conspiracy or joke?

[Foolmewunz]

Oliver, you're sometimes like the Energizer bunny*, you prod and ask and prod and ask some more. We're mostly a bunch of swell folks, but we don't (well, except for Dr. A.) know everything.
Asking is good! May Ed bless you for your inquisitive and skeptical nature, but sometimes you get frustrated too quickly with responses. We like you, I gather, but when you argue with people on your own team, we will probably argue back. R Lister's response is typical if we find something interesting but don't know the details or history. We will respond to what's visible, i.e. the OP (Original Post in the thread).

Yes, we're sometimes sarcastic and like to rap off the occasional snappy one liner, but most of the humor (with the exception of a couple of real youngsters out there) is knowledge-based.

I think if you were to go over to one of the 911 threads with this kind of post and it had interest, you'd have been given four hundred pages of documents in the first ten posts. Those folk have documented what they're worried about, and are prepared to defend it.

And that's what I'm getting to as the nub of the sort of "emotional" responses you get sometimes. You can research these things yourself, too.

Is the movie well known? No. But if you followed the google links on your OP, you could have found a theatrical release schedule, here.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/screenings/screenings.html

If you followed that site, you could find out who the guy is (a legitimate film producer with real Hollywood releases to his credit).

If you follow the links within links you can find the lawsuit they're talking about.

etc....

Then, it's a question of how to approach the question. Think of an important issue (you deem them important, right?) and how you'd get it out to the people who can really respond. Post the link in a post entitled "Is Anyone in ________ Going to See This Film", for instance. Alternately, since it's a CNBC story, a post saying "CNBC Giving Air to Anti-Tax Film".

Further, you need to consider the audience. If, after researching a topic you find it's something you'd like to share or discuss, find the right audience in the forums. If an article in a scientific journal suggests that someone is denying Newtown, take it to Science and Math. If someone says a great green bananan told them the lottery numbers, take it to the Paranormal area, etc.... This one might've gotten you more immediate interest in Politics, if I know my buddies over there.

You see, we do find all these things interesting. But I've missed many a nice exchange because when I find it interesting I refuse to post if I don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge. I look up the poster if I don't know them to see if they have a particular crusade. I check the link and the links within links. I google (may Ed forbid me for that) to find who is or is not supporting the particular story/theory/idea.

The anti-tax issue is not new. There are a group out there who believe that there is no statute or law specifically allowing the government to establish the IRS or collect witholding or income tax. The movement's known. The fact that a mainstream producer is getting behind it is even more interesting. And the fact that it is being shown in movie houses across the USA makes it very interesting.

Good topic - you just need to realize that we aren't all abreast of all issues that you'll find on Youtube or in every alternate forum. And if you do a little digging, and can find the answers yourself, then you can posit an interesting theory of your own to go with the questions.

*Engergizer Bunny - a toy (pink) rabbit they used for years to sell Energizer batteries. All the other toys would stop moving but the one with their battery in it would, as they told us for twenty years in 200 commercials, "just keep going and going and going and....."

 

[Stellafane]

Thank you, Andrew and Stellafane - i never saw it
that way and i feel confused right now when i think
about it...

Can't blame you. It isn't easy to articulate, even for those of use who live it. But it's definitely a presence in our society, something that might be easier to intuitively understand rather than clearly define and explain.

...My understanding of freedom is to have some kind of
straight rules for not telling BS, so it´s easier to differ
between BS and real Issues. Otherwise you never could
tell what´s true and what not - without extensive
background-knowledge and education.

Nope, BS is perfectly allowed, with a few exceptions -- slander, libel, yelling "FIRE!" in the proverbial crowded theater. Maybe the problem here in the U.S.A. involves the last part of your statement -- our famously inept (in the eyes of many) education system.

...I mean, if you grew up with parents who believe in Ufos,
it´s hard or impossible to get this out of your head,
even if you´re a sceptic.

Not a hypothetical situation -- I had a very good friend whose parents were the local organizers for a nation-wide UFO network. He grew up believing just about every conspiracy theory there is, even though he is a very intelligent, otherwise reasonable person. As they say around here, "Only in America"...

...i really thought it must be true if they can claim it without
beeing worried to step into trouble. But thank you for
your description, anyway.

I hope you see now that in America, it doesn't work that way. I am free to spout almost any nonsense, and criticize the government to the point that most other countries would probably consider traitorous, and still rest assured in my right to free speech. It isn't because what the CTists are saying is true. It's because we value freedom so highly, we tolerate just about anything.

 

[Oliver]

@Foolmewunz

Hello Foolmewunz, you´re right with the Energizer-Bunny
and i also know these advertisments. It´s hard to follow
some specific threads in here with much slang and phrases,
but i will figure it out.

My failure was to think, that americans may allready know
this movie wich was another reason for asking, but the
mainreason was because i did´nt understand all of the
law-codes, and they´re also in germany very complicated.

Since there are so many different meanings about issues
within english-spoken sites, i thought it was a good placed
question within all the skeptic in here, but as better i
get with my english skills - as better i can research for
my own.

So it´s okay for me if people are straight and say i´m
beating a dead horse or something like that. My problem
is sarcasm as well, sometimes it´s hard to differ between
sarcasm and a serious statement.

But i´m willing to give my best to get better with each post.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I hope you see now that in America, it doesn't work that way. I am free to spout almost any nonsense, and criticize the government to the point that most other countries would probably consider traitorous, and still rest assured in my right to free speech. It isn't because what the CTists are saying is true. It's because we value freedom so highly, we tolerate just about anything.

I think that the important point for Europeans (including Brits and the other former Commonwealth countries like Aus/NZ) to understand is that we don't merely allow these liberties, we insist on them as rights. The question posed to me often by ex-pats over here is of the same nature as some of Oliver's musings. "Why do you allow this kind of nutjob to rant on and on?" And I always answer the same way.... "The worst sort of populism imaginable would be when 51% of the country could tell 49% to shut up or be prepared to go to jail!"

When I was living in Taipei, my best friend was a supporter of a particular party. In discussing a new law on property, we got to this same sort of simple majority issue. I finally got her to see the point by asking her what she would do if 50.1% of the population voted to ban cocker spaniels (she owns and adores one).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin ...

 

[Oliver]

Stellafane: "It's because we value freedom so highly, we tolerate just about anything."

I have a problem with your statement - it does
not fit in the debunking-side or the forum itself. Here
in Eurpoe -for example- we would say: let him spin off
in lala-land, in some time he will get back to earth on
his own.

With your description in mind, it seems that he never
find back to earth with so much BS around - until
you beat him literally to death with facts and
discussions.

ETA: Is this the intention in this forum? Bringing the CT´s
back on the ground? Even if it´s so tolerated to have his
own ideas, no matter if they´re right or wrong?

 

[Dog Town]

With your description in mind, it seems that he never
find back to earth within so much BS around - until
you beat him literally to death with facts and
discussions.

Who says there's a language barrier?

 

[Oliver]

"The worst sort of populism imaginable would be when 51% of the country could tell 49% to shut up or be prepared to go to jail!"

You may missunderstand this point - where i live it
regulates by it´s own. With "America to Fascism"
for example - he would have a big success, but only
once. After the conclusion, that he was wrong - he
would´nt be able to tell the same BS twice. He would
be out of business. Without any written laws...

ETA: To me, your description about america sounds
like: He can do this whenever and how often he wants,
and he will always find his audience...

...sounds scary to me...

 

[Dog Town]

You may missunderstand this point - where i live it
regulates by it´s own. With "America to Fascism"
for example - he would have a big success, but only
once. After the conclusion, that he was wrong - he
would´nt be able to tell the same BS twice. He would
be out of business. Without any written laws...

Where did the word sheister come from then? You have to have one, to know one...

 

[Gravy]

My understanding of freedom is to have some kind of
straight rules for not telling BS, so it´s easier to differ
between BS and real Issues. Otherwise you never could
tell what´s true and what not - without extensive
background-knowledge and education.

Just back from Ground Zero with Abby and Realitybites, where we spent a lot of time correcting the lies told by the "9-11 Truth Movement." The things they say are horrible, horrible, horrible. And if necessary I will fight with all my strength for their right to say those horrible things.

 

[Oliver]

Where did the word sheister come from then? You have to have one, to know one...

My dictionary does not know the word "sheister", Dog Town...
So the whole sentence makes no sense.

 

[gumboot]

ETA: To me, your description about america sounds
like: He can do this whenever and how often he wants,
and he will always find his audience...

That's really just a matter of population size. And I am fairly certainly you'll find that it is true of any western society - including Germany.

If you look into the population groups that comprise CTers they won't all be Americans. I think it fairly certain there will be German members.

And as I have mentioned earlier, your German controls on "telling lies" didn't stop German newspapers publishing some real good ones about the Ruapehu Eruptions here in New Zealand in 95/96.

In truth I'd be very suspicious of a free western country that DIDN'T have an audience base that entertained these 9/11 conspiracies.

-Andrew

 

[Stellafane]

I have a problem with your statement - it does
not fit in the debunking-side or the forum itself. Here
in Eurpoe -for example- we would say: let him spin off
in lala-land, in some time he will get back to earth on
his own.

With your description in mind, it seems that he never
find back to earth with so much BS around - until
you beat him literally to death with facts and
discussions.

ETA: Is this the intention in this forum? Bringing the CT´s
back on the ground? Even if it´s so tolerated to have his
own ideas, no matter if they´re right or wrong?

When I say we tolerate anything, I mean "we" as in our government, our society, our legal system. Within the guidelines I mentioned earlier, the CTists are perfectly free to say what they want without fear of legal ramifications. Then there's "we" as individuals members of this country. We -- I -- am equally free to tell the CTists that they are full of crap. And fortunately for me, I have plenty of sound evidence to back me up.

Perhaps that's why we skeptics take debunking so seriously, because in the end no one else is going to do it. The government isn't going to step in and stop it, so it's more or less up to us to keep people informed. I don't want the government to step in (although I do wish sometimes they'd do a better job at keeping people informed). Yes, what CTists are saying is stupid and wrong, and I will combat it with what meager verbal tools I have at my disposal. But I would fight with far greater vigor any attempt by the government to silence even the silliest of them. Isn't there a quote attributed to Voltaire, something to the effect "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's more or less the philosophy in this country. People have the right to be dead wrong.

 

[Class]

Just back from Ground Zero with Abby and Realitybites, where we spent a lot of time correcting the lies told by the "9-11 Truth Movement." The things they say are horrible, horrible, horrible. And if necessary I will fight with all my strength for their right to say those horrible things.

Any videos or pictures?

 

[kevin]

I see someone has already posted the Quatloos web site. In addition I would add Dan Evan's FAQ as the debunking of Tax Protestor claims.

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

I'm not an expert so do real research into this but here is some explanation of where this is coming from for the non US citizens a little bit of american history:

Originally after seperating from the British, the american states were joined in a loose confederation of states bound by a document called the Articles of Confederation. This gov't pretty much had no authority to tax. They could ask the states to pay into a central coffers but there was no obligation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

This confederation was pretty much a loss (for this and other reasons) and they called a constitutation convention to create the US Constitution we have today. The US Constitution gives the federal gov't the right to tax US citizens directly. Because of the lack of tax ability in the first articles, the constitution grants broad rights to tax to the new gov't.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Note the phrase direct taxes must be apportioned (this means broken up equally by state by population). Direct taxes have been defined by various court cases to mean property taxes.

You'll note the not so glorious references to America's past history of slave ownership. Slaves were counted as 3/5 a person for the purposes of population counts. The slave issue was the reason direct taxes had to be apportioned. Taxes on slaves would be considered a property tax and therefore would need to be apportioned (difficult to do in those days). This was a way for the souther american states to keep the federal gov't from making slave ownership onerous by taxing slaves (this is the method most states use to discourage cigarette smoking -- they tax it into oblivion).

Next reference to taxation:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Pretty much unlimited power to tax is granted there, so long as the tax is uniform (there are a few limitations mentioned later on, but aren't germain to this). The tax must be used for defense (they spelled funny in those days) or the general welfare of the US (and boy does that clause piss some people off).

Uniformity means if change geographical locations, and still meet the requirements of the tax, the tax amount is the same.

Now around the time of the US civil war a number of taxes were passed on income. If you made so much, you paid a certain percentage in taxes. Most of these were upheld by our Supreme Court as constitutional. However one case came along stating that if the income was from property (for example, renting land to someone) then technically the tax was the same as taxing land and must be apportioned. THe Supreme Court agreed and stating that the collection of income tax on income from proptery was unconstitutional they threw out the entire law (note they found the part on income taxes on incomes from other sources complete constitutional).

The US congress responded by passing a Constitutional amendment that says:

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.

Pretty much carte blanche to tax incomes in whatever manner they wish from any source.

Conspirarcy theories about taxes pretty much start from there. Some cite the original overturning of an income tax on income from property as if it hadn't been superceeded by the 16th amendment. Some claim the amendment wasn't ratified properly.

The show me the law claim comes from a later policy of the Congress to enact in positive law giving the version in the US Code. As

From the General Publishing Office on the US Code:

NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.

Tax code is Title 26. Basically to show the law you have to go back through the acts of congress individually and show every change. And the US Congress is brilliant at passing laws that read like 'strike the second sentance of paragraph 2 and replace it with the words "on a snake"'.

Has the income tax been passed into law by congress: yes
Is the income tax constitutional: yes
Are the CT's surrounding the tax law many-fold: yes

One further note, even more than 9-11 conspiracy theorists the anti-tax movement is a direct descendant of racist white supremicists groups in the mid-western united states. Although currently it is more an area of tax scammers, the amount of racists in the movement is still very high.

 

[Bell]

<snip> The government isn't going to step in and stop it, <snip>

Not quite true

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...6&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

 

[kevin]

My dictionary does not know the word "sheister", Dog Town...
So the whole sentence makes no sense.

shyster, also known as a weasel. Generally applied to lawyers or politicians who are unethical or corrupt. In the US it is generally believed all lawyers are corrupt, except the one you hired to protect you.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:shyster&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Oliver]

That's really just a matter of population size. And I am fairly certainly you'll find that it is true of any western society - including Germany.

If you look into the population groups that comprise CTers they won't all be Americans. I think it fairly certain there will be German members.

And as I have mentioned earlier, your German controls on "telling lies" didn't stop German newspapers publishing some real good ones about the Ruapehu Eruptions here in New Zealand in 95/96.

In truth I'd be very suspicious of a free western country that DIDN'T have an audience base that entertained these 9/11 conspiracies.

-Andrew

Off course this type of audience is here, too.
What i meant was: If all of what he said was a lie,
people would speak once about it and finally come
to the conclusion: "forget about him".

He would get unpopular, even in most parts of the
CT-scene. Based on moral values.

If i understand you the right way, in america
it does´nt really matter what you say and nobody
argues against it seriously?

_____________________________________

And if thinking in america is so free - why do
you guys debunk anything? I see no way to
stop ct´s if it´s not a moral problem, wich
would resolve the problem automatically...

_____________________________________

I don´t know about that vulcano story, but
it sounds like propaganda from our "green"
partie.

 

[Oliver]

But I would fight with far greater vigor any attempt by the government to silence even the silliest of them.

In Europe it would regulate itself by morality. "CT´s are
not popular - so go and shut up". This is the way it
would work here.

But regarding your Quote: Why does nobody really
care about the patriot-act, but would fight any attempt
from the gov if they would regulate "to silence even the
silliest of them"???

 

[kevin]

But regarding your Quote: Why does nobody really
care about the patriot-act, but would fight any attempt
from the gov if they would regulate "to silence even the
silliest of them"???

because a lot of Americans have forgotten their history. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" is now just a story from a long time ago. They don't want to live in a scary world, they believe whatever the government says is necessary for the protection of the people, really is.

 

[Oliver]

because a lot of Americans have forgotten their history. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" is now just a story from a long time ago. They don't want to live in a scary world, they believe whatever the government says is necessary for the protection of the people, really is.

But to me it looks exactly this way - your gov is
scaring you. And all these security stuff makes
it look even scarier. It´s nothing personal - it´s
the way i look over the ocean.

Terrorist are a threat. Since the very early days
of human history. But it´s no more threat then
"as usual". The only difference is, that it happend
on american ground.

Don´t get me wrong, it looks a littlebit hysterical
because of this new expierence.

German politicians also adopt this security-
actions, but i don´t believe in these threats.
AQ is not more dangerous then other terrorists,
"just because" they found this horrible way to
act.