America: Freedom To Fascism

Remember you aren't voting for a single man dictator. Its not one man, its a party of hundreds of people. So what if Ron Paul is slightly more left than Bush, he is still a member of the Republicans, a right wing, nationalistic, new world order seeking machine of the apocalypse. (Maybe a bit harsh but you get what I mean).

If you think George Bush makes the decisions in the Whitehouse you are deluded. It is the Republican party and their corporate backers. Vote in a different party and you will see change in foreign policy and a more liberal distribution of public tax money which the poor areas of America are desperate for. Your country's lower classes get it bad and under Paul they'll get it worse. For instance, Ron Paul has vowed to close all doors to immigration and cancel all benefits for people who have outdated visas. What the hell is going to happen to these people? Apparently there are 20million "illegal aliens" in america and they'll be kicked to the gutter thats what. Extreme poverty will sour. Doesn't exactly sound like the american dream does it?

If America wants a globalised economy, government and police, at least let its people have dignity with proper welfare, state school system, healthcare and a decent minimum wage. Vote Democrat.
 
Russo is a politician. He has a conflict of interests, you cant trust this films political standpoint. Also it is edited in an extremely biased way, this is not investigative journalism it's a point-maker which makes it dangerous to believe.

Remember kids, don't believe everything you see on the internet!
 
Also as a final point of my rant, I'm British for fucks sake. Don't let Benditto use this thread as campaign propaganda. Voice your opinions.
 
ron paul stands for almost all the values you are talking about in your post. If you would goto his website you could atleast get some idea of what he stands for. THe man is honest and believes in the constitution and what the founding fathers stood for. he would be a good thing for america. he isnt a republican in the sense of bush or his cronies, hell he ran for president as a libertarian in 88.
 
and also russo isnt making up these facts, you can research them yourself and come to the same conclusions if you are a rational person.
 
That is complete an utter horseshit. Jonathan Siegel (someone who actually has a law degree) clearly shows Russo is making shit up. I can't believe you, or any other "rational" person for that matter, actually buys into this nonsensical hyperbole.
 
What really bugs me about this film is that in the middle of interviewing people, the responses are cut mid sentence for some reason, though the response 'continues' uninterrupted (25:30, for example). Now what purpose does that serve, other then for 'artistic' editing or to cover up what the person actually said?
 
Find the statute or else you're going to get the same response everybody else in this thread has gotten.

preview of that, "It's a lie! there's no 'income tax' act!"
 
Ron Paul said there's no law that explicitly requires you to pay Federal income tax.  I think the key word is "explicitly."  Of course there are relevant laws.  That's why some people can get away with not paying them, but most people can't.  It depends on how the courts interpret the 16th Amendment, etc.

I don't think the moral of the story is, "Fuck yeah! We don't have to pay income taxes!" It's  more like, "Income taxes, electronic voting machines, national ID cards, and those VeriChip things and are a serious threat to our freedoms, and we should do something before America becomes a New World Order police state."
 
I love it when he is talking to people on the streets and is like if you didnt have to pay income tax, would you? Its just a garage video.
 
i almost got in a fight with a junior at my school for saying america sucked but we definitely need change all we r doing is gettin a ton of countries to hate us
 
We've come to a sad state of affairs when even intellectual discussions can be presented and replied to by usually intelligent people by posting and reposting links to the easily-googled work of someone else. If your reaction to an argument is to hurry to your nearest search engine to find someone from your political alignment who's got a PHD and has already responded to it, things do not look good for the intellectuals around here or anywhere. If we're to listen to Siegel, for example (which is probably the right call in this case, I won't lie), Quinny, what's to stop me from posting links to half a dozen articles by Ronald Dworkin you'd hate to confront knowing all too well that no one, including you, is more qualified than him and therefore entitled to respond by your own standards of argument? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

This isn't a legitimate means of discussion and it's almost as depressing as the fact that the opinionated poli sci major with the pink name probably has more people messaging her to cyber than read her posts with any actual consideration.
 
You see, every argument has already been made somewhere else. There's been enough talking from all sides to fill volumes. The point is, nobody cares enough to *DO* shit. As I always said, the president is inconsequential anyway. Get rid of the top 3 and you still have the hundreds of other neo-con lackeys in their respective tenures. The only way would be a complete purge, which is, by all accounts, impossible.
 
If action is the problem, and I won't say it isn't because you're probably right to some very substantial extent, then the attitude that "all the arguments have already been made by someone" is certainly not helping matters. Looking at things that way only breeds more intellectual laziness and apathy and even less ends up getting done. And I disagree with the very idea that originality isn't possible in these sorts of discussions. If you're going to react to something, react to it, don't skim an article and send me a URL and act like you've accomplished some feat of reasoning and argument, because you haven't done a damn thing. Same goes for the guy who posted this and then quintuple posted links. Here's an exercise no one's going to bother with: find five sources that support your side of the argument, sum them up cohesively in 500 words, and then spend 500 writing your own analysis of a couple of weaknesses with your side (not straw men, actual problems) and then counterargue. It'll take you no longer than it did to absorb the opinions of others and you might actually have some ground to stand on.

Quinny before you take all of this as a personal criticism to which you're honour-bound to compose a riposte and don your armor (I know you well enough to see that coming), this is intended to be a general annoyed bit of venting against these sorts of pseudo-intellectual internet bickerfests to which I myself am all too guilty of having participated in. So don't bother: if you want to ignore me, go right ahead.
 
Personal criticism? As much as my ego would sometimes like to tell me, I actually don't take much, if anything, personal. That is especially true in an internet message board. My apologies that I can't please everybody without a "rousing" multi-paragraph argument. No worries.

So then lets look at it from another angle. People try to lie, cheat, and cut corners on their taxes all the time. This has been the case for practically as long as taxes have existed. So why then, if income taxes are indeed not required by law, have there not been far more people trying to avoid them...publicly even? Why would it be such a well kept secret, despite the fact that the IRS does go after people for tax evasion? Furthermore, if income taxes where not required by law, why the hell would the US government continue to sit on its hands for so long? They could easily make it a law if it wasn't there already. Unlike Russo, the innocent little millionaire film maker, most people can logically rationalize the need for an income tax. Seriously, how many countries in the world do not have income tax (I think there's only about ten)?

And there is a need for the Federal Reserve bank. People (at least in people like Russo's case) who do not understand this, generally have absolutely no knowledge of: economics, banking or business in general. The Federal Reserve controls and circulates the supply of currency so that those coins and notes maintain an actual exchangeable monetary value. While other systems do not have a Federal Reserve, it is necessary in a place where banks are so heavily regulated (the US). It's the glue that hold the system together. There is more to having currency than printing off a fancy piece of paper and saying: "Look! This is worth $20!!!" If Russo can't grasp that, he needs to get the hell out of Dodge before he's shot.

There are some general criticisms that have been made against the use of a Federal Reserve (this does not include dunderheaded moonbats like Russo). However, the US has one of the most heavily regulated nations when it comes to financial institutions. To abolish the Federal Reserve in the current system, you're basically turning it into a free-for-all. While thats a pipedream for the true libertarians and capitalists at heart, it is probably not sustainable over a long period of time. This is particularly ture when other countries are willing to exploit currency rate and exchange (see China). Taking away the Federal Reserve would likely make the system top-heavy and would result in about half of the banks collapsing under their own weight.
 
^The Federal Reserve is an important part of the current system, but that doesn't mean it's good.  
 
Its good to have a federal reserve. Without it there would be no american banks, inflation for investment or cash.

The problem is that it is privately owned.

The bank of England is the equivalent in Britain but it is owned by the state.
 
^To be more specific, the Bank of england was a private company and there was a thing called the National Debt which is like your federal reserve. But now the bank of england has been nationalised and is now run by the government.
 
Check this out, doesn't it sound familiar...

"In 1933, shortly after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany, the German Parliament was set on fire by the Nazis and the Communists were blamed for this act of terrorism against the German people. Following the Nazi-inspired arson, Hitler exploited the outrage of the German citizens to arrogate to himself dictatorial powers, which he promised would be used to rid Germany of Communists. The next day, Chancellor Hitler demanded from the German cabinet an emergency decree which would enable him to deal decisively with the domestic crisis. President von Hindenburg signed the decree "for the Protection of the people and the State."

9/11 anyone?
 
I've just watched the documentary "The Money Masters".

Its basically an argument for getting rid of the federal reserve and is very good.

Some highlights in it include:

-The history of banking which is very insightful.

-How the central banks of the world are controlled by an elite group of private bankers.

-These bankers can control depression and boom times through altering the amount of hard cash in circulation.

-The documentary argues how the great depressions in the early 20th century were directly instigated by the international bankers to prevent monetary reform.

-It argues that amercian gold was sold off to Europe at reduced rate to fund the communist revolution and Nazi-ism in Germany.

-War makes money for the banks. It is in their interests.

-It is made in 1995 and predicts "great national crisis" will occur shortly, instigated by the banks. Then 9/11 happens.

-It shows why the Euro and any worldwide currency is incredibly unstable as it puts power into the hands of a few elite men.

Definitely worth watching or just listening to while you're working. Its 3 1/2 hours long though so it will take a while but well worth it.
 
why do people always use other countries problems to try and trivialize ours? should we not have high standerds? is it ok to settle for what we have know? how do you think russia got to where it is now? it had to start somewhere. same with all the other shitty coutries. we cannont blindly support our leaders no matter what. that is what is wrong with america, too many people have blindly supported our government claiming to be "patriots" , even though what they have done is wrong. if we want to be the greatest country in the world we need to have the greatest leaders in the world and not settle for assholes like george bush.
 
Just been watching some Ron Paul promo videos on Youtube.

Did you know he plans on setting up an economy based on giving credit from gold reserves in exactly the same way the federal reserve does at the moment?

He is planning on getting a bill passed to dissolve the national reserve but will replace it with something exactly the same. America doesnt have enough gold to control its own economy. It will create wealth from nothing and inflation will rise exactly the same way it is now, just under a different name. A steady economy must be based on dollar notes not dollar bonds. Having a gold based economy detracts from the need to have cash. America will just end up putting itself in debt with the World central banks. JUST LIKE NOW.

Its like you've got a pair of invaders that are delamming and you want some new Volkl Walls so you have a solid, bomb proof ski that will last ages but all the shop will sell you is second hand Fujatives.

 
Thank you for posting this video, if anything its a new point of view, so watch the damn thing and dont be a little bitch, make your own opinion. They basically had to make these movies because movies are easier to watch because of lazy americans wont do any research for themselves so consider it a favor.. the quality of these videos is usually pretty damn well done in my opinion, sure its not IMAX like some of you idiots think it needs to be for it to be 'legit'. Didnt Alex Jones produce this one? Im going to watch it now fo sho. Im prepared to basically get blown away by all of the crazy shit our government has done. I swear some of you guys actually thiink that the government doesnt keep secrets from the public.....hahahahha, wake the fuck up.
 
I agree completely with every aspect of your post. A president is only a single fuckin person, he can only do so much, and his party has a hell of a lot to do with that. As much as I hate to say it, I intend to vote democratic in '08, (unless its Hillary), simply because I believe the country needs a major change, and it isn't going to happen with a republican in office. Besides that, I'm not going to vote based entirely on what a candidate says he wants to do, but on what his party stands for, and what he will be able to do. I've had conservative views my whole life, but the republican party had their chance, and they did a horseshit job. Now its somebody else's turn.

All that shit aside, neither of the parties need nominate anybody, because an honest politician is an oxy moron. Our system of government works great, it simply lacks decent people, and the few we have are maybe a vote in congress here and there, or an adviser to somebody.
 
suck a dick, this is NS, not some bias government website. This is america we have a right to make and watch political propaganda if we want. Besides, you dont think the government themselves releases propaganda to the public? They lie all the fucking time and just repeat shit like 50 times to try and get us to think a certain way. Its called Brainwashing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top