What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
59 Comments
- adml_shake, on 04/01/2009, -0/+63Anyone else find it disturbing that comedians seem to be doing all the news research and spot on commentary?
- inactive, on 03/31/2009, -1/+56I love you, Lewis Black.
- FirstCuts, on 03/31/2009, -0/+34I saw Lewis Black live once, and I was in pain I laughed so hard. Now I think I'd weep because so much of it is so true.
- Senturion, on 04/01/2009, -0/+13I believe he was referring to the largest private sector employer, the government is pretty much the largest employer in every country on the planet.
And it isn't about whether or not these rich people donate their money, it is about the advantages and benefits they get from preferential treatment by the government.
The government is supposed to look out for the public good, but in most cases it seems they look out for the corporate good first and then simply hope, not insist, that the benefits trickle down, which they don't.
Trickle down economics is the biggest economic scam the Republicans ever pushed. - GroundIsSound, on 03/31/2009, -1/+14just as biting as always. back in black.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+12No one is going around complaining about Bill Gates being a billionaire - they're complaining about the sheer greed involved with capitalizing off of something that is hurting everyone. If you made a billion dollars saving puppies no one would complain, but if you've made a billion by completely ***** the economy, then yes - people are going to hate you, and rightfully so - because as they are "looking for the best opportunity to make themselves" they are getting the rug torn out from under them by some douchebag who would be rich even without ***** over other people.
- adam1378, on 04/01/2009, -0/+12Its not about sh*tting on people who strive to be wealthy, its about obvious corporate greed and strong-arm tactics only available to the wealthy, upper-crust. And he was accurate with his largest employer bit because he was talking about private-sector companies, the government is not a company.
- cptbadass, on 04/01/2009, -0/+11actually what luis is getting at is the ridiculousness of the freedoms that the wealthy have in this country to generate wealth, and the idea that the wealthy or shareholders are more important than the stake holders (the comunities and workers) is a stupid one. The problem is yes the wealthy can be wealthy, its how much wealth and how we give special rules to them. Every other industrialized nations spread of wealth is around 30:1(varies from country to country) from ceo to management, but in the united states in 458:1, and when u consider that our laws allow for the highest rates of fraud u can see why this is an issue. So again, it has nothing to do with the rich being rich, it has to do with that the rich can take out billions (see the kravits deals) cut jobs for the regular joe your talking about, get the tax breaks he's talking about, and effectively screw the economy for everyone else, and walk around unchecked. If that seems ok to you, than your probably rich
- greevar, on 04/01/2009, -0/+10I find it refreshing that someone has their facts together. Ironically, it's the comedians.
- pintomp3, on 04/01/2009, -1/+10That just means it's prophetic and more relevant than ever. Keep sucking that corporate *****
- CoreyHalliwell, on 04/01/2009, -1/+10A sense of humor is probably one of the most intelligent traits humans possess.
- Wamzlee, on 04/01/2009, -0/+8While your point is valid, I think it goes without saying that he was talking about private companies.
- SpookyDIGG, on 04/01/2009, -2/+9Yeah we know who the real coperate drone is here don't we you prick
- NJank, on 04/01/2009, -0/+7bentman78: Remember "Equal opportunity, but no promise of equal results" ? That equal opportunity has to be payed for, because it goes against the natural capitalistic order. One point of government is the provide that equal opportunity where it would not otherwise exist. That means paying for schools, roads, providing for a minimum condition (i.e., welfare / unemployment / etc.). You buy into that system from day 1 before it is determined who winds up where on the wealth chart (in theory, silver spoon babies excepted). The system says, by providing these opportunities to facilitate your ability to get to the top of that chart, you promise to contribute a larger share than those who don't get to the top of the chart, such that the system may continue. Then, when one of you gets to the top of the wealth chart and the other doesn't, the one who is now successful pays a disproportionate share, as it is within their means and doesn't consist of as critical a portion of their income as it would for the not wealthy if things were shared proportionately. It's too late to argue after the fact about the arrangement. You used the system to get to the top of the wealth chart, it is disingenuous to complain about the system that provided you the opportunity to get there no matter your initial condition (in theory). Of course you don't want to pay the higher price now that you're there, that's natural. It's not a crime to be wealthy, but it's disingenuous to use the system to get there, and then complain that the system doesn't let you hang on to enough.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -3/+9I know a ton of people will come in here and go on about Black's political viewpoints in an effort to discredit him - but in this specific instance it's neigh on impossible to disagree with his logic.
- bsmang, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6I just saw him live 3 nights ago in Erie PA.. He rocks.
- PacketScan, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knovZgn5JC8
Lewis Black 3/24/08 - @ larry king live - thespiff, on 04/01/2009, -1/+7"If wealthy people donate money to the aforementioned causes then great, if they choose not to then who cares, it's their own money anyways."
Who cares? Who cares? The rich people will care when they realize that by investing in education, they raise a smarter workforce, which will come work for the companies that make rich people rich, and build new things that make rich people richer.
It's not a crime to be wealthy. But if rich people don't spend their money responsibly we all suffer. - PizzaEagle, on 04/01/2009, -0/+5successful? really?
- Nailrabbit, on 04/01/2009, -1/+6AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH-conomy
- aijalon, on 04/01/2009, -1/+4That really is just a rant, not the biting irony that makes "Back in Black" interesting.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -0/+3The fact that we're somehow allowing companies that have gone bankrupt to continue operating under previously failed systems is logic that escapes me. Though I do not approve of buyouts in any way, and I disagree very much with Obama's stimulus plans, I commend him for telling GM and Chrysler that bankruptcy might be their only feasible way to be saved. It's not the responsibility of the American tax payer or our overseas creditors to bail out companies that can't make a profit.
- SpookyDIGG, on 04/01/2009, -1/+4Wow, you are such a ***** ass, i imagine that you live very comfortably because of where you are in society and the color of your ***** skin. what you fail to see is the massive greed of these companies, their disgusting wealth made on the backs of the poor workers. You should take a moment to repent your sin of what you have said here.
Jesus said: The poor you will have with you always.
its up to society as a whole to always help the less fortunate and not be so quick to blame.
Let he without sin cast the first stone. - HtomSirveaux, on 04/02/2009, -0/+2Yeah, well the Bush administration had worn thin on everyone.
- bruuks, on 04/01/2009, -0/+2who sings the song at the end of the video?
- HtomSirveaux, on 04/02/2009, -0/+2No, gzviagin next time just go ***** yourself you snob.
- faskippy, on 04/01/2009, -0/+2End the Fed.
- mheyk, on 04/01/2009, -0/+2Stick it to em Lewis. and ***** the above comment.
- bwoodwar, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1Saying things are worse elsewhere in the world is not a valid argument because you can always find somewhere/someone worse off.
offrdbandit:
"its up to society as a whole to always help the less fortunate and not be so quick to blame."
Right. It is up to society not the government.
Democratic Government is a tool created by society to develop and enforce laws to help raise the standard of living of all of those underneath it. Saying that society and government are not directly related is lunacy. - SketchaMPM, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1Not really. He just goes after the idiots. Bush's administration and incredibly moronic supporters provided him with a wealth of material for the past 8 years.
- dralezero, on 04/03/2009, -0/+1When the capital that is injected is printed out of thin air, then you start having some real problems.
- glitchbit, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1I did not mean that as an insult... although with the republicans we have in congress right now.. I could see how it could easily be taken as one.
- tgc1, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1Who gives a *****? The guy is awesome. The guy could be sent by the devil himself. Wouldn't take anything away from him.
- donkeyb0ng, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1from their website at <a class="user" href="http://www.r4ny.com/news/" rel="nofollow">http://www.r4ny.com/news/</a>
still can't find anywhere to download the song... it wasn't available in RCRDLBL.
May 23
RADIO 4 JUBILEE
The Radio 4 Jubilee (think the Knitters to X,) was created when filmmaker Antonino D’ambrosio asked Roman to do something for his new short film "No Free Lunch, starring Lewis Black. Roman collected the members of Radio 4, and along with noted journeyman guitarist Rizzo and Brooklyn based production team the Brothers, they cranked out this rootsy, protest song, "This Is a Movement" (soon to be available on RCRDLBL) in a day. Expect more to come as Radio 4 is scoring Dambrosio's full length feature film , Let Fury Have the Hour, due out next year.
the Radio 4 Jubilee:
Roman
Rizzo
Collins
Little Danny
O'connor (in spirit)
produced by the Brothers
"No Free Lunch" is the first in a series of short films tackling the issue of income inequality in America. Starring groundbreaking comedian Lewis Black, "No Free Lunch" is written, directed and produced by Antonino D'ambrosio of La Lutta FIlms (www.lalutta.org). Noise-Pop Industries (www.noisepop.com) produced the film, which is presented by the union SEIU, which represents 1.5 million public service workers, nurses, hospital staff, nursing home care providers, building services and security guards.
"No Free Lunch" will launch on June 4th. Please go to www.july17action.org to view the film. - HtomSirveaux, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1You and others like to bitch about cutting the cord from the gold standard. Really? We should back our currency on a rare earth metal? Sure, because we all get along great vying for limited fossil fuels. There's a good reason governments don't trade salt.
There are many ways to look at it, but generally you don't upturn a recession by encouraging people to save. The school of though is saving prolongs a recession because everyone is too nervous to borrow. Lowering the interest rate encourages borrowing which is where most capital comes from. At last that's the idea the Fed seems to have and I'd trust them over you.
But Black did touch on the problem. The philosophy of leveraged buyouts is the same as buying a house you can't afford until years from now. - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1The elephant in the room sized problem, which Lewis doesn't mention, is the Federal Reserve and artificially easy credit policies from Y2K on, but especially after 9/11. Easy credit doesn't just distort markets for stuff like mortgages -- it's the monetary equivalent of heroin for spend-happy politicians, as first Bush and now Obama are proving. Our Founders were wise, and Ron Paul -- like him or not -- was right.
- faskippy, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1Should have been done before giving them our money, you know, by the other idiot in the WH. And while you are commending Obama for telling GM, etc. that they need to work their own ***** out (not really doing that, but hey), when is he going to tell the rest of the bailout babes the same thing? Why are the taxpayers having to pay for their bad bets?
- donkeyb0ng, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1it says original music by radio 4 in the credits but i can't find it. if anyone knows by all means share!
- akhomestead, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1I think he said republicans suck, but he also said democrats blow. sounds like a libertarian to me.
- HtomSirveaux, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1The whole philosophy of LBOs and borrowing to live beyond your means with the only collateral is your assumed future success is what caused this depression. Just because we all learned from "Of Mice and Men" why people used to drown puppies doesn't mean it's excusable. You might understand and condone the practices of KKR and so might we all else if we had finance classes. However, if everyone is standing around shouting, "the emperor has no clothes" well, then the emperor is ***** naked.
Black said it best, "Here's the law: If you have a company, and it can't explain, in one sentence what it does. It's illegal!" - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1Historical Outline brought to you by Teamlaw.org
1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.
2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. Follow this link to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871.
3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.
4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.
6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.
7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation's Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.
8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.
9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.
(See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)
10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with “legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.
12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.
13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.14th: In 1968, at the National Governor's Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, the IMF leaders of the event proposed the dilemma the State governors were in for carrying out their business dealings in Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, alleging that if they did not do something to protect themselves the people would discover what had been done with their money and would likely to kill them all and start over. They suggested the States form corporations like Corp. U.S. and showed the advantages of the resultant uniform codes that could be created, which would allow better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.
15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.
Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.
When you find there is no error in this historical outline, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.
The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.
Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That's why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery.
That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF 'X' as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.
Bury this, before your mind explodes! Hurry American Idol is on!!! - adiggityam, on 04/02/2009, -0/+1Lewis Black's angry rant schtick had kind of worn thin on me, but this one really worked.
- gzviagin, on 04/02/2009, -0/+0-No, the philosophy of doing LBOs is that the sum of the separate parts of a company are worth more than the whole. LBO funds could afford to buy these companies but that wouldn't provide a high enough return so instead they lever their investments to attain a required ROI.
-Borrowing money is fine so long as you can afford to repay it. The idea is that when you borrow money it has to come from someone else who has SAVED that money. If no one saved, then there is no money to borrow, just monopoly money off the printing press. The bizarro system we have in place discourages savings because it assumes that other countries will continue to lend us money without ever expecting to get paid back. This is unsustainable (as recent news has confirmed) .
-Gold standard provided a monetary discipline for gov'ts that prevents them from printing cash and imposing an indirect tax on the citizens via inflation. When other gov'ts will no longer buy our T-notes, the Fed will just print cash and buy them from our gov't, thus exercising an indirect and unconstitutional tax that most don't understand.
-In no way do I discourage reasoned spending. Its spending on things that one can't afford that i'm against.
Have fun trusting the Fed over me you blind little sheep.
Fed's track record: 93%+ devaluation of the dollar since 1913 and the propagation of incrementally bigger boom and bust cycles.
My track record: 21% average annual return over several years acting as portfolio manager for $2B+ AUM - KevinMalone, on 04/01/2009, -0/+0Scranton rocks
- offrdbandit, on 04/01/2009, -3/+2"its up to society as a whole to always help the less fortunate and not be so quick to blame."
Right. It is up to society not the government. - Swivelstick, on 04/01/2009, -2/+1"No one is going around complaining about Bill Gates being a billionaire" I object, I complain as he has no ethics in his business practices nor a great deal in the so called charity work he does now as it is still tied to unethical for profit companies.
- ArchetypeRyan, on 04/01/2009, -2/+1Slllowwly loading.
- glitchbit, on 04/01/2009, -3/+2If I did not know any better I'd almost think that Lewis Black is a republican... or is he?
- godzilla8nj, on 04/01/2009, -2/+1...and if you made a billion dollars by ***** puppies, well, may god help you.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is