enormous costs both in terms of economics, and in terms of precious human lives. 

Until I see at the very least modest attempts at fixing the damage done to the market by government intervention and regulation, I can't say I have a drop of respect for those who wish to socialize health care. 

Rather than lowering the costs, and addressing the root of the high expenditures, the socialists advocate a system of simply pushing the bill on to someone else. 

Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it.  ~George Bernard Shaw

>>49  Agreed. 

>>47
Someone needs to check Age of Progressive 

>>51
What do you mean?