What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
111 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+94"Stop being a good Republican. Stop being a good Democrat. Start being a good American."
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59Calling someone a nutjob doesn't descredit their work. It's like saying "I can't refute your claims because I'm not too bright so I will instead just call you names".
- drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30direct link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2608376387938594773&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en - macwisdom, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38CHILLING!.... Every American should see this!
- Cyborg771, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26It's true that the 16th amendment was ratified but if you had watched the movie you would know that the supreme court ruled multiple times that it gave the government no new taxing powers. If you say it gives them the right to tax the citizens and the supreme court says that it doesn't, hell if I am going to listen to some nutjob on the digg comments. If you want me to support you give me an argument as well layed out as his.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23The one point the movie made is that they usually bring you up on charges in the state courts. For you pay state taxes, if you say you qualify to pay federal taxes. So, it is circular logic. The court case cited is not the only one. The feds have never given a law, they judge just says what the law is and that the jury "must" follow those instructions. That is a lie! A huge lie. Juries can do whatever the ***** they want! That is exactly why we have juries, not just to judge the disputed facts, but the law itself. It is one of the checks and balances we should fight to protect.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24there is no law... if they want to take you to jail for it they can (and have)... that doesn't mean it's within the bounds of the law.
there IS no law - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27read a history book
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32yea ok, when bigfoot with lasers comes to YOUR house, you'll change your mind!
- DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I just had to get a Digg account to get the facts straight.
1. The Internal Revenue laws are constitutional. If you read the code, you'll notice that the income tax only applies to a very narrow group of people. Unfortunately, it's the IRS, most federal judges, and scared-to-death employers who do not follow the laws.
A perfect example: Google for Internal Revenue Code. Look for Section 6331, which is the supposed authority to "levy" when you don't pay the tax. Subsection (a) states, in plain English, who the IRS can levy. Hint: It's not anyone who works in the private sector.
Another thing you all should consider: Legal terms are not equal to dictionary terms unless there the term isn't defined in the law. For example, why would Congress waste time defining such words as "employee" (defined in Sec. 3401) and "includes" if those definitions were exactly the same as in the dictionary?
As stated above, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times (I believe in about 9 cases) that the term "income" as defined in the 16th Amendment (whether properly ratified or not) is NOT "everything that comes in" and gave Congress no new powers of taxation. Did workers file and pay the income tax before the 16th Amendment?
Oh, and in case anyone wants to argue that the Supreme Court decisions and/or laws are "old" please take a look at Murphy vs. Internal Revenue Service, decided Aug. 22, 2006. The judge there seems to have the same opinion of Aaron Russo and others in this movement.
Let the bashing and name-calling comence. It only adds more to the vailidity of the facts portrayed in Aaron Russo's movie. - trp642, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17In 1913, when that amendment was passed, income was commonly defined as a corporate profit. Since then the common understanding of what income is has changed to mean any money you earn.
This does not change the meaning of the law. The law, to fully understand what it should mean today, should read as follows:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on corporate profit, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
For more detail, go here: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@"If you sign a document stating that you'll pay the bank back for a loan do you need a law that states that you need to pay back that loan?"
No but they will screw the hell out of your credit record and reposess anything that you bought with their money.
But you won't go to jail for it... - Cyborg771, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21I am seeing a lot of people backing up the government here (probably the same people who voted for Bush) and their arguments seem very baseless, do some research, watch the whole movie maybe, and talk to me again. Until then, YOU look like the nutjobs, not the guy in the movie.
- darkamster07, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16the problem is that polititians don't take the constitution seriosly, and the american people are to caught up watching american idol to give a *****! I propose an amendment to the constitution stating that there can be no U.S. law higher than the constitution and that all laws and people in the U.S. must follow it, and providing severe punishment for those who infringe opon it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18the supreme court has ruled on more than one occasion that this ammendment gives the government no new powers of taxation.
it clearly states this in the movie and you can look it up if you don't believe it. this ammendment was not properly ratified and technically does not apply.
direct unapportioned taxes are unconstitutional.
there is no law. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Great movie... I really don't see what all the arguing is over; there really is nothing to debate... WAKE UP!
- Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Modulo - That's a huge stretch of the truth. They give some pretty detailed analysis of the laws and justifications behind their movement, far from what nixfu is doing - just calling somebody a 'nutjob' and moving on.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Breaking news: IRS Audits everyone who clicked that link.
Taxes suck, especially when they're illegal. The problem is that is anyone ever brought such a case to the supreme court, and income tax was ruled illegal, they would probably just pass another law - cyberrigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The Federal Reserve is PRIVATELY OWNED.
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm
I wonder how many people know this? - Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12diggduggjoe for president! kudos to you sir on your awareness of jury nullification. if only more Americans were as well informed as you.
- GregR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think this is bigger than just America.
This is on it's way to be a global issue in terms of a world bank and RFID cards/chips. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+111) Ammendment isn't properly ratified.
2) Supreme court says, "that dog doesn't hunt"
3) Government writes IRS Tax Code
4) Government enforces Tax Laws anyway.
How can this be argued when the supreme court has ruled multiple times that this ammendment doesn't count and that income tax is illegal?
It's like everyone is living in some alternate reality where the truth is what people want it to be.
this is a non-partisan issue. start treating it like one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This movie scares the bejesus out of me. The Federal Reserve is a secretly managed private entity!!! There is no law demanding the filing of personal income tax? Civilians had their guns taken away after Hurricane Katrina?
This is all some scary scary *****.
Good night and good luck. - GregR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Looks like the original file has been removed from Google's site!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The IRS Tax Code is not in compliance with the constitution, so the tax laws do not apply.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I propose we get rid of American idol!
- Cyborg771, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I really wish I lived in the US just so that I could not pay my taxes. Unfortunately there is all the other crap he mentioned. In Canada they may make us pay our income tax but at least they can't inject us with anything they want without our permission.
- spooky47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression." -Thomas Jefferson - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hey, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. Pay the taxes if you want! I know they aren't getting my money anymore!
- Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ninja getting rid of American Idol does not get rid of the American idiot :)
- trp642, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Torrent here:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3519240/Aaron_Russo_-_America_From_Freedom_to_Facism - NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Iv heard of several cases where the judge overruled the juries decision.
- truthisjustalie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Alcorsu - Modulo's comments were in support of the film maker.
- Myrddnn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is one of the more interesting debates going on here at digg.
Just a few thoughts of my own.
Does it not disturb you to know that the FED is a PRIVATE bank, owned by the same banks that hold the notes for the major international corporate players.
And like it or not, both sides of the congressional aisle as well as the exective feed at the trough of largess for their campaigns. No matter how noble the intention of a person who first seeks office, they go nowhere important until the lobbyists have their hooks into them.
This isn't a liberal or a conservative issue. We are all getting our government stolen out from under us. And with it, the rights we so boldly proclaimed to be ours at the outset of the grand experiment that is the United States. A demicratically elected representitive republic, where we could decide upon the form of our own government in a loose republic of sovereign states. That was the experiment, no matter that even the founders did not themselves follow strictly all of the principles. Yet over time, we have tried to rectify, under the principles of that document and it's amendments, the injustices remaining.
What has kept us from reaching the noble goal outlined in those documents? Well, there lies those nasty little conspiracy theories. Was it the masonic influence? Was it this or that other group? Well, most likely, it was the bankers that profited on both sides of any war. I think that they are still there, working their fiscal magic, within and without the governments of the western world. No real conspiracy here; just ordinary greed. Sure, this spawns all sorts of secretive groups pushing their own parts of the agenda to accomplish their own goals. Neo-cons, liberals, greens, all of them have goals and agendas. They are all financed by the only folks who benifit from continual conflict. Bankers.
The FED is only a part of the problem any free people face. The larger problem looming over us is our own greed and tendancy towards a complacency when we have enough for our own needs. We forget that others may not share our idea of a personal "enough" and continue to aquire resources. Limits need to be placed upon anyone's right to take the rights of others, both within and without government.
But because the process has been gradual, like the frog in the pot, we have barely noticed how things haven't stayed as good as they were even when we were children. Enough of us fourty and up can see that the policies of those we entrusted with our government have steadily eroded not only our middle-class but the rights we thought were always going to be there.
Get off of your ideological behinds, left right and center. None of the partisan bickering will help if if we continue to let them devide us with distractions. Demand accountability from ALL of our representatives, local, state and federal. Get up off of the couch and go to a town hall meeting, or whatever is happening in your area. Get involved. It's the only hope we have. As long as we buy into partisan divisions and a "them vs. us" mentality, the real powers benifit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I AGREE
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Jedi 2
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment.
This ruling has never been overturned, to this day.
The supreme court also ruled on eight seperate occasions that this ammendment gives the government no new powers... Do I know the eight seperate cases?... No... I'm having trouble finding them... but I suppose if this is not good enough for you I could contact my attorney and ask her :p - Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4oh, and before anyone starts thinking that I've gone all lovey dovey on The Man, the part about the Federal Reserve is way worse than the IRS part and as far as I know it's totally, horrifyingly correct.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax
Don't believe just any crap you see on the internet. Why not go read up on the laws that everyone says doesn't exist. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The director of this movie has been interviewed multiple times by Alex and is saying the same things Alex has been saying for years... and guess what... Aaron Russo also thinks 911 was an inside job. =)
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Indeed, it is.
http://www.digg.com/politics/Patriot_Act_1_5_What_the_Military_Commissions_Act_really_is_AUDIO_mp3 - mdfrake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I would like to say that I'm surprised, but the fact is that this is completely believable. Yet what are we going to do? Most people are dismissive, and say if you don't like it leave. Problem is we actually have a lower tax rate than many other nations.
However, I don't know what it's going to take before the American people wake up. Oh wait, yes I do, China. When China becomes the world power around the middle of this century, both economically and militarily, those that are nice and secure will start to be a little irritated. They will start to think that maybe things aren't O.K. as they are. Maybe we do need to make radical changes, like paying off our national debt, and letting someone else try to cure the world's ills. Maybe then the lazy in this country will stop just voting for a name, or a commercial, and actually do investigative work into their government and elected officials. That's my dream anyway. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@ joeyjojo
The constitution is dead.
See "Millitary Commissions Act of 2006" - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Not in compliance with the constitution"
It's a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. By definition it is in compliance. - mdfrake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I understand how this might have spoiled it for you. However, I believe the point of showing it in the movie was to show exactly what our Police force is allowed to do these days. Was the woman stupid for not listening to the Police who pulled her over? Absolutely. But can you honestly say that she deserved to be "tazed" for her actions? I think she deserved at least a ride back to the precinct for not following directions, if not a night or two in jail, but in this case the punishment does not fit the crime. She was "tazed" twice, the last time while face down on the ground after being pulled from her vehicle.
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What about all of the people who have gone to prison for tax evasion?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Amendment XVI
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. - ianconley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not available. Anyone know of any other streams of this thing?
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"i read an article last nite saying the irs will be wiped out within a year and replaced with a national sales tax due to the mounting number of these challenges."
I'm sure that's one fine and credible publication you are reading there. - gilmet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looking through the Internal Revenue Code, I can't find a legal definition of an "individual". Could any lawyers out there help me out?
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption (as it has for things like gifts, bequests, and certain scholarships)." -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is