Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Atlas Shrugged - A Review

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
93,178
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 22, 2009

The law speaks

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • I'm super glad to see an 18 second clip from an episode of South Park from over a decade ago spark so much anger and hatred in the hearts and minds of so many people. I love you, South Park.

  • @AnnoyanceHazard Yeah, because I'm so screwed by the government all the time... like when they, ummm... impose minimum wage laws... so I can make a decent amount of money... and uhhh... they're government! They're bad! Fuck the establishment! I guess...

see all

All Comments (432)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It's an odd clip in South Park considering Matt Stone and Trey Parker are libertarians and Ayn Rand is fairly in line with many of the Libertarian views.

  • @MaurizioMorti Yeah, like 10 year olds love reading books. They even hired Mexicans to write essays...about books.

  • @8DanielDag8 but kyle and stan said "hurra barbrady" with happy faces, like if they agree.

  • I love the fact that even old South Park videos can PISS people off. 

  • Officer Barbrady does pretty accurately represent people who can't relate to Ayn Rand.

  • ahahahaha all the randtards are here voting the video down. Funny.

  • @TwoChihuahuas the constitution? that thing George W. Bush called "Just a goddamned piece of paper"?

  • @1019079 Any free person and Indians who were taxed could be counted as persons. It's not a clause against minorities. Indians who were not taxed were separate. So you couldn't claim to represent them (they were their own society). I'm not saying that they didn't exhibit racism. What I'm saying is that the Constitution does not codify who is and isn't a person in terms of human rights.

  • @1019079 Now who's hiding behind semantics. Again, it's not a clause about personhood. It's a clause about determining the number of representatives. The free states didn't want the slave states to count slaves as persons. Counting a slave as a person for purposes of representation means that the slave states have more representation in congress than the free states do, which furthers the oppressor agenda. In a repressive society, you want to limit the slave owner representation.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more