Added: 2 years ago
From: shanedk
Views: 7,263
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (766)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I don't agree with this 'one group is worse off that the other' I believe everyone has potential of being a victim, some more than others BUT I think the most important thing is that we are all seen as equally important as individuals in the eyes of the governments.

  • Racism would probably decrease under a liberaltarian government, this is because people would be too focused on bettering themselves and being individuals rather than groups (groups which seem to have formed their own sub-cultures in reaction to hate spilled from Republican mouths and exaggerations through democrats)

  • LUNaticAquar has been blocked for racist comments.

  • I would like to compare these numbers to the areas of corporations. if a corporation is in an area that is like 20% black, then 19% black is actually lower than the general population.

    Just to check.

  • @darris321 This is a nasty trick of the political bigots: they break things down like you say they should, which sounds reasonable, except that then statistical noise jumps in and they make that 19% out to be a sign of racism when really it's just statistical fluctuations.

  • EXCellent vid! Kudos. 

  • abortionasiaCOCKROCK has been blocked for false accusations of bigotry.

  • @shadowgeyser lol keep dreaming market-lover.

  • fuck the free market

  • @amicusnemini Well, as long as you've got a cogent rebuttal...

  • @amicusnemini

    That is kind of like saying "Fuck oxygen".

  • @amicusnemini And what do you propose?

  • Some on the Left seem to forget there was a time when Democrats considered black people to be property.

  • @ThePyro3825 Yes, and it was mostly Democrats who passed the Jim Crow laws and other racist legislation.

  • @ThePyro3825 Do you know why Republicans called themselves conservatives? it's because of Robert Taft avocation of the preservation of founding principles of John Locke,Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but in 1964 when Barry Goldwater voted no to the civil rights act and Medicare that made most blacks leave the GOP like they did in 1932.

  • Overall, great video, but one quick comment at 3:22

    "Hey! I bet it gets better when you go to state legislators, RIGHT??? WRONG!!!"

    Well...... technically it DOES get better (9% compared to 4%), but I see your point.

  • @donttreadonmyass OK, so they're 5% less racist...

  • @shanedk LOL

  • Really? You're going to say the government is racist because of the -elected- officials that get -voted in- by -the people-? Wow. If that's your big proof of governmental racism, you're pretty far gone. And, also, virtually every criminal law has been wiped clean of any racial disparity, so any enforcing of the law that isn't equal is because of the people doing the enforcing, not the laws themselves. In addition, prison pop. is more than 50% male, is the government sexist, too?

  • @thecaneater No, YOU'RE the one who's too far gone if you think our hideously rigged election system has anything to do with getting the choice of people in office.

    "virtually every criminal law has been wiped clean of any racial disparity" I showed VERY clearly, with relevant, up-to-date statistics, that this is most certainly NOT the case.

    And yes, there's a LOT of gender bias in the system, too.

  • So, you're saying there are people rigging the election system to make sure that mostly white christian males get into office? So, who's doing this?

    Just because the statistics say such-and-such section of citizens are mostly the ones in prison doesn't mean the laws are set up to target that section of citizens.

  • @thecaneater Look at the election laws all over the country. Look at Federal protectionist laws such as so-called "campaign finance reform." Look at the manipulation of polls and debates. All of these things make it extremely difficult if not impossible for real challengers to take on establishment candidates.

  • I hate politics. People are so idiotic and pointless. All we need is each other and something to do, like soccer, and we can all be happy but nope. There's got to be left wings and right wings....and sections....and divisions. Do you see that? =]

    Separation. People who hate people don't want to be near people. Politicians are hateful people. They hate the right, they hate the left, they hate freedom of expression, they hate YOU. Why take sides?

    Let's just ignore them till they disappear.

  • @DynastyPercussion But they WON'T disappear. They've got a monopoly on force, and they're gonna use it!

  • @shanedk Well I do respect life and all but it's apparent that the only way out is a civil war against the government to eliminate corruption and restore it to what it should be. But that's just crazy if you ask me.

  • racial politics is a silly game we all must play, but when it plays into economics (as it almost always does), it becomes a dangerous game. Economics is mathematical and pure, but with a contaminant such as racism, economic deficiency and misappropriation of opportunities is inevitable. Look at South Africa. Why is it that the most prejudice states from the past are today among the poorest, have the least innovaton, and lag behind in education. food for thought...

  • This isn't always true though. You can't get elected in Detroit unless your black, and just being black gives you extra presidential votes to. Also, the reason more blacks are convicted is probably because they are poorer and can't afford better lawyers. Unfortunatley there is racism in our society. Affirmitive action is useful for a few years after a civil rights movement, and it gets them equaly represented in education, which is beneficial for the next generation, but after that it's useless.

  • @Houshalter. Nope. Racism has to do with government. There are just as many poor Hispanics as Blacks, and despite that the incarceration rate of the latter being significantly higher to the latter. Hispanics don't over represent prisons, but Africans form the majority. This has a lot to do with the sentencing structure that is centered around governmental laws.

  • "If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  • come on shanedk, Give government a break it not they force private restaurant to separate the blacks from whites, oh fuck shit hell the jim crow laws.

  • @shanedk In your video you broke down government to view southern states. Can you also do that for the top companies you already mentioned? Is the black population employed in the Southern top companies in the same proportion or much higher? I guess if you can't you could do 'by sector analysis' because its regional but I'm hoping you know already.

  • @stubbornVN It doesn't really work that way. For example, the James Randi Educational Foundation is in Florida but incorporated in Delaware.

  • @shanedk I'm guessing sourcing is randomized regionally because of that. But regional origin of executive candidates would be a comparison area to show attrition is easier for business than government. Then you could also give other comparisons such as the attrition rates of women, sexual preferences, other races or regional change probabilities. Its a democracy after all and people don't always endorse ethics when voting.

  • about 4 minutes in i became totally with you. good vid

  • Had to thumb down for not mentioning the fact behind black's higher portion of prison (they commit >50% of murders and most violent crime). Also, using elected-official racial stats as evidence of govt racism isn't legit, since it's the voters who elect them. If anything, it shows that a majority-rules system results in an even higher leverage of power for the majority over a minority, or that, given 90% of blacks vote big govt democrat/socialist, there are hardly any that are worthy of a vote.

  • @hughtub 1) No, they don't, as I showed; they're just ARRESTED more often.

    2) Spoken like someone who's completely clueless about our electoral system.

  • @shanedk Victim surveys of their perpetrator's race correlate with their actual incarceration rate. Also, around 90% of interracial violent crime is black on white, rather than white on black as the newsmedia implies. However, drug laws are inherently unjust as there is no victim, it's merely a correlative crime that sometimes links to actual crime, but is often punished more harshly than actual violent crimes. And you're right on this, blacks get imprisoned for drugs far more often.

  • @hughtub. Are you sure? Take a look at FBI's hate crime statistics. The vast majority of the victims are black, with Jews having a higher per capita rate. Regardless, this phenomena is also the result of government, where public housing and other state policies has promoted socio-economic disparity and segregation. Take a look at how state intervention has produced an education, health, and wealth gap that was worse than the civil rights movement.

  • @raptorkiller2k5 Part of that is that heinous black on white crimes rarely get called hate crimes, despite often being more violent (Wichita Massacre for instance) than a white on black hate crime. No doubt the welfare state and consequent high rate of blacks growing up without fathers present has fueled the conditions for crime. I just don't like govt involvement period. The consequences of big govt have harmed both blacks and whites.

  • @shanedk  Explain.

  • @SystemLordZeus Explain what?

  • @SystemLordZeus

    Crime is a symptom of socio-economic inequality. As you said African Americans are a minority, they don't get elected because they simply don't appeal to the electorate. Explain why hughtub is clueless of the electoral system. I don't stand with him regarding is antagonistic attitude towards Socialism. But he makes a point.

    Thomas Jefferson:

    "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

  • @SystemLordZeus Because the choices of whom we can elect are vetted and winnowed down before even a single voter gets to mark a ballot. Research the ballot access restrictions and the primary procedures throughout the country.

    He WOULD have made a point if our country actually had fair and open elections. But we don't; we're no better than a banana republic in that regard. Our elections are all but rigged from start to finish.

  • @shanedk I'm aware of that fact. But they are still obliged to appease public opinion. Let's face it, the American people don't trust "their" government to a minority that undefined politically. Democracy isn't an efficient form for governing a people, they have managed to keep the faceplate of democracy but rule autocratically.

  • @SystemLordZeus "But they are still obliged to appease public opinion."

    If you think that, you DEFINITELY haven't been paying attention. Look at how much opposition there has been to the foreign wars, to the recent health care "reform," or to the War on Drugs. They do what they want, and they spin it to make it look like they're helping the children, or the poor, or whatever. They're first-class manipulators. Really, it's the only thing they're good at.

  • @shanedk Yes, people don't care about none of those things. All they care about is their ability to survive. They don't have the means nor the resources to counteract these issues. They are too busy keeping a roof over their head or watching TV. They have been made to feel impotent in front of such vast and limitless entities.

  • @shanedk

    Sounds like clergy, really.

  • @SystemLordZeus

    "But they are still obliged to appease public opinion."

    Like the way they passed the bail-outs?

  • @Surhotchaperchlorom The reaction to those bail-outs was very small compared to the total population of the U.S. Everybody said they were against it but they didn't do enough to prevent it. They got angry after the bail out money was distributed. The so called citizens of this country have their minds elsewhere, too distracted to realize what matters. They are lead by TV, fecundity has been destroyed. No curiosity whatsoever, everything they are told, they blindly believe.

  • @SystemLordZeus I remember specifically one Senator (I forget which one) saying that his office received numerous calls and letters about the bailout while it was being debated, and the people were split. Half of them said, "No," and the other half said, "Hell, no!"

    YOU might have had your mind elsewhere, but don't project onto the rest of the country.

  • @shanedk One Senator.

  • @SystemLordZeus One is all I need to refute your baseless accusation.

  • @shanedk Your voice only has meaning because your followers think so, you did not prove me wrong. You are just playing the hardcore conservative advocating for long lost ideals. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm their fellow man. Take care :)

  • @SystemLordZeus I'm not a conservative. You're just another political dogmatist stuck in your "us vs. them" mentality.

  • @shanedk What are you? A true American?

  • @SystemLordZeus

    He's a Libertarian.

  • @shanedk

    I wonder how the people calling Libertarians "conservative" explain us being more left-wing, than the hard-core liberals on issues like war, drug laws, etc?

  • @Surhotchaperchlorome They don't. They stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA!!!" at the top of their lungs whenever someone points it out.

  • YOUR VOICE IS TERRIBLE! LOL!

  • Good response, I agree with this video, not as much with the original video.

  • This is still one of my favourite vids!

    I love your political and economic vids! Can we see some pwnage vids of "statheists" or statists in general?? Pweeeease??? *puppy dog eyes*

  • you hold to the truth no matter how pretty it is

  • I'm having trouble interpreting all of your sarcasm...

    I agree with you, but you do straight-talking better.

    Also, you failed to point out government policies that actually cause the racism. Your statistics do suggest government racism, but they alone do not prove that there is a failure of government policy. But I still agree with you on what you say.

  • Im honestly just tired of hearing about the "black" community or the "white community" or any other devisive label. As long as we mentally seperate everyone, we will physically/socially seperate as well.

  • Absolutely!

  • so black criminals get caught more?

  • Blacks get profiled as more likely to cause crimes. Police are more likely to think they're behaving suspiciously.

  • In case anyone doubts that, when was the last time you heard about an incident where a group of cops chased a while or asian person down the street then gunned him down when he ducked into a doorway and went for...his keys to open his own front door. That happened to a nice, law-abiding black man a few years ago in New York City. They cops didn't even identify themselves, so he almost certainly though they were muggers or bashers.

  • Or watch Episode 4 of Bogosity and look at the innocent old woman who was gunned down by police. Notice what race she was.

  • That one had slipped my mind.

    It can't be a coincidence that the cops were willing to pressure an informant to give them phony information about an old woman who happened to be black.

  • I probably would have avoided using elected officials as part of the basis for you arguments here.  Rather, I would have discussed the legacy of state racism in Chicago and the questionable actions of Cointelpro.

  • And your exasperation is another result of the politicization of race.

  • While this is true the real question we should be asking is "are they innocent of the crimes they've been convicted of". If they aren't then the focus of the conversation should be the effects of the disproportionate attention these communities receive from police and federal agents.

  • @Xtro2005 Surely we should also ask the question of whether or not these laws are legitimate in the first place?

  • Or simply start with those for which there's a just consensus.

  • Comparing private employment with elected positions is really comparing apples to oranges.

    Private employment vs public employment would be a more relevant comparison, but still it wouldn't really be much use in demonstrating anything. Your lectures on Government, Liberty, and Economics are usually spot on. This however was to my mind extremely flimsy.

  • The point was to debunk the notion that businesses are racist and government is the cure. If that were true, we should see the opposite trend. We don't.

  • Shane, I think your response would be far more convincing if you stick to the effects of government policies and not argue about minority representation in gov't. To use statistics about the number of black elected officials says more about the electorate than it does about government policies as well-intentioned as they may be. It would be interesting to contrast corporate hiring of blacks and other minorities versus government hiring. That would be apples to apples.

  • He doesn't only rely on the ratio of representatives but also the ratio of offenders the justice system convicts.

    He pretty much examined all of the major parts of the government that affects our lives on a daily basis.

    Everything.

  • So what if there are less black people in a political office. It's a fact that black people vote less often. The government is no more racist than the free market.

  • Why is there proper representation in the south, then?

    They always overlook that uncomfortable fact...

  • Oh, and by the way, I looked it up: in 2008 blacks had the highest turnout rate in the 18-24 demographic (55%), and their overall turnout (65%) was just close to non-Hispanic whites (66%).

    source: Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008, US Census Bureau.

    This makes your statement racist, which is against the rules of this channel. First warning.

  • I think it's just because of Obama. What about years other than 2008?

  • Sigh...yes, because Obama's our Lord and Savior and makes the trains run on time.

    2006: Blacks have comparable turnout in 18-24 demographic (19.2%, compared to 20.7% whites) and the lower turnout of the rest of the groups normalizes with their lower registration.

    Next lame excuse?

  • I don't think that my statement was racist. According to this article in 2004 29 percent of blacks believe their vote will not be accurately tallied, compared to 8 percent of whites.

  • tinyurl com ykhjlby

  • @TheMagicmun

    I think the real point is that the state claims to represent people equally as part of their PR campaign, regardless of skin colour, whereas other businesses do not necessarily make such claims.

    After all, a business might try to find a niche market in catering only to people of a certain ethnicity, as a legitimate application of free association. But if a state fails to represent people of a certain minority, then that throws its right to rule those people into question.

  • If you were that far wrong, they would not have to strawman what you actually said... and quote your (edited!) comments in chipmunk voices.

  • The problem is not necessarily racism in the government, that is a stupid and arrogant claim. The problem lies with the fact that we still label people by their race. Obama is a prime example of this. He was elected for two reasons: public speaking ability, and race. very few people looked beyond those two factors when voting for him. People were so obsessed with having a "First Black President", they forgot what we really needed. a 44th president. racism goes both ways.

  • Now look at where it has got us. I'll say that we are past racism when we elect another minority president, AND NOBODY GIVES A FUCK.

    We vote for president not for a person, but a set of ideals that that person has promised to carry out.

  • Not to sound awful, but when I think about that election, I just think of smug suburbanites thinking "how well we treat our little negroes" while patting themselves on the back.

    Why can't people just leave the race thing alone.

    I mean, every time I have to sign the "visible minority" check box on forms, I want to puke. It's like the government tracks it's "poor wittle brown people".

    It's all MELANIN. That's IT. THAT'S the difference. Why should melanin inform public policy and culture. Fuckin' a

  • @dahabfin Then turn the video's volume all the way done and enable captions.

  • Try not listening to it...

  • I did. I quit right at the beginning mate.Thanks

  • racism ,xenephoby , bussines , profits  interets the nw geostartegy face to weaked nations ( corrupt, infaltion the violence ) i,m d,ont understand where is you gone whit this polemics

  • Shane, you should do a rebuttal of the stuff Tim Wise espouses.

  • What percentage of CEO's of, say, top 100 companies are black in America. I don't know, just curious.

  • The only figure I've seen is 1%, but that doesn't control for things like education level and socioeconomic background, which is vitally important when looking at those kinds of statistics.

  • Regarding the "k" word (the South African racist word); it actually depends on the context.

    In Islam, it actually refers to..."heretics" or people who aren't Islamic; according to google.

    Also, sorry if I freaked you out with that long PM; was just curious if you'd looked into this at all.

  • actually, kafir literally means "denier". its from kfr meaning "to deny".

    [religiously]: it is used to refer to anyone who doesn't believe in God (denies him). It started out as specifically against other arabs, but then spread outwards with the islamic empire. this is the origin of the modern term.

    I happen to know the language, the history, and am muslim, so I figured I'd fill you in. (I'm peaceful so don't worry-subbed to shanedk )

    otherwise, you're correct.

  • Why do you delete peoples contributions when they're not explicitly hateful or spam? Looks like the free market is great for everything but ideas and discussion...

  • Yeah yeah, bleat on. My reasons for deleting posts and blocking users are explicitly stated, and they're perfectly reasonable. It's only the fucking dogmatists like you who use them as a pathetic excuse to try and attack me.

  • Why are your reasons for deleting/blocking users allowed to interfere with the market of expression? If anything would be close to an ideal market it would be a market of ideas, where anyone can make one and those with merit will be accepted while those without will be jeered.

    Also, calling me a dogmatist without giving any context to what dogma I'm practicing is a mere slur and makes you look weak and craven. "Bleat on?" Are you a child?

  • I don't think that blaming either the government or coporations for everything is constructive.

  • Irrelevant08 has been blocked for extreme racism.

  • I saw his comments.

    He reads waaay too much VDare imho.

  • If you were to title the video "Racism in Government" that would be more appropriate. But to brush over the "business" end and then to put business/government as opposing sectors is to indirectly manipulate your viewers into seeing the business-world as a haven from racism. Maybe not a "haven" but if you want to discuss issues of race you need to consider the larger picture.

  • It's also not a wise outlook to separate the private sector from the government, as if they were opposing forces. American democracy IS greatly affected by socio-economic elements: Politicians who receive corporate sponsorship and large private donations will be more likely to succeed in elections because of their more elaborate campaigns. Since most educated black students lack connections and wealth, they have a much lower chance of succeeding in our current political system.

  • Shane you make a very valid point into America's lack of black representation in the government and difficulty in changing that, but your video does not actually directly address the issue of racism in the corporate world. Just because black people are well-represented in the private sector does not excuse the fact that they experience racism in the day-to-day world. But there are also many less positions to be held in government than in the wide-spread corporate world.

  • CorndogMaker, your recent post JUST crossed the line into libel. I QUOTED what I said originally, and you continued to LIE about it. That is NOT allowed on this channel, by ANYONE, about ANYONE. I do NOT put up with those despicable tactics. First warning.

  • I know I am not trying to scam anyone. I actually copied and pasted your own text. What the hell? I saw your video title and heard how people were saying you were a racist and because I've been a long time admirer of your videos I thought I'd chime in. I've discovered your so nasty to any perceived disagreement (I dont disagree with you) that you attack people and call them LIARS just like your critics say (and I used to not believe that) with one less hero, I'm done here.

  • Just this last thing because you still don't understand."haven't" is somehow not tense here, ok. if it's easy to stop racism why haven't we?That's not past tense. you DID ask why it wasn't "being done" and answered that yourself when you agreed with me that it was "to a very limited digree" But somehow*I*am a political dogmatist. I don't think the private sector is worse off than government but I don't get angry when someone talks to me about it like a dogmatist.

  • They shouldn't call you a racist, that is taking it too far. I've been more effected by racism in business than racism in government.A minority who finds out about and objects to, that corruption, could stop buying from them but the effect is marginal. Racism in government is also hard to root out but we do try to set up a system where it can be changed, that's the idea behind elections and polling and representatives. Voting with your wallet against racism seems to rely on a lot of serendipity.

  • No, it only relies on someone else wanting your money.

    If it's so easy to fix racism in government, then why isn't it being done?

  • It's easy? huh?

  • You claimed that it was easier ("easy" being a relative term) to fix racism in government than in the private sector. So, again, WHY HAVEN'T WE?

  • I thought you meant to respond to someone else. Why haven't we fixed racism in the private sector?

  • Watch the video again.

  • the second watching still didn't show me why they haven't fixed racism in the private sector. I did learn that misrepresenting someones point so much that your own argument couldn't stand up to your own logic is funny.

  • Why not?

  • He presented good evidence for why we've made progress.  I don't see how what he stated couldn't be convincing.

  • we have made a lot of progress. He was asking me, rather snarkily, why we haven't FIXED it.

  • OK.

  • No, I said why isn't it BEING done, not why hasn't it BEEN done.

    Basic tenses.

  • Why are you being a jerk? It still looks to me like you said that I said it was easy, and then asked "If you calim it is easy to fix ...WHY HAVN'T WE?" Then you answered your own question, apparently without realizing, We have made a LOT of progress.

  • I'M not the jerk--YOU'RE the one who misquoted me and made a big deal about it!

    I think this video shows quite conclusively that progress has NOT been made in government, except to a very limited degree.

  • Now, here's what I REALLY said:

    "If it's so easy to fix racism in government, then why isn't it being done?"

    If you can't deal with someone's claim AS PRESENTED, then you are NOT welcome on this channel.

  • to recap: I agree that there is racism in government (later we both agree that it is diminishing) While sympathizing with you because others have wrongly called you racist, I share that I personally have experienced more racism in my places of work and don't know what to do about it where as with government I do. You accused me of thinking its "easy" to solve racism and asked me why isn't it (you did type the words "why HAVEN'T WE?") now to the present where I am boggled as you imply banning me.

  • Because it takes time, but we've made a LOT of progress--a LOT more than those in the government are willing to acknowledge.

  • I'm glad we agree.

  • Not to mention how his point (assuming honesty on his part) is just anecdotal evidence.

  • The free market is as moral as the people in it are. The government is as moral as the people in it are. The good part about the government is that you can vote the racists out as with corporations you better own some shares if you want to have a vote.

  • Typical leftist ignorance. Voting with your dollars has a MUCH greater effect on a business than voting in the ballot box does on the government.

  • Well then your political systems has serious problems. The general point is that I find it weird why the government can't be seen as the executive branch of your corporation, the parliament as the board of directors and the electorate as the owner via investment in taxes. If the owner is not pleased the board of directors is changed. If you dislike the corporation then find another country to invest in.

  • Because you can choose to not do business with a corporation.

  • or you could just boycott those corporations. which is better than waiting 4 years for the next election, or having to use violent regimes to force a government out of power, those being the only ways I can think of of boycotting.

  • or persuade your MP via e-mails, letters etc (or indeed call them up as many do), use the right to assemble and put up a peaceful demonstration, or persuade the public to vote better through activism. Or...leave the country and take the investment that the society has put in you with you. That is the worst kind of boycott against a country.

  • How are letters and emails going to stand up against lobbyists that accost them 24/7?

    And have you SEEN what they do to people who do peaceful demonstrations? They need "permits" etc. and always get them on some technicality. Oh, and they have to be in the "free speech zone."

    Leaving the country doesn't work because they STILL come after you for income tax...FOR LIFE.

  • @Last point:  For real? That's fucked up...

  • Listen Shane, I don't know how bad the things are in the States but where I live you normally get a response from your MP in a week via e-mail and by phone you can do it in an afternoon. And what you say about demonstrators I have yet to see here. Last time the police used violence against a demonstration they got challenged to court for misconduct. And Shane you pay taxes where you live not where you come from. You don't pay income tax to the States if you work and live over here.

  • Oh, I get responses. What I DON'T get is action.

    If I move out of the US and don't continue to pay Income Tax, THEY COME GET ME. There are TONS of precedents.

  • none of those are actually getting you out of a government you disagree with, except leaving the country. but do you really think people are going to immigrate every time they disagree with a government? whereas in free market business I don't get FORCED to be stuck with one business's rules if I don't choose to. I can avoid businesses which have a bad reputation.

  • The government is below the electorate, they work as the executive branch and you get to be one of the 300 million owners of that enterprise. If you don't like how the company of U.S.A is run then you have to negotiate with your fellow owners or leave. You say: "in free market business I don't get FORCED to be stuck with one business." Swap the words: "in the global era of free travel I don't get FORCED to be stuck with one country." You're not stuck with a country, you are IN a country.

  • The difference is, with the free market I don't have to spend thousands of dollars and leave behind everything in my life to avoid it.

  • travel isn't free, it's expensive. if you don't have the money, you ARE stuck in a country.

    and I've already said, having to go through an elected government, which is elected every 2 years, to get the business you need is NOT efficient. I don't like business now so I wait for 2 more years to vote on someone who uses less strict regulation? (that's assuming the party I vote for gets into power)

  • who called you a racist?!! Shane try not to take what they say to heart. They are fools themselves for saying that. To anyone reading this listen. Im black and have never heard one racist comment come from this man here. It really bugs me how that word is just thrown around nowadays . People are devaluing that word by saying it the way they do. So anyone who calls shane that has a broken argument. Lets use the word only for the true racist out there.

  • Check out "Pie In The Sky Man" youtube

  • IM SO FREAKING SUCK OF THIS RACIST CRAP! the color of your skin doesnt mean shit, it should only be used to described someone. its fucking adults fighting over a box of crayons, WHICH ONE IS THE BRIGHTEST??????

  • sick****

  • Then make your own damn channel and put all the hate-filled racist crap you want on there. I'm not having my channel sullied with it.

  • LimpLoser has been blocked for use of the n-word.

  • fucking hell, some people ... what you said is in NO WAY racist ... some people are fucking ignorant ... and that was indeed a fair comment.

  • Hey shane. What happened to the comments I left here? I can still find them on google search quoted elsewhere, but they are not on either of the "show all comments" pages. Did you delete them or something? If that's the case just let me know an I'll unsubscribe.

    Sorry, if I just happened to overlook them or something.

  • If I delete comments, I post saying that I've done it and why.

  • Could be the YouTube comment system, I find it hard to find my own comments, and I'm sure Shane hasn't deleted any of mine.

  • Once again, I am so late to this party. Mister Killian, I see no evidence that you are racist.

    I know that you are no fan of the government (neither am I but I believe that the government is necessary), but the racial disparity of our government does not come from the King of the United states of America, but from us the people:

    Each state is a democratic republic and the whole country is a federal democratic republic. The racism of the government is a reflection of us the people.

  • That might actually mean something if everyone had equal opportunity to ballot access. WE DON'T. And until we do, the voters can only make the choice from the limited options the system allows.

  • I stipulate your point. Still, many pink people refuse to vote for dark brown people. I myself try to figure out who the bedst candidate is and vote for that person without reference to race, sex, gender, et cetera. I get the impression that you do likewise.

    We already established that first-past-the-post voting marginalizes third-parties and independents and I personally would like range-voting with negative votes allowed like approval voting so we can vote against bad choices like fascists.

  • Note: Burris won't be running for the Senate for a full term according to NBC news. This is relevant to the whole % of those with large amounts of melanin in the Senate bit.

  • This is for me just an other instance of an continuously reoccurring pattern.

    Some people seem to permanently do the false inference, that if something is necessary to some degree it must be good in general.

  • is the usa like the uk? in that you can get away with so much racism be it beating stabbing rape or even just name calling and you wont get locked up in fact racism wont even be mentioned!!! HOWEVER if the racist happened to be white RACIST is spread all over the media and they are dealt with properly.. scotland and wales are not like this ,but soon will be!!

  • The drug war is racist.

  • Not to defend the erroneous idea that the business world is inherently more racist than government, (I am quite certain it's not) but I think your statistics might be somewhat skewed because you're comparing blacks in the workforce to blacks in higher-up government offices.

    I think that this comparison between different heirachies would skew the data... Wouldn't it be better to compare the % of black CEOs to % of black Senators? (I think it's about the same percentage anyway) Please reply!

  • I DIDN'T just use higher offices! I compared it to state offices as well.

  • No, you did just use higher offices; the lowest level you selected was state representative, which is actually pretty high on the government hierarchy. You compared this to all private sector employees at top firms.

    In 1999 (I can search for later numbers if you like) 298,694 out of 1,766,298 federal employees were black, or about 17%.

  • That's rather simplistic thinking, Shane.

    Perhaps it's a combination of Obama's exceptional charisma _and_ a badly ruined Republican reputation by the Bush administration that got Obama elected _despite_ being black.

    Seriously, that Obama was elected doesn't mean that racism is suddenly gone. Critical thinking means you're willing to criticize your own assertions!

  • Except that I didn't assert that! Quite the opposite, in fact!

  • i bet tf00t doesn't understand ur vids

  • and sweatshops are also cheap because the workers don't have a government that offers protection of human rights. they're not allowed to form trade unions (some countries trade unions are illegal, the government prevents them from forming), they have no free speech, no rights to protest, and little to no protection against force or fraud.

  • So you're saying sweat shops exist because of government?

  • So-called "sweat shops" are a kind of "transitional form," if you will, between an undeveloped economy where people scrape by and a full industrialized economy of plenty and opportunity.