America: Freedom to Fascism

[HighRoller]

Has anyone watched this yet?
America: Freedom to Fascism

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vNkaD...eature=related

This is 1 of 11
you can look up the other 10 links right next to it.

[Pleasurepays]

weird.

i wake up everyday and my life is totally the same as it has been forever... didn't notice we were living in a fascist state at all.

maybe you are exaggerating?

a little?

[HighRoller]

there are 11 parts
you would have to see the whole thing I guess.

[kamasutrababe]

You can watch the whole movie in one piece here:

http://www.ilovefreevideos.com/onlin...ism_(2006).php

[minusonebit]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

weird.

i wake up everyday and my life is totally the same as it has been forever... didn't notice we were living in a fascist state at all.

maybe you are exaggerating?

a little?

Nah, you're just not paying attention.

[xroach]

R.I.P Aaron Russo

my only criticism of that flick is he could have chosen a title that doesn't make people instantly put up a defensive wall

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by xroach

R.I.P Aaron Russo

my only criticism of that flick is he could have chosen a title that doesn't make people instantly put up a defensive wall

True dat.

Every thing else covered is fairly spot on sire.

[Snake Doctor]

I put that in my blockbuster queue a long time ago, still haven't received it

[dready]

Saw that a while ago, it's interesting.

'The Money Masters' I like even better:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19560256183936

[xmas13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...son_population

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. More people are behind bars in the United States than any other country. As of 2006, a record 7 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.2 million were incarcerated. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million, though China has over four times the population of the US.

[Shagbunny]

Originally Posted by dready

Saw that a while ago, it's interesting.

'The Money Masters' I like even better:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19560256183936

holy crap that's a 3hr 35 min movie? cliff notes?

[calibra]

Too much freedom has never been good to anybody.

[xroach]

Originally Posted by Shagbunny

holy crap that's a 3hr 35 min movie? cliff notes?

it's worth every second.

but if you really want the cliff notes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74362583451279

is only 47 minutes

[HighRoller]

watching the money masters right now

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

weird.

i wake up everyday and my life is totally the same as it has been forever... didn't notice we were living in a fascist state at all.

maybe you are exaggerating?

a little?

If someone was to change it from freedom to fascism... do you think they'd do it out loud or make it happen so that no one would even notice?

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

weird.

i wake up everyday and my life is totally the same as it has been forever... didn't notice we were living in a fascist state at all.

maybe you are exaggerating?

a little?

That's exactly what your enemies are counting own.
They hope you don't notice anything is going on until they have you completely surrounded.

[Poontank]

[tony286]

I have to watch it sometime.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sortie

That's exactly what your enemies are counting own.
They hope you don't notice anything is going on until they have you completely surrounded.

you're right... my "enemy" as you call it, is a government with a complete system of checks and balances that has functioned so well that it hasn't needed to be changed in 3 centuries. the same government that now has a woman and black man running for president.

i'm happy that lunatics who "get it" are watching out for me though. you're like car alarms... you're annoying 99.9% of the time... but every great once in a while you get it right.

so there's a trade off for normal people who have to tolerate people like yourself.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by StuartD

If someone was to change it from freedom to fascism... do you think they'd do it out loud or make it happen so that no one would even notice?

yeah... that makes sense. would would become a fascist state in a subtle way that no one noticed. in the entire history of the world, thats happened exactly... uhm... never.

better yet, you of course put yourself in the category of those "who get it" and you're basic point of view assumes that everyone who isn't totally paranoid doesn't "get it".

how nice.

hahaha.. jesus!

study history or government much?

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by xroach

R.I.P Aaron Russo

my only criticism of that flick is he could have chosen a title that doesn't make people instantly put up a defensive wall

I totally agree, but I have a feeling he didn't have a final cut deal with the producers...

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

yeah... that makes sense. would would become a fascist state in a subtle way that no one noticed. in the entire history of the world, thats happened exactly... uhm... never.

better yet, you of course put yourself in the category of those "who get it" and you're basic point of view assumes that everyone who isn't totally paranoid doesn't "get it".

how nice.

hahaha.. jesus!

study history or government much?

I didn't say a fascist state would go unnoticed, I said the change would.

Read much?

[EonBlue]

Just goes to show you that the people who believe this really have no idea what the meaning of fascism is.

fas·cism
?noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by StuartD

I didn't say a fascist state would go unnoticed, I said the change would.

Read much?

i understood perfectly. you are suggesting that the "subtle change" from a democracy under the worlds microscope, not to mention held in check by its own system of checks and balances is somehow going to start towards being a "fascist state" and no one will notice until its too late.

you have no clue what "fascism" is.


have you ever even read a book?...
you know... those clumps of papers you use to prop open doors, sit on and start fires with? they are the papery things with letters all bunched together in them

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i understood perfectly. you are suggesting that the "subtle change" from a democracy under the worlds microscope, not to mention held in check by its own system of checks and balances is somehow going to start towards being a "fascist state" and no one will notice until its too late.

you have no clue what "fascism" is.


have you ever even read a book?...
you know... those clumps of papers you use to prop open doors, sit on and start fires with? they are the papery things with letters all bunched together in them

Aww.. gonna tell me you make more in a day than I do in a year too?
Don't blame me for your own short comings.

By the way, I used books in university for pillows, not starting fires. Strangely, I still graduated though. But you're free to use your books how ever you choose.

I'm sure afterwards your every day life will be exactly the same.

[Rochard]

Let me see.... If I wanted to I can hop into my car and drive from California to New York. I don't even have to pass through any checkpoints. Don't need a permit or anything - and don't need anyone's permission.

Just like twenty years ago.

If anything, society has opened up even more. We have access to the Internet and we can read what other people across the world have written.

Freedom has never tasted this good.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let me see.... If I wanted to I can hop into my car and drive from California to New York. I don't even have to pass through any checkpoints. Don't need a permit or anything - and don't need anyone's permission.

Just like twenty years ago.

If anything, society has opened up even more. We have access to the Internet and we can read what other people across the world have written.

Freedom has never tasted this good.

Bang on!

But the cretins who seek to undermine the US with all of their bullshit conspiracy theories, rantings, ravings and socialist tendencies will get the fascist state that they are looking for.

When these retards get their wish and the US falls, the civilized world will fall with it.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

When these retards get their wish and the US falls, the civilized world will fall with it.

While I don't think that the US will ever be anything other than the Republic which it is today, I do understand that people make these videos, rumours, theories, stories, etc because they actually do not want the US to fall. Not because they do want it.

A Bush hater is just as patriotic as a Bush supporter... they see their country the same way... they just have differing opinions of it's leaders and what they're doing.

[spacedog]

You people need to wake the fuck up.

Your land of the free is gone.

4th, 5th & 6th ammendments of the US constitution. GONE when GW FORCED, COERCED & THREATENED congress to pass the patriot act. So much for your checks & balance theory on that one..

I'm not going to even get into other SERIOUS things occuring or have occured since 9/11 but it's some serious shit that's scary.

The USA you know of past HAS been changing right under your noses & people need to wake the fuck up.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let me see.... If I wanted to I can hop into my car and drive from California to New York. I don't even have to pass through any checkpoints. Don't need a permit or anything - and don't need anyone's permission.

Just like twenty years ago.

If anything, society has opened up even more. We have access to the Internet and we can read what other people across the world have written.

Freedom has never tasted this good.

That is not freedom you are tasting... it's high fructose corn syrup and it's slowly killing you one bite at a time and you don't even know it.

[Poontank]

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

That is not freedom you are tasting... it's high fructose corn syrup and it's slowly killing you one bite at a time and you don't even know it.

but but but...







its fat free!

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by StuartD

While I don't think that the US will ever be anything other than the Republic which it is today, I do understand that people make these videos, rumours, theories, stories, etc because they actually do not want the US to fall. Not because they do want it.

A Bush hater is just as patriotic as a Bush supporter... they see their country the same way... they just have differing opinions of it's leaders and what they're doing.

The problem goes way beyond Bush haters. BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) should pass after he is gone.

The real concern is the growing numbers of terrorist appeasers, marxists, communists Che Guevera fans and outright lunatics that are infiltrating the universities, media outlets and government.

It's amazing how many people are sympathizing with and leaning towards leftist means of thinking without even realizing that the extreme sort of leftism that they seek is respnsible for more human deaths than any other movement in the history of mankind.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Poontank

Good one.

Here are some that are actually real:

[he-fox]

I wonder how many of the US guys know that they are paying an illegal income tax which was ruled by the Supreme Court 3 times as being unconstitutional, still enforced by the IRS without any legal base...lol.
And how all this income tax, in amount of 1 trillion yearly goes on paying interest to the Federal Reserve, which is a private owned bank, issuing money and lending it to the government with interest, not controlled nore controllable by the Congress or the government.
Better watch the documentary, the title is was a bad choice, it's not about fascism, it's about how a bunch of wiseguys manipulate an entire nation making fun of the Constitution, the founding fathers and all the values USA was founded on.
For me, a non-US guy, I was like WTF? How was this possible since so many years?
Just watch the documentary.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Let me see.... If I wanted to I can hop into my car and drive from California to New York. I don't even have to pass through any checkpoints. Don't need a permit or anything - and don't need anyone's permission.

Just like twenty years ago.

If anything, society has opened up even more. We have access to the Internet and we can read what other people across the world have written.

Freedom has never tasted this good.

you expect checkpoints in your own country? that would be funny. but not impossible from what i can see

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Bang on!

But the cretins who seek to undermine the US with all of their bullshit conspiracy theories, rantings, ravings and socialist tendencies will get the fascist state that they are looking for.

When these retards get their wish and the US falls, the civilized world will fall with it.

you obviously didn't watch the documentary, the object of this thread.

Nothing to do with terrorism, socialism, left,right,republicans,democrats or anything else like.

Only with a huge money scam that started in 1913.

you still rant, though.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by xroach

it's worth every second.

but if you really want the cliff notes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74362583451279

is only 47 minutes

hell, yeah. History of the "money changers" from the start, 200 b.c., and how they were and are fucking the entire world since ages. Amazing. Really fucking amazing and enlightning.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by he-fox

you obviously didn't watch the documentary, the object of this thread.

Nothing to do with terrorism, socialism, left,right,republicans,democrats or anything else like.

Only with a huge money scam that started in 1913.

you still rant, though.

Well then they need to change the title of their "documentary". Why invoke the spectre of "fascism" if it is about a money scam that started in 1913 - several years before the first fascist movement?

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by he-fox

I wonder how many of the US guys know that they are paying an illegal income tax which was ruled by the Supreme Court 3 times as being unconstitutional, still enforced by the IRS without any legal base...lol.
And how all this income tax, in amount of 1 trillion yearly goes on paying interest to the Federal Reserve, which is a private owned bank, issuing money and lending it to the government with interest, not controlled nore controllable by the Congress or the government.
Better watch the documentary, the title is was a bad choice, it's not about fascism, it's about how a bunch of wiseguys manipulate an entire nation making fun of the Constitution, the founding fathers and all the values USA was founded on.
For me, a non-US guy, I was like WTF? How was this possible since so many years?
Just watch the documentary.

income tax is not illegal nor was it ever declared unconstitutional. in fact, every argument against income taxes has been shot down in court, many time and time again.

tax protestors are much like GFY'ers.. their problem is authority and they refuse to educate themselves on the issue as a whole, but rather sift through conspiracy sites and gleen information they want to believe... so they can run back to GFY posting their borrowed insight from some jackoff thats making a killing on adsense off of them, as if they have it all figured out.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Well then they need to change the title of their "documentary". Why invoke the spectre of "fascism" if it is about a money scam that started in 1913 - several years before the first fascist movement?

the dude that made it died from cancer this year. But, trust me, just watch it and the other one, too. Both are really enlightening and outrageous in the same time, nothing Michel Moore-ish style, especially the Money Makers one.

If the americans would knew the informations the documentary is about, they would not pay any income tax in the first place, cause it's a blatant illegal and unconstitutional ruled already by the Supreme Court extortion, nore leave their whole financial and governmental system at the discretion of a bunch of non-disclosed secret manipulators.

I hope that more americans watch it, because it made me, even I'm a non-american, angry against those fuckers.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

income tax is not illegal nor was it ever declared unconstitutional. in fact, every argument against income taxes has been shot down in court, many time and time again.

tax protestors are much like GFY'ers.. their problem is authority and they refuse to educate themselves on the issue as a whole, but rather sift through conspiracy sites and gleen information they want to believe... so they can run back to GFY posting their borrowed insight from some jackoff thats making a killing on adsense off of them, as if they have it all figured out.

Why then there is no law income tax is based on? At least this is what some jury in Illinois based their non-guilty verdict in a IRS vs. a dude trial?

If the documentary lies, then I'm lying, I have to admit that, but there are former IRS agents that declare that they searched for the legal base of collecting the income tax and they found none.
The Supreme Court ruled 3 times in the early 19tees that income tax on wages is against the Constitution, and defined income as being the gains or profits made by a corporation.

I'm not debating here, because I don't know much about the sistem to be able to do so, but if it's true, and it was pretty documented in the movie, all the Federal Reserve, IRS and income tax on wages story it's simply outrageous.

Watch the movie and you tell me if it's false or true.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by he-fox

Why then there is no law income tax is based on? At least this is what some jury in Illinois based their non-guilty verdict in a IRS vs. a dude trial?

If the documentary lies, then I'm lying, I have to admit that, but there are former IRS agents that declare that they searched for the legal base of collecting the income tax and they found none.
The Supreme Court ruled 3 times in the early 19tees that income tax on wages is against the Constitution, and defined income as being the gains or profits made by a corporation.

I'm not debating here, because I don't know much about the sistem to be able to do so, but if it's true, and it was pretty documented in the movie, all the Federal Reserve, IRS and income tax on wages story it's simply outrageous.

Watch the movie and you tell me if it's false or true.

yeah right... i have to watch the movie to be "educated"


how about this....


how about you guys look at a point for point analysis of the same movie that strikes down every fucking point the film makes with actual facts, case law and law???


http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

Statutory Fallacies
Many tax protester arguments are not based on a claim that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional, but that it is not a law or is somehow written in such a way as to be inapplicable or unenforeceable. These arguments often look like constitutional arguments (and are sometimes argued so badly that it difficult to tell whether the argument is constitutional or statutory), but are somewhat different.

The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.

One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the ?Internal Revenue Code of 1986? as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the ?Thomas? web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

A brief note about citations to statutes: Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 was the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President was P.L. 107-1, the second was P.L. 107-2, and so forth. All public laws are published in the U.S. Statutes at Large, usually abbreviated ?Stat.?, so a citation to ?68A Stat. 3? refers to page 3 of volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large. The U.S. Statutes at large can be found at most law libraries, so the text of the original Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and published proof of its enactment, can be found at any law library with a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large.

The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been ?codified,? or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the ?United States Code,? which is divided by subject matter into ?titles.? As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became ?positive law.? For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted; all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not ?positive law,? even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are ?positive law.?

The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and ?positive law? is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.

So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.

[Pleasurepays]

its not that any of you guys want to understand... or even actually believe you have a valid point to make... its that you want to sit here like little children and rail against any symbol of authority and refuse to listen to reason... much like an conspiracy theorist does.

why do i have to answer your questions?

you decided long ago that you dont want to know the answers unless they are answers that support your predetermined views on the issue.

you're not even american.. and you are calling 300,000,000 people stupid based on the easily disproven arguments of a "documentary" that tells you what you want to hear? thats hardly an intelligent, unbiased position.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

yeah right... i have to watch the movie to be "educated"


how about this....


how about you guys look at a point for point analysis of the same movie that strikes down every fucking point the film makes with actual facts, case law and law???


http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

Statutory Fallacies
Many tax protester arguments are not based on a claim that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional, but that it is not a law or is somehow written in such a way as to be inapplicable or unenforeceable. These arguments often look like constitutional arguments (and are sometimes argued so badly that it difficult to tell whether the argument is constitutional or statutory), but are somewhat different.

The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.

One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the ?Internal Revenue Code of 1986? as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the ?Thomas? web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

A brief note about citations to statutes: Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 was the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President was P.L. 107-1, the second was P.L. 107-2, and so forth. All public laws are published in the U.S. Statutes at Large, usually abbreviated ?Stat.?, so a citation to ?68A Stat. 3? refers to page 3 of volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large. The U.S. Statutes at large can be found at most law libraries, so the text of the original Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and published proof of its enactment, can be found at any law library with a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large.

The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been ?codified,? or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the ?United States Code,? which is divided by subject matter into ?titles.? As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became ?positive law.? For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted; all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not ?positive law,? even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are ?positive law.?

The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and ?positive law? is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.

So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.

thanks for the link, I am reading it now.

the whole issue made me curious, because it would be the biggest scam ever.

meanwhile, the Federal Reserve being private and lending money with interest to the government, that's just not right. Is it true?

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

its not that any of you guys want to understand... or even actually believe you have a valid point to make... its that you want to sit here like little children and rail against any symbol of authority and refuse to listen to reason... much like an conspiracy theorist does.

why do i have to answer your questions?

you decided long ago that you dont want to know the answers unless they are answers that support your predetermined views on the issue.

you're not even american.. and you are calling 300,000,000 people stupid based on the easily disproven arguments of a "documentary" that tells you what you want to hear? thats hardly an intelligent, unbiased position.

I never called 300 million people stupid, because I don't think it's true, or I have the right to do such thing.. And I want to form myself an unbiased opinion, because I'm not involved nore having any interest on the matter, beside the pure human curiosity.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by he-fox

thanks for the link, I am reading it now.

the whole issue made me curious, because it would be the biggest scam ever.

meanwhile, the Federal Reserve being private and lending money with interest to the government, that's just not right. Is it true?

"The Federal Reserve" is not private. The member banks are sort of private. regardless there is government oversight in every sense of the word. In almost any country in the world, private banks loan money to their own government. thats not unusual. and they don't do it without interest either.

thats another very long discussion. conspiracy nuts are going to make all the same dumb arguments like "the jews control all the money" etc. however, our central banking system has worked just as well as anyones since its most recent incarnation and that in itself says quite a lot about those who protest its structure and their arguments

[DWB]

Good movie but who cares?

Anyone with 1/2 a brain, a set of balls and some know how of international banking and offshore corps can LEGALLY reduce their tax burden to about nada or very close to it.

Only poor and stupid people pay a lot of tax.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Good movie but who cares?

Anyone with 1/2 a brain, a set of balls and some know how of international banking and offshore corps can LEGALLY reduce their tax burden to about nada or very close to it.

Only poor and stupid people pay a lot of tax.

thats the funny thing about taxes. poor people will always pay the lions share because they're not smart enough not to. the lottery has proven to be excellent tax on idiots.


this is one instance where i think darwinism should not be allowed to take its course and we could use a flat tax.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The problem goes way beyond Bush haters. BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) should pass after he is gone.

The real concern is the growing numbers of terrorist appeasers, marxists, communists Che Guevera fans and outright lunatics that are infiltrating the universities, media outlets and government.

It's amazing how many people are sympathizing with and leaning towards leftist means of thinking without even realizing that the extreme sort of leftism that they seek is respnsible for more human deaths than any other movement in the history of mankind.

Finally some common sense being displayed on GFY.