Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/11/07 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/11/07 02:18 PM, TheAbominableMatt wrote:

I can understand that you might be skeptical about the totalitarion dictatorship that it predicts at the end of the movie but Idon't see how you could deny the historical information presented to you.

1/3 of the movie is rumor and speculation rather than factual.
1/3 of the movie is completely false.
1/3 of the movie is all based on speculation on something that we haven't yet the slightest clue how to control yet.

Yet so many Americans believe it.
people who know the taxes are unfair in Indianapolis

thousands rally in Columbia for the FAIRTAX plan

Thousands in New York rally about 9/11 TRUTH

thousands in Toranto march about 9/11 TRUTH

At 7/11/07 02:41 PM, Truth wrote:

Yet so many Americans believe it.

There are 300 million people in the United States.

You were saying?

people who know the taxes are unfair in Indianapolis

There are also 9/11 rallies in New York claiming that a plane actually hit the pentagon, and not a missle.

thousands rally in Columbia for the FAIRTAX plan

Great, you've got technically 1/8 of a state.

thousands in Toranto march about 9/11 TRUTH

Why is your name so Ironic?

And like I said about the 16th amendment. Though Ohio didn't have an "official" proclamation, that didn't stop anyone from complaining about ratifying the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

At 7/11/07 02:41 PM, Truth wrote:

Yet so many Americans believe it.

So many Americans? How about "a small group of people who don't want to give up their money"?

At 7/11/07 02:51 PM, Memorize wrote:

There are also 9/11 rallies in New York claiming that a plane actually hit the pentagon, and not a missle.

Show me.

And like I said about the 16th amendment. Though Ohio didn't have an "official" proclamation, that didn't stop anyone from complaining about ratifying the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

16th amendment
The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

ALL those public displays above were huge, considering that they hardly got any air time on television, newspapers.

At 7/11/07 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/11/07 02:18 PM, TheAbominableMatt wrote:

1/3 of the movie is rumor and speculation rather than factual.
1/3 of the movie is completely false.
1/3 of the movie is all based on speculation on something that we haven't yet the slightest clue how to control yet.

Part of it is conjecture, yes... but it's conjecture based common sense and cited sources. What about all the stuff in there that is fact though? A large about of the information in there is simply just reciting history The federal reserve act didn't happen did it?

What about the Patriots act? Being held without charge, without trial and without access to a lawyer? How can that not make you even a little unsettled?

Do you even know how Theodoore Roosevelt is?
Yes! He surely wanted to screw over the American people between 1901-1909.

Don't open your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.

Did I say anything against the man? Did I say anything about him at all in fact? I just stated the fact that you cited your favourite president in your signature and that I saw that as an act of patriotism.

I don't give a shit if you blindly believe everything you're told and you shouldn't give a shit if I belive the information in the video. The difference between us is that you've been indoctrined from a young age to believe in America as a force for good. I don't remeber ever pledging allegience to whoever it was that made Zeitgeist. You think that maybe there's just even the slightest chance that you think the way you do because you're supposed to?

You should always be questioning the world around you. It's not being a conspiracy nut job to question the system. If you want to ignore the video that's fine, I doubt Cheney will be dragging people off to consentration camps any time soon anyway. Oh wait....

At 7/11/07 02:18 PM, TheAbominableMatt wrote:

At 7/11/07 01:15 PM, Memorize wrote: Because intelligent people are those who don't buy into this video's crap.

I can understand that you might be skeptical about the totalitarion dictatorship that it predicts at the end of the movie but Idon't see how you could deny the historical information presented to you.

... but then you do have your favourite president named in your signature so maybe you're just being blindly patriotic.

well, nobody has really given the north american union any support or done anything with it other than talk about it

there have been a lot more panics before the federal reserve act than there have been since its inception, and the worst one that happened after it came into effect wasn't as bad as it had been in the past, though it was still pretty bad

economic recession isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when

we've had an income tax since the 1860s

the sixteenth ammendment was ratified by 36 states by 1913

the federal reserve contains private entities (the national banks ) and public entities (the government, who actually runs the fucker). basically, the government makes the banks buy stock

and if we had left the dollar on the gold standard, then the money supply would literally be controlled by private companies

At 7/11/07 03:07 PM, TheAbominableMatt wrote:

Part of it is conjecture, yes... but it's conjecture based common sense and cited sources.

The cited sources are about as reliable as me claiming 9/11 was conducted by the government while citing antiBush.com

What about all the stuff in there that is fact though? A large about of the information in there is simply just reciting history The federal reserve act didn't happen did it?

All things recited are coupled with rumor and myth to overblow and exaggerate the story.

Example: The US is controlling or moving towards controlling its citizens.

Using this logic, we would claim the US is curbing freedoms. There are many many examples in the past where things were worse.

1. Business could monoplize without government interference, until Teddy showed up and became known as a trust buster.

2. After pearl Harbor, FDR put all japanese and japanese americans in camps. If Bush really were that bad, he could've used 9/11 to justify taking muslims from their homes and putting them in camps for national security.

3. Women have the right to vote.

4. Blacks have the right to vote.

Truth be told, we're more free now than we've ever been.

What about the Patriots act? Being held without charge, without trial and without access to a lawyer? How can that not make you even a little unsettled?

Guess what, everyone was FOR the patriot act until no WMDs were found in iraq. Want to know what's so funny about it? THE PATRIOT ACT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.

Also, we have NEVER given trials to suspected terrorists and POWs in any of our previous wars. Not until AFTER the war or conflict is over.

Think about it. What if a terrorist goes free and is able to go back and fight for the enemy and kill even more? That's why we do not have trials for POWs. That' show it's worked since... ever, really.

Did I say anything against the man? Did I say anything about him at all in fact? I just stated the fact that you cited your favourite president in your signature and that I saw that as an act of patriotism.

In a negative manner.

And since you believe this video, you targetted my naming of a president while telling me about how this video is true when the president I have in my signiture is proof of everything against that video.

I don't give a shit if you blindly believe everything you're told and you shouldn't give a shit if I belive the information in the video.

Haha, blindly believe what i'm told? How Ironic.

Considering you instantly believed a video that goes against every credible source about 9/11, global warming and religion.

Face it. You only believe the video because you want to believe it.

The difference between us is that you've been indoctrined from a young age to believe in America as a force for good.

Hm.... yes... good.

Well, the US does give the MOST aid in the world.

They also forgave Europe of over 3/4 their debt from WWII, which they just got done paying off.

I don't remeber ever pledging allegience to whoever it was that made Zeitgeist. You think that maybe there's just even the slightest chance that you think the way you do because you're supposed to?

No. Because I looked into it and major architects and engineers are on my side.

It's 1963 all over again.

JFK is shot. Warran's report comes out. People can't believe it so they blast the Warran's report for lying.

Their arguments:
-The bullet that hit JFK and the governor couldn't have done that much damage.
-The bullet couldn't have come out looking that good.
-Judging from the holes in the suits, it would've had to swerve up to hit the governor.
-Oswald wasn't that good of a shot.
-He couldn't have made it down the stairs that fast.

Counter arguments (from a video special on the history channel):
-They fired the "magic bullet" into the stump of a tree on the bottom point blank... came out perfect.

-The suit JFK was wearing was in a different position has he was waiving to the people, meaning the bullet did come through his neck, not his back. And reviewing the type of vehicle they had, the governor's seat was lower, allowing the bullet to make 1 straight shot.

-They used material to recreate skin and the bones inside. Climbed a tower with the same rifle using the same bullet. Shot from the same angle, and the bullet went through all of the points.

-Oswald was trained to shoot a rifle.

-They sprint-walked from where he shot to down stairs and made it with time to spare.

Holy shit. The warran's report was right all along.

And then Oliver Stone makes a movie where an entire courtroom scene never even took place in real life.

You should always be questioning the world around you.

Oh, I do.

I just realize that shit happens and there doesn't have to be some manipulating governmental control to do it. Guess what. The president isn't bullet proof, he's a human too.

I doubt Cheney will be dragging people off to consentration camps any time soon anyway. Oh wait....

Name the concentration camps.

At 7/11/07 03:05 PM, Truth wrote:

Show me.

Are you honestly telling me that a missle hit the pentagon?

ALL those public displays above were huge, considering that they hardly got any air time on television, newspapers.

That wasn't the point. The point was that no one had a problem with Ohio ratifying anything until the 16th amendment (which other states subsequently ratified later bringing it over 3/4). They let Ohio do as they wish UNTIL they met up with something they didn't like, so they tried to find a loophole.

the New York Times and CBS News conducted a poll

THE results:
Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"

At 7/11/07 03:51 PM, Memorize wrote: Guess what, everyone was FOR the patriot act until no WMDs were found in iraq. Want to know what's so funny about it? THE PATRIOT ACT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.

I have no doubt that everyone was for it. The amount of scare tactics that the Government utilised through the media was enough to make the majority of America shit their pants. The point is not just to take people's civil liberties away, but to make them want you to.

Also, we have NEVER given trials to suspected terrorists and POWs in any of our previous wars. Not until AFTER the war or conflict is over.

And the point of this war is to keep it going for as long as possible so that Halliburton and others like it can continue to make millions. It's in the Governments best intrest to keep the war going for as long as possible so who knows when these "suspected terrorists" would even see the light of day again.

Think about it. What if a terrorist goes free and is able to go back and fight for the enemy and kill even more? That's why we do not have trials for POWs. That' show it's worked since... ever, really.

So, guilty until proven inocent then?

Did I say anything against the man? Did I say anything about him at all in fact? I just stated the fact that you cited your favourite president in your signature and that I saw that as an act of patriotism.

In a negative manner.

And since you believe this video, you targetted my naming of a president while telling me about how this video is true when the president I have in my signiture is proof of everything against that video.

That wasn't my intention at all.

I don't give a shit if you blindly believe everything you're told and you shouldn't give a shit if I belive the information in the video.

Haha, blindly believe what i'm told? How Ironic.

I was trying to imply that we are both blindly believing what we're told. I've looked at other sources as I'm sure you have but the fact remains that we're just believing opposing sides of the arguments because we are that way inclined.

Considering you instantly believed a video that goes against every credible source about 9/11, global warming and religion.

Face it. You only believe the video because you want to believe it.

... and you instantly dismiss it because you don't want to. The fact is that I knew alot of the information in that video before I watched it and that watching everything displayed together compounded my belief that America isn't run the way it was intended when Independence was achieved.

The difference between us is that you've been indoctrined from a young age to believe in America as a force for good.

Hm.... yes... good.

Well, the US does give the MOST aid in the world.

They also forgave Europe of over 3/4 their debt from WWII, which they just got done paying off.

Oh that's damn decent of them. Considering they entered the war when it suited them best and when they could make the most profit.

You should always be questioning the world around you.

Oh, I do.

I just realize that shit happens and there doesn't have to be some manipulating governmental control to do it. Guess what. The president isn't bullet proof, he's a human too.

You really think the President is in charge of anything? Have you heard the shit he comes out with?

I doubt Cheney will be dragging people off to consentration camps any time soon anyway. Oh wait....

Name the concentration camps.

The Halliburton affiliate KBR (The same people who built Guantanamo Bay) was awarded a $385 million contract to build "detention centers" somewhere in America for "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs"

I'm not suggesting that they will start to systematically kill off all who they deem to be undesirable but it does mean that they now it is completley legal for them to drag you from your home and keep you in an undisclosed location for any extented period of time. Maybe you'd call that being paranoid.

If Bush really were that bad, he could've used 9/11 to justify taking muslims from their homes and putting them in camps for national security.

Hey.. good idea.

At 7/3/07 02:04 PM, CHRlST wrote: GOERGE W. BUSH HAS SAID THE EXACT QUOTES AS ADOLF HILTER.

To the best of my knowledge, George Bush does not speak German and Adolf Hitler did not speak English, so that's not very likely. When you translate from one language to another, it's almost never word-for-word. So, when translating a quote from, say, Adolf Hilter, you could easily find a number of different interpretations, or different ways to say the same thing in English. If you're clever enough, you could translate a random Hitler sentence to match a random Bush sentence, even if the context is not the same at all. Either way, it probably doesn't mean anything.

Then again, I never watched the video, so I don't know what quotes you're talking about. I just thought I'd make a general point, here.

By the way... according to Wikipedia, this Zeitgeist video cites the Loose Change 2nd Edition video as a source of information. Am I the only one who thinks this is hilarious?

ppl that don't believe the banks part are fucking clueless

At 7/11/07 06:43 PM, subpar wrote:

At 7/3/07 02:04 PM, CHRlST wrote: GOERGE W. BUSH HAS SAID THE EXACT QUOTES AS ADOLF HILTER.

To the best of my knowledge, George Bush does not speak German and Adolf Hitler did not speak English, so that's not very likely. When you translate from one language to another, it's almost never word-for-word. So, when translating a quote from, say, Adolf Hilter, you could easily find a number of different interpretations, or different ways to say the same thing in English. If you're clever enough, you could translate a random Hitler sentence to match a random Bush sentence, even if the context is not the same at all. Either way, it probably doesn't mean anything.

Then again, I never watched the video, so I don't know what quotes you're talking about. I just thought I'd make a general point, here.

Ah yes I know I made this right after I watched the movie and I was a little freaked out so their is some dumb stuff in my post. Though, back in the thread someone actually told me that the quote were talking about is an actual quote used by someone else or something, so it wasn't created by Hitler or anything.

I think it's on page 3 or 4 if you want to bother looking for it.

yeah, I saw it...Loose Change shouldn't be used as a source, since they can't really back any of their statements with coherent proof.

COINCIDENCE? You decide!

Zeitgeist

If you take out the Z, i, t, e, i, t, and then add the letters N, w, r, o, u, n, and d...then you get the following secret message.

Newgrounds

COINCIDENCE? You decide!

But getting back on track, I only cared about the first part of the video...that I found quite amusing.

You're all fools.

Every single person posting in this forum is a fucking idiot.

No. Fucking. Exceptions.

I haven't delved any deeper since last time about whether or not certain events of the movie are true or not. However, I do have much stronger doubts about the movie's validity.

In another post made by me in this thread (a post that was waaaaaay too long to quote), I mentioned how there are laws set in place to make us pay our taxes and how I had found a site that refutes almost every point made by tax protesters. This means that the movie was wrong about the taxes. You have to pay them. Unless you want to try your luck at a Good-Faith Defense, then have fun filing your tax return.

Given that they were wrong about taxes, it also makes me think a lot about the 9/11 aspect. There's no correlation, it's just that I've never (until seeing this movie originally) had a strong belief that it was a government conspiracy. I didn't believe Loose Change, certainly. It was only the things they thew in there, about tower 7 and about the terrorists not being dead... I would still like to know.

What were the names of the 19 terrorists on the planes? Surely they have them recorded. Is each individual really dead? This is really the one part driving me nuts.

As for part 1 of the movie...I don't know. I believe it a lot more than part 2, but I suppose that's mainly because I'm not a religious man. If all of the coincidences are true and this does all relate back to astronomy, then who wrote the bible? It couldn't have been the disciples if they didn't exist. How would Christianity have been created with no actual figure behind it? What of the infamous Pontius Pilate, was he not truly a Roman governor? Was he not in charge of the crucifixion of Christians? There has to have been something that was real for the religion to be formed, right? It's too confusing.

As for part 3... I'll wait and see. If the chip becomes popular, then fuck, I should've listened. If not, then fuck, I wasted 2 hours. Whatever.

I would still recommend people to view the movie though. Though the validity may be questionable, it is eerily convincing and all in all well made.

pretty much everything from those videos is bullshit. part one is bullshit, but being a dumbfuck when it comes to ancient history is more forgivable than the other shit the video and everyone it's indoctrinated spews

At 7/12/07 09:37 AM, Unimportant wrote:
In another post made by me in this thread (a post that was waaaaaay too long to quote), I mentioned how there are laws set in place to make us pay our taxes and how I had found a site that refutes almost every point made by tax protesters. This means that the movie was wrong about the taxes. You have to pay them. Unless you want to try your luck at a Good-Faith Defense, then have fun filing your tax return.

In this movie: politicians, IRS workers argue that there is no law that requires Americans to pay an income tax.
Its worth a look.

you can't pick and choose your amendments. you either follow the constitution or don't

bush may be an asshole who does not deserve or should ever hold the amount of power he does, but at least when he shits on the constitution he just ignores everything. you idiots just piss and moan about losing your constitutional rights and then say you don't have to obey the sixteenth amendment because you don't want to pay your taxes

any dumbass who buys into "YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX LOL" is just as bad as the neocons. the entire idea is basically a bunch of bullshit backed by corporations, libertarians, and people who jack off to hannity and colmes

At 7/12/07 08:27 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote: you can't pick and choose your amendments. you either follow the constitution or don't

bush may be an asshole who does not deserve or should ever hold the amount of power he does, but at least when he shits on the constitution he just ignores everything. you idiots just piss and moan about losing your constitutional rights and then say you don't have to obey the sixteenth amendment because you don't want to pay your taxes

and where is this law, that requires us to pay an income tax?

At 7/13/07 11:40 AM, Truth wrote:

At 7/12/07 08:27 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote: you can't pick and choose your amendments. you either follow the constitution or don't

bush may be an asshole who does not deserve or should ever hold the amount of power he does, but at least when he shits on the constitution he just ignores everything. you idiots just piss and moan about losing your constitutional rights and then say you don't have to obey the sixteenth amendment because you don't want to pay your taxes

and where is this law, that requires us to pay an income tax?

ever hear of the constitution?

try not paying your taxes and tell us how the IRS responds. you can believe that bullshit if you want, but if you put it into practice, they'll get your ass on tax evasion

At 7/13/07 03:14 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote:

At 7/13/07 11:40 AM, Truth wrote:

At 7/12/07 08:27 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote:

and where is this law, that requires us to pay an income tax?

ever hear of the constitution?

try not paying your taxes and tell us how the IRS responds. you can believe that bullshit if you want, but if you put it into practice, they'll get your ass on tax evasion

sure you can get thrown into jail for not paying your taxes, but tell me where is the law?
Where in the constitution?

article 1 section 8

Alright, now here's something I don't get.

After we overthrow the Zeitgeist... What do we do? We just dismantled one of the most stable governments in history, now what?

Step 1: See the truth
Step 2: Overthrow Zeitgeist
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!

now we turn into iraq and go back to square one

At 7/13/07 07:23 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote: article 1 section 8

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution as well as the 16th amendment does not create new taxing power.
You can tax property and goods, but not wages.

scary!!

I'd just like to point out that whether or not the trade centers were caused by the American government IS IRRELEVANT to what this film is trying to show.
This film is discussing that the American government has Manipulated these events in their favor.

I'd also like to point out that part 1 only provides evidence and arguments towards Christianity, and uses this to support an argument against religion as a whole. Which is insufficient and intolerant.

The start of this film also uses an appeal to pity to support its general argument. Missiles being fired and the horribly unethical bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are irrelevant to every section of this film.

Thats not to say that I don't support the underlying message. So please don't mistake these as counter-arguments to discredit the entire film.

At 7/14/07 09:12 PM, Truth wrote:

At 7/13/07 07:23 PM, the-salmon-of-doubt wrote: article 1 section 8

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution as well as the 16th amendment does not create new taxing power.
You can tax property and goods, but not wages.

and what would this ruling be?

rhenquist v the contsituional congress?

At 7/14/07 10:04 PM, Spackerchip wrote:

I'd also like to point out that part 1 only provides evidence and arguments towards Christianity, and uses this to support an argument against religion as a whole. Which is insufficient and intolerant.

i may have missed it, but when does it argue against religion as a whole?