Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Despite the best efforts of the GOP to block him, Obama recess appoints the first ever head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency   (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, President Obama, GOP, protection agency, chiefs, Republican, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Ohio Attorney General, Richard Cordray  
•       •       •

2747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jan 2012 at 1:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



516 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-04 03:36:34 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Cup_O_Jo: Paying your bills is your responsibility and not the Governments job to regulate businesses.

It's not your responsibility, since you're on welfare as I recall.


Not on Welfare--but thanks for playing
 
2012-01-04 03:36:53 PM  

Garet Garrett: Glad I prompted you to google "ad hominem." Perhaps you learned something today, despite yourself.


Judging from the content of your posts and your stated understanding of ad hominems, I've forgotten more about the construction of logical arguments than you ever knew in the first place.

After all, you clearly don't understand why references to "The One" and "lemmings" constitute ad hominem/red herring arguments. Sad, really.
 
2012-01-04 03:36:56 PM  

QuesoDelicioso: I alone am best:
WRONG. Congress is not in session. it is only going in session every three days.

Thats called a pro forma session (new window) and officially keeps congress in session.

Pro-forma sessions are not addressed by the Constitution. No business is being currently being conducted by congress, pro-forma sessions or no. Obama is within his rights and has prior precedent on his side.

/you lose
//suck it


It doesn't matter if any business is being conducted. They could play ping pong. There is nothing in the constitution outlining what has to be conducted to keep congress in session.
 
2012-01-04 03:37:07 PM  

Edsel: what_now: [onpoint.wbur.org image 500x342]

Too late for you buddy.

I'm wondering if Obama specifically didn't give Warren a recess appointment because the party thought she'd be the best candidate for winning the MA Senate seat back...


I think it was threefold honestly:
A) there was bit of Bad blood between Warren and Geithner from the days when Warren chaired (the bi-partisanly appointed) Congressional Oversight Committee and issued reports strongly critical of how the TARP bailout money was being used

B)By NOT forcing Warren down Congress' throat, Obama's use fo the recess appointment looks so much more reasonable and the GOP look like bigger dicks:

"Well I gave in on Warren and got you this well-respected moderate, but now you say you won't confirm ANYONE to the position until the law is changed to completely neuter the agency; so I'mma do it myself."

C) Warren is an easy +1 to the Dem seat tally in MA
 
2012-01-04 03:37:15 PM  

Magorn: Obama is using it to put dangerous radicals,
who were heroically and reasonably opposed by Congress
in unprecedented positions of power,
thereby dooming the Republic


You're lying to America...
and the movie "Telling Lies in America" starred...
KEVIN BACON.
 
2012-01-04 03:37:29 PM  

what_now: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I'm still trying to get someone to explain to me why they are opposed to a Consumer Protection Agency in the first place....


this.

/Bolded for emphasis
 
2012-01-04 03:38:09 PM  

keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?


I was unaware what we have is a democracy.
 
2012-01-04 03:38:15 PM  

what_now: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I'm still trying to get someone to explain to me why they are opposed to a Consumer Protection Agency in the first place....


Because poor people might not have to pay an overdraft fee. It must be stopped!
 
2012-01-04 03:38:27 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Magorn: Obama is using it to put dangerous radicals,
who were heroically and reasonably opposed by Congress
in unprecedented positions of power,
thereby dooming the Republic

You're lying to America...
and the movie "Telling Lies in America" starred...
KEVIN BACON.


you won. how many degrees of separation was that?
 
2012-01-04 03:38:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: It's not your responsibility, since you're on welfare as I recall.

Disability, if I remember correctly (which is doubtful)


Most likely she's a troll, but one of my favorites as far as that goes.
 
2012-01-04 03:38:59 PM  

I alone am best: QuesoDelicioso: I alone am best:
WRONG. Congress is not in session. it is only going in session every three days.

Thats called a pro forma session (new window) and officially keeps congress in session.

Pro-forma sessions are not addressed by the Constitution. No business is being currently being conducted by congress, pro-forma sessions or no. Obama is within his rights and has prior precedent on his side.

/you lose
//suck it

It doesn't matter if any business is being conducted. They could play ping pong. There is nothing in the constitution outlining what has to be conducted to keep congress in session.


And there is nothing in the Constitution outlining what kinds of recesses qualify as being "real" recesses in which the President can use his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments.
 
2012-01-04 03:39:29 PM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: It's not your responsibility, since you're on welfare as I recall.

Disability, if I remember correctly (which is doubtful)


You are correct, sir. I just remember that because she had a meltdown in a Cain thread when people pointed out that she'd be thrown into a concentration camp for being sick.
 
2012-01-04 03:39:32 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I alone am best: HotWingConspiracy: I alone am best: HotWingConspiracy: I alone am best: Garet Garrett: Ninepoundhammer: Garet Garrett: Soup4Bonnie: Garet Garrett: But The One did it, leaving you all credulous lemmings.

And the ad hominems start coming out. I knew you were running on fumes.

Which metaphor are you referring to? "The One" or "lemmings"? Because, rest assured, those don't even qualify as ad hominem attacks in my book. If I attack you personally, it won't be through sarcasm or furry-animal analogies.

Dont worry, you already won.

You two are precious.

Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not gonna slag on your old lady. I have respect.

So you cant. Got it.

What did he say again? Pretty much everything has been torn down already. Isn't it weird that a guy that pretends to be a lawyer can't argue for shiat?


I see a bunch of references to a court case that has nothing to do with the subject he's arguing. I dont see anyone refuting anything he has said.
 
2012-01-04 03:39:40 PM  

I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.


this is fun
 
2012-01-04 03:40:49 PM  

DarnoKonrad: CravenMorehead: actual conservative

What are those?


They're closely related to Real Communists. They don't appear to actually exist, and everyone who claims to be one turns out to be an In Name Only once they are allowed to control the levers of power. But nonetheless we must keep giving the self-proclaimed ones a shot to govern because everything would be all better if only a real one of those was in charge.
 
2012-01-04 03:41:11 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.

this is fun


No, you must resist going down that path.

The last thing we need in this thread is to descend down the rabbit hole of pedantic differences between forms of governments.
 
2012-01-04 03:41:22 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Not on Welfare


You don't receive ANY welfare? Most people do. Whether it's tax credits or social security of some kind.
 
2012-01-04 03:41:59 PM  

Weaver95: Garet Garrett: DarnoKonrad: +1 for the Constitution.

You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight. Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

I'm sure you'll applaud this move the moment President Santorum uses this gimmick to appoint an HHS secretary who's virulently anti-abortion.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

Except that the GOP hasn't exactly been playing fair either, have they? I'm sure the next guy in power will abuse the rules. But with both parties dead set on winning at any cost, that was gonna happen no matter what. My advise? If its gonna happen anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it.


GOP: Obama's not a leader! He's weak--that's why nothing's getting done in Congress! A strong president would get things done
Obama: ORLY? *recess appointment*
GOP: *sputter* This is an outrage!!

/I forget which president signed a few dozen "recess appointments" in the nanosecond between gavel falls (I think Teddy Roosevelt) but there's certainly precedent for this.
 
2012-01-04 03:42:01 PM  

what_now: Cup_O_Jo: That has nothing to do with Obama. That has to do with you opening your mail--and paying your bills. NOT the Governments responsibility. YOURS and if you don't like it change banks.

Look, this isn't about me. It's about the people who have been farked over by the banks due to some truly shady practices- they send bills out a week before their due. They credit payments to the next day so they can jack up interest rates. They hold deposits for 48 hours and process debits immediately to jack up fees.

They are not playing fair, and they aren't hurting me- I'm alright thank you- they hurt the people who are already on a razor's edge, and who probably don't have a lot of financial education, because GUESS WHAT? Public schools don't teach it.

Basically, I'm in favor of not screwing over people because they can't afford a farking financial planner, EVEN IF IT COSTS ME A LITTLE BIT MORE, because I'm not an asshole.


They are playing fair. People fail to read the fine print. he thing is everything you said is still personal responsibility. Has nothing to do with a financial planner. Public schools do teach Economics. Having to pay a guy 300K a year to pretend to protect consumers is a load of crap.

So far the last 4 years have been awesome economically so this makes total sense (sarcasm)
 
2012-01-04 03:42:04 PM  

Serious Black: I alone am best: QuesoDelicioso: I alone am best:
WRONG. Congress is not in session. it is only going in session every three days.

Thats called a pro forma session (new window) and officially keeps congress in session.

Pro-forma sessions are not addressed by the Constitution. No business is being currently being conducted by congress, pro-forma sessions or no. Obama is within his rights and has prior precedent on his side.

/you lose
//suck it

It doesn't matter if any business is being conducted. They could play ping pong. There is nothing in the constitution outlining what has to be conducted to keep congress in session.

And there is nothing in the Constitution outlining what kinds of recesses qualify as being "real" recesses in which the President can use his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments.


Yep, and since the Constitution is silent on these matters, the courts must rely on precedent. Precedent which, in this case, clearly supports the President.
 
2012-01-04 03:42:32 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

Link (new window)

So, Bush was a Democrat?


So are you saying that anything argued by the Bush legal team is sancrosanct?
 
2012-01-04 03:42:35 PM  

what_now: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I'm still trying to get someone to explain to me why they are opposed to a Consumer Protection Agency in the first place....


They need something new to shout about since they wrapped up arguing for a middle class tax hike right before Chirstmas.

You don't get those 9% approval ratings without some effort. They have to be earned.
 
2012-01-04 03:42:52 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Public schools do teach Economics.


loooooooool
 
2012-01-04 03:44:17 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.

this is fun


I like to call that maneuver the Spinning Obtuseness Hold
 
2012-01-04 03:44:17 PM  

QuesoDelicioso: Serious Black: I alone am best: QuesoDelicioso: I alone am best:
WRONG. Congress is not in session. it is only going in session every three days.

Thats called a pro forma session (new window) and officially keeps congress in session.

Pro-forma sessions are not addressed by the Constitution. No business is being currently being conducted by congress, pro-forma sessions or no. Obama is within his rights and has prior precedent on his side.

/you lose
//suck it

It doesn't matter if any business is being conducted. They could play ping pong. There is nothing in the constitution outlining what has to be conducted to keep congress in session.

And there is nothing in the Constitution outlining what kinds of recesses qualify as being "real" recesses in which the President can use his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments.

Yep, and since the Constitution is silent on these matters, the courts must rely on precedent. Precedent which, in this case, clearly supports the President.


Unfortunately in GOP-land, if it's not in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional.

Unless it's something they like, then they'll go all 9th and 10th Amendments on your ass.
 
2012-01-04 03:44:19 PM  

I alone am best: I see a bunch of references to a court case that has nothing to do with the subject he's arguing. I dont see anyone refuting anything he has said.


Evans v. Stephens has nothing to do with what the duly elected President is doing with these recess appointments? Why is that?
 
2012-01-04 03:44:21 PM  

brigid_fitch: /I forget which president signed a few dozen "recess appointments" in the nanosecond between gavel falls (I think Teddy Roosevelt) but there's certainly precedent for this.


I think it was Teddy. Of course, he was the only human capable of writing that fast in those times, and no one was sure if it was superhuman speed or an ability to manipulate time. Teddy was said to have both.
 
2012-01-04 03:44:26 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: everything you said is still personal responsibility


Like getting off the dole?
 
2012-01-04 03:44:54 PM  

verbaltoxin: rufus-t-firefly: Garet Garrett: You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight.

Guess Congress shouldn't have created that position, then.

Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

Buddy, if you think the Senate is "the people," you're even dumber than you sound here.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

You're a farking idiot.

However, the White House maintains that those sessions, typically held every three days and lasting a few seconds, are not legitimate and can be ignored for the purpose of making recess appointments. The administration cited lawyers that advised President George W. Bush when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

Link (new window)

So, Bush was a Democrat?

It's almost as though there were a dispute on the interpretation of the Constitution, and there would need to be like, a, um, THIRD branch of government to review this situation and sort out the disparity?


That branch can only settle such a dispute if it actually happens. They don't rule in advance.

It's not like the Supreme Court gives the other two branches advice prior to passage of laws or executive actions. They are ALWAYS involved after the fact.

If the GOP wants to make this into a federal case, they are more than welcome to do so.
 
2012-01-04 03:45:25 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: everything you said is still personal responsibility.


From profile:

Supporter of Health Care REFORM. Don't hand out a broken system and force people to buy into it.


The GOP claims to be the party of personal responsibility riiiiiiiight up until the moment there's a mandate ensuring they take personal responsibility for their own health.
 
2012-01-04 03:45:30 PM  

I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.


I'm sure there's much you're unaware of... but please, explain why the GOP has refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how this isn't a subversion of our democratic process.
 
2012-01-04 03:45:43 PM  

meat0918: Ninepoundhammer: I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.

this is fun

No, you must resist going down that path.

The last thing we need in this thread is to descend down the rabbit hole of pedantic differences between forms of governments.


totally agree. it was an attempt to stave off his/her logical flailing.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 
2012-01-04 03:45:52 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: It's not your responsibility, since you're on welfare as I recall.

Disability, if I remember correctly (which is doubtful)

Most likely she's a troll, but one of my favorites as far as that goes.


Troll or not, I genuinely feel bad for her. DANG IT, liberal compassion strikes again.
 
2012-01-04 03:45:57 PM  
Glad to see that Obama is finally learning how to play hardball effectively with the assholes in the GOP. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Maybe next time they'll think about the future consequences of abusing the process in order to get what you want in defiance of the Constitution and the will of the voters. Part of what is so dangerous about throwing out the rules is that it compels your opponents to likewise "bend" them in order to accomplish their goals if they aren't willing to just bend over and take it. So it's better for the country to actually have respect for the institutions and process.

It's sad for America that Obama has had to take this step in order to accomplish his actual constitutionally mandated role of executing the laws passed by Congress, but the anger should fall on the assholes who forced him to do it.
 
2012-01-04 03:46:19 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: I alone am best: keylock71: I alone am best: Then refute what he said. I dont think you can because it looks pretty solid to me, but go right ahead.

Maybe you can answer the question...

Why has the GOP refused to vote on this nomination for six months and how is that not a "subversion of democracy"?

I was unaware what we have is a democracy.

this is fun


Representative democracy is still democracy, even when bound by a constitution. The clue is in the name.
 
2012-01-04 03:46:39 PM  

Saiga410: rufus-t-firefly: when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

Link (new window)

So, Bush was a Democrat?

So are you saying that anything argued by the Bush legal team is sancrosanct?


Do you lack comprehension? Or are you only reading what you clipped out? You left out the part where the previous Farker said that only Democrats would support such an action.
 
2012-01-04 03:47:12 PM  
I would never want to GM a tabletop game with Republican players. Rules-lawyering cockbags who throw hissy fits and start overturning tables when they're told they can't just invent rules and then demand everyone follow them.
 
2012-01-04 03:47:38 PM  

Saiga410: rufus-t-firefly: when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

Link (new window)

So, Bush was a Democrat?

So are you saying that anything argued by the Bush legal team is sancrosanct?


Yes, especially the Yoo memos saying it was okay to render terror suspects to other countries for indefinite containment.

See? I can dodge too! I'm playing, I'm playing! I'm a part of things!
 
2012-01-04 03:47:47 PM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: It's not your responsibility, since you're on welfare as I recall.

Disability, if I remember correctly (which is doubtful)

Most likely she's a troll, but one of my favorites as far as that goes.

Troll or not, I genuinely feel bad for her. DANG IT, liberal compassion strikes again.


I don't. I have no pity for the suicidal.
 
2012-01-04 03:48:18 PM  

LordJiro: cabbyman: It's nice that the president has all this new power! I'm sure it'll never be misused by the other side when it's their turn.

It's nice that idiots don't read this thread and realize that this isn't NEW power.


It's nice that douchenozzles don't see this as becoming the new normal.

Congrats! We're freedom now!
 
2012-01-04 03:48:23 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: verbaltoxin: rufus-t-firefly: Garet Garrett: You realize Congress isn't in recess, right? So pretty much Obama's version of the Constitution gives him the right to make appointments any day of the week, after about 5:30 p.m. because folks have gone home for the night? Fark Congress, after all. What business do they have telling the Prez whom he can appoint?

This one is particularly offensive, given that the position is utterly free of Congressional oversight.

Guess Congress shouldn't have created that position, then.

Fark the people, after all. What business do they have telling government how they want to be governed?

Buddy, if you think the Senate is "the people," you're even dumber than you sound here.

This is bad. Very, very bad. But only if you believe in democracy. So, naturally, the Democrats [sic] will be fine with it.

You're a farking idiot.

However, the White House maintains that those sessions, typically held every three days and lasting a few seconds, are not legitimate and can be ignored for the purpose of making recess appointments. The administration cited lawyers that advised President George W. Bush when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

Link (new window)

So, Bush was a Democrat?

It's almost as though there were a dispute on the interpretation of the Constitution, and there would need to be like, a, um, THIRD branch of government to review this situation and sort out the disparity?

That branch can only settle such a dispute if it actually happens. They don't rule in advance.

It's not like the Supreme Court gives the other two branches advice prior to passage of laws or executive actions. They are ALWAYS involved after the fact.

If the GOP wants to make this into a federal case, they are more than welcome to do so.


That's what I was implying.
 
2012-01-04 03:48:41 PM  
But what about Santorum? (new window)
 
2012-01-04 03:48:55 PM  
The funny part will be that the GOP must argue against the very thing they had established as precedence for their challenge to work.

I don't think the courts will be very sympathetic about that.
 
2012-01-04 03:48:56 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: They are playing fair. People fail to read the fine print. he thing is everything you said is still personal responsibility.


You see this? This is a sociopath. Total disconnect from humanity.
 
2012-01-04 03:49:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I would never want to GM a tabletop game with Republican players. Rules-lawyering cockbags who throw hissy fits and start overturning tables when they're told they can't just invent rules and then demand everyone follow them.


Re: my "tag" analogy from earlier.
 
2012-01-04 03:49:20 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: President Obama juked them and left them standing there at the 30 yard line looking stupid while he's in the end zone doing the Ickey Shuffle.

 
2012-01-04 03:49:22 PM  

cabbyman: LordJiro: cabbyman: It's nice that the president has all this new power! I'm sure it'll never be misused by the other side when it's their turn.

It's nice that idiots don't read this thread and realize that this isn't NEW power.

It's nice that douchenozzles don't see this as becoming the new normal.

Congrats! We're freedom now!


I'd say the Republicans made flagrant abuse of the rules the "new normal", so shut your face.
 
2012-01-04 03:49:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I would never want to GM a tabletop game with Republican players. Rules-lawyering cockbags who throw hissy fits and start overturning tables when they're told they can't just invent rules and then demand everyone follow them.


I'm picturing Pierce from "Community."
 
2012-01-04 03:50:16 PM  

verbaltoxin: A Dark Evil Omen: I would never want to GM a tabletop game with Republican players. Rules-lawyering cockbags who throw hissy fits and start overturning tables when they're told they can't just invent rules and then demand everyone follow them.

Re: my "tag" analogy from earlier.


Ah, yeah, perfect analogy.
 
2012-01-04 03:50:47 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: cabbyman: LordJiro: cabbyman: It's nice that the president has all this new power! I'm sure it'll never be misused by the other side when it's their turn.

It's nice that idiots don't read this thread and realize that this isn't NEW power.

It's nice that douchenozzles don't see this as becoming the new normal.

Congrats! We're freedom now!

I'd say the Republicans made flagrant abuse of the rules the "new normal", so shut your face.


I'd tell your mom to shut her face but I'm not finished yet.
 
Displayed 50 of 516 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report