Zeitgeist

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Actually yes it does. But nice try though.

[Pfffffffffft]

 

Beleive all that fairy tale bullshit over stone cold facts.

 

 

Damn you're stupid.

 

 

 

coming from someone who can't spell believe :rolleyes:

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

coming from someone who can't spell believe :rolleyes:

 

Ohhh snaaaaapppp!!!!!!!!!

A typoe just deleted any legitimacy that might ever come out of my mouth!!!

Ohhhh shiiiiittttt!!!!

I sure did fuck up now didn't I???

[SADDAM HUSSEIN]

fuck, i got brainwashed by the lightbox

 

[Pfffffffffft]

 

never gave an opinion either way..

 

 

 

 

who is to say its right or wrong...

.it could be the truth but who really knows???

 

 

dont put words in my mouth..

go back and read my post..

 

you could probably argue with a fucking rock..

hell you are probably arging just for the sake of arguing now because i put it as clear as day for you..youre just being a dilberate asshole or born an idiot..

you decide

 

im out..

7 am time for sleep.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

dont believe everything you see, read or hear DAO...

or fuck it...go ahead and jump on the theory bandwagon

 

 

:rolleyes:

[Pfffffffffft]

exactly...

 

words of wisdom..

 

there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and questioning the truth on sides of the issue..

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

exactly...

 

words of wisdom..

 

there is nothing wrong with being skeptical and questioning the truth on sides of the issue..

 

 

Take this however you want, but you questioning shit that's clearly spelled out right infront of you the way you are is like a retard questioning the legititimacy of "hooked on phonics".

[SADDAM HUSSEIN]

im a shitty laptop.. that movie is too much for it.. but can you tell me what hte fuck is going on.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

im out..

7 am time for sleep.

 

^What happened? :biglaugh:

[Pfffffffffft]

like i said...

 

dont believe everything you hear..

 

ITS THEORY!!

 

could it be correct??? sure!!

 

could it be wrong ?? sure!!

 

 

if you feel that strong about it ..good!!

but a wise person always keeps the options open to more..

you got your mind set and made up like a close minded fool...

congratulations and gnight..

pay at the first window..hahaha

[soupBDC]

Prove to us how it's false. It's only fair, since they backed their claims up with factual, provable information.

 

 

Oh, you can't.

 

"Oh, you can't." Hah is that like saying "Prove to me the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Oh, you can't?" You should be the one backing up this bullshit, not me proving to you UFOs aren't real. Count how many times video footage is cropped so you cant see the names of who's being interviewed, or how many times audio is being cut down and edited to say whatever the filmmakers want it to say. If that doesn't make you skeptical of the film's validity, go ahead and send in your $9.95 to Zeitgeistmovie.com.

 

Here's another prodigal son from the story of horus, and he goes by the Easter Bunny, real name Charles.

 

 

A. Their religion segment. Google any of the following:

-The original version of their religion segment, which is far more entertaining when they try to convince you the pope's hat is actually a fish head (about 4 mins. into the vid).

 

-The constellation the movie refers to as "The southern Crux" wasn't called the southern crux until 1600 years after the bible was written

 

- Nowhere in the egyptian, greek, or christian world do they ever refer to orion's belt as the three kings.

 

-The actual similarities between Dionysus and Jesus are as similar as relating Jesus to Hercules.

 

-The movie says religious freaks believe the end of the world is coming at X year but it's actually the end of the age of piscies... except the end of of the world and the end of piscies are a good hundred years apart.

 

B. The twin towers. Once again, google any of the following:

 

-The original clip of the actor misquoting the 9-11 commission report actually made the news as a pretty big television fuck up and another cliche Film Actors Guild (FAG) moment. I think he even came out and appologized.

 

-The original phone conference with one of the twin tower archietects the video uses by only playing "So you're saying the towers were built to withstand an airplane crash?" and the archietect says "Yes it was—" then is cut off before he says "—but we didn't plan for airplane fuel spilling down the elevator shafts."

 

-The ballistics evidence that it was an airplane that hit the pentagon/trade center/middle of nowhere

 

C. THE DRAMATIC FINALE FOR THE ZEITGEIST. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT? THE EVILS OF A CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM:

 

-All of the Zeitgeist's theories came from a video called "The MoneyChangers" which is another conspiracy film that has you believing we were tricked into using a central banking system when the fact is we've always relied on central banking even before we were a country.

 

-The brightest people in the world will tell you noone understands economics. It's all theory and speculation about how an economy works.

-Everything we do know about economics utilizes a central banking system.

-Every country in the world, with only a few poor-ass countries as exceptions, uses the central banking system.

 

-The movie also says there is no law to pay income tax when there is.

 

-The movie calls the Federal reserve unconsitutional because the income tax is unaportioned when the 16th ammendment gives it the right to do just that.

-The movie says the federal reserve prints our money, when that's the US mint and entirely unrelated to the Fed.

-The movie says the federal reserve is a private bank, When in fact it's partly controlled by the US government and partly by stockholders which by law is every bank in the united states.

-In other words, this film is about Citi Bank and WaMu trying to make Canada, the US and Mexico one giant military controlled country so they can rule the world.

[After School Special]

Anyone else stoked for the end of the world?

 

This guy is.

[lord_casek]

this is completely wrong

 

 

-The movie also says there is no law to pay income tax when there is.

 

-The movie says the Federal reserve unconsitutional because the income tax is unaportioned when the 16th ammendment states it's 100% consitutional.

-The movie says the federal reserve prints our money, when that's the US mint and entirely unrelated to the Fed.

-The movie says the federal reserve is a private bank, When in fact it's partly controlled by the US government and partly by stockholders which by law is every bank in the united states.

-In other words, this film is about Citi Bank and WaMu trying to make Canada, the US and Mexico one giant military controlled country so they can rule the world.

 

 

 

don't feel like finding references atm

[soupBDC]

I'm not bullshitting anyone here so I've got no problem finding them for you: (following's from wiki)

 

-The movie also says there is no law to pay income tax when there is.

The movie interviews two ex-IRS agents who say they don't pay their Income taxes because it's unconstitutional and therefore no law was ever written forcing you to pay it.

The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

Also, I just discovered, the movie says income tax was placed by the Fed, when in fact income tax outdates the fed by a good 40 years.

 

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although an 1895 United States Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).

-The movie says the Federal reserve unconsitutional because the income tax is unaportioned when the 16th ammendment states it's 100% consitutional.

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.

 

-The movie says the federal reserve prints our money, when that's the US mint and entirely unrelated to the Fed.

The Mint was made an independent agency in 1799, and under the Coinage Act of 1873, became part of the Department of the Treasury. It was placed under the auspices of the Treasurer of the United States in 1981.

 

-The movie says the federal reserve is a private bank, When in fact it's partly controlled by the US government and partly by stockholders which by law is every bank in the united states.

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, is a private banking system composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

 

 

-In other words, this film is about Citi Bank and WaMu trying to make Canada, the US and Mexico one giant military controlled country so they can rule the world.

[iloveboxcars]

why would they want mexico to be a part of it though?

[soupBDC]

The Rockefellers love the donkey show. In fact they're building a huge enormous freeway so canadians can drive right to it!

[wayne hits]

Take this however you want, but you questioning shit that's clearly spelled out right infront of you the way you are is like a retard questioning the legititimacy of "hooked on phonics".

 

that made me lol

[MitchThe$nitch]

ilumanati trickology

[El Mamerro]

Word to the wise: Feel free to ignore anything with DAO's seal of approval. And don't try to argue with him unless you're the kind of guy that enjoys a challenging game of tennis with a guy in a wheelchair.

 

Crossfired.

[Dawood]

the truth is not know by men, but men are known by the truth.

 

I blame westerners grudge with religion on christianity. They tell you fairy tales like santa claus and the easter bunny from the time you are born only to find out that it was a lie. Why is beleiving that Jesus is God any different. I understand why people who grow up in places like america would not want to follow a religion, but one question for the self proclaimed athiests out there.

 

Do you beleive in any force that is more powerful than yourself? You don't have to call it God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha,Krishna or whatever other name people call things that they worship, but do you beleive there is a higher power at all?

[the.crooked]

That is the issue dawood, it is not as though those of us who are athiest have any uniform beliefs between us.

 

Personally, I do not believe in a "power" higher than myself. My choice resides as the sole arbiter of my future. At least in so much of the things I can control. I see the world and existence as a place of potential. The supposed "order" of nature is nothing more than our own human impulse to find patterns in life. I am not of the opinion that this impulse is useless; just necessarily wrong. Life is the belief of understanding the the world up until the result of a given choice shows otherwise.

 

The only thing above me, is existence. And in so much as that is the case, it is not above me, because I exist. I am apart of what is.

 

Easily one could separate this line of reasoning into the idea that the unknown outcome of my choice is above me. But the fact that I can interpret unexpected results, take them into account and make new choices based off these events, again removes me from subordination to the unknown.

 

so no. there is nothing above me.

 

 

In the words of Michael from Robert Heinlin's Stranger in a Strange Land, "Thou art god."

[lord_casek]

soup:

 

The IRS claims that the 16th Amendment allowed for a third form of taxation, however, the supreme court ruling on the amendment states that it allows for no new forms of taxation. More supreme court cases in the same period confirm the same conclusion. The 16th Amendment did not allow the Federal Government to levy a new tax, thus there is no Constitutional basis for the income tax.

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5867168477526577748&q=Michael+Badnarik&total=62&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

 

 

more later..

 

 

p.s.: wikipedia is not to be trusted.

[rubbish heap two]

i'm gonna go out and say i don't necessarily believe the second or third part of the movie, but having read a decent book about the first part IN MY OPINION there is a lot of truth to it. you have to realize that yes, the christ story was written on the egyptian walls and in cultures long before the "historical" christ could have lived. this is fact, not theory. now, there's christians out there who will say this was god's will of preparing the world for christ for the world before the historical christ was born, but i don't see it that way. either way, the book i read about it wasn't just about saying "christianity is a false religion" but moreso "christianity was never meant to be taken literally and is an allegorical religion meant to be interpretted symbolically". i have a lot more reading to do on the subject (joseph campbell for one), but i think there's more evidence pointing against a historical christ than there is pointing towards it, and i think when you rest the legitimacy of your religion on a historical figure anyway, you're losing the greater part of the religion (the teachings). for example, if there was no historical buddha that doesn't take away from the reality of thousands of monks who have reached nirvana or some sort of transcendent blissful state through his teachings.

[the.crooked]

transcendence is a hard thing to classify. there are so many sects of buddhism. some believe transcendence to actually correspond to a pre-linguistic or a state of pure experience, but many also believe that to "reach nirvana" is rather to understand completely your situation in language and the world.

 

To quote a buddhist koan:

 

At first mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.

Next mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.

Again mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.

[rubbish heap two]

Yes, it's hard to classify in a Western sense because it's ineffable, but that's the theme of mysticism (and reason scholars get frustrated when trying to make a study out of it).

 

Either way I still prefer to place value on the teachings as opposed to the teacher, and therefore a Christianity where Christ had to live, die and be reincarnated to hold up the entire theology of the Church doesn't appeal to me.

[soupBDC]

soup:

The IRS claims that the 16th Amendment allowed for a third form of taxation, however, the supreme court ruling on the amendment states that it allows for no new forms of taxation. More supreme court cases in the same period confirm the same conclusion. The 16th Amendment did not allow the Federal Government to levy a new tax, thus there is no Constitutional basis for the income tax.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5867168477526577748&q=Michael+Badnarik&total=62&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

more later..

p.s.: wikipedia is not to be trusted.

It's all relative, when Wikipedia quotes and references their sources to websites and databases outside the realm of wikipedia, you can bet the information is safer than the Zeitgeist.

 

I think you're skewing your source there way too much. That's not what http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html is saying at all. Nowhere does it discuss the IRS, income tax as a third kind of tax, or the tax's constitutional basis. The 16th ammendment was a ratification to the constitution years after the income tax was created because Congress was taxing poor farmers the same amount as rich people based on the amount of land they owned.

From your source, Second paragraph on page 1953:

The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of

the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,\1\

whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes

uniformly throughout the United States\2\ was held by a divided court to

be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property,\3\ the

Court declared, was a ``direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of

Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of

apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years

prior the Justices had unanimously sustained\4\ the collection of a

similar tax during the Civil War,\5\ the only other occasion preceding

the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this

method of raising revenue.\6\

[the.crooked]

Yes, it's hard to classify in a Western sense because it's ineffable, but that's the theme of mysticism (and reason scholars get frustrated when trying to make a study out of it).

 

Either way I still prefer to place value on the teachings as opposed to the teacher, and therefore a Christianity where Christ had to live, die and be reincarnated to hold up the entire theology of the Church doesn't appeal to me.

 

That was my point thought, is that ineffability is only categorized as being of transcendence by certain sects of buddhism.

 

I completely agree about teachings and idolatry of messengers.

 

I just wanted to clarify what I think is a mis-perception of buddhism as a whole teaching from western perspective. Because it is "mystical" we easily dismiss the principles because of their supposed ineffability.

 

I have a great essay on the relationship between Koan's and dualistic logic/language. If you are interested.

[lord_casek]

It's all relative, when Wikipedia quotes and references their sources to websites and databases outside the realm of wikipedia, you can bet the information is safer than the Zeitgeist.

 

I think you're skewing your source there way too much. That's not what http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html is saying at all. Nowhere does it discuss the IRS, income tax as a third kind of tax, or the tax's constitutional basis. The 16th ammendment was a ratification to the constitution years after the income tax was created because Congress was taxing poor farmers the same amount as rich people based on the amount of land they owned.

From your source, Second paragraph on page 1953:

 

 

 

i have more sources.

 

too tired to dig them out now, but it's a good discussion.

[Ko SprueOne]

moving this thread to crossfire was appropriate