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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash White House announces it will reject Keystone Pipeline. John Boehner really wishes he had control over his investment portfolio right about now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 357
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

6511 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2012 at 2:17 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-18 03:33:27 PM  
Whew, i was worried we would have to stop buying oil from countries that hate us.
 
2012-01-18 03:35:02 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Mrtraveler01: YixilTesiphon: Yay, let's deny a source of jobs to an economically depressed area of the country because of easily solved environmental concerns!

/Ever been to Beaumont/Port Arthur?
//shipping oil through the country for export isn't stupid
///ever heard of entrepot?

At least you admit that the US wouldn't be the beneficiary in this deal. I like paying nearly $3/gallon for gas thank you very much.

If you're just going to willfully misinterpret what I write, why read it in the first place?


You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)
 
2012-01-18 03:35:19 PM  
I don't understand how this is possible when I was told by reliable sources that Obama just continues Bush's policies.

/both sides are bad
//vote republican
 
2012-01-18 03:35:22 PM  
The astroturfing in here is positively endearing.
 
2012-01-18 03:35:42 PM  

canyoneer: As I understand it, the State Department has rejected the pipeline. An American company seeking to build and operate a pipeline wouldn't involve the State Department, but probably the FERC. Research FERC's role in this whole imbroglio - there are some interesting players involved. The current head of the FERC commission was on the commission when the original go-ahead was granted. At least that's what I recall.

At any rate, it seems likely that TCPL will sue and at least recoup all their costs, and perhaps some potential future revenues. The latter could be a lot of moolah.


Considering that:
1) The rejection was non-prejudicial - that is to say, they can simply refile with an alternate plan. (Or, in a more general term, they haven't suffered any damage yet)
2) TransCanada was already working on ways to find an alternate plan with local environmentalists and ranchers before the Republicans forced their hand and accelerated their time schedule.
3) They've technically incurred no costs, yet, nor have the government expropriated anything (since, as noted, the rejection is not final and non-prejudicial)

Then, no, I don't think TransCanada would file a suit with the NAFTA tribunals. But, if you're so confident of it, I'm willing put some money to see who is right.
 
2012-01-18 03:36:48 PM  

Maud Dib: Canadians....like the retarded lil' brother who keeps barging into the room when the adults are talking.

[lifeasahuman.com image 548x610]


Teddy Ruxpin! Noooooooo!
 
2012-01-18 03:36:57 PM  
CBC is confirming that this pipeline is being rejected

But TransCanada can apply with the new route.

Yay!
 
2012-01-18 03:38:02 PM  

OgreMagi: "IT"S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT".

Except that oil is going to get sold no matter what we do. If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate.

Plus there are the jobs it will create. Estimates are as high as 250,000 new jobs. How much will someone who can't feed their kids care about the environment?


I heard it was 5 million jobs

Stupid Fartbongo
 
2012-01-18 03:38:17 PM  

unyon: GaryPDX: No worries. Harper will have it all sold to China in a couple months. (new window). All Canada has to do is pipe the oil over to Prince Rupert port to the waiting Chinese tankers.

Brilliant move, Obama.

You really are gullible. I've worked in and around the Alberta Oil Sands for the last 30 years, have supported pipeline activity for the last 15, and Transcanada is a client of mine right now. So maybe let me help you out:

This is a straight up bluff to force the US government's hand, to leverage the fear of people (frightened people just like you) into put pressure on your government to acquiesce. On behalf of all Canadians, thanks for taking the bait.

There is no pipeline to Rupert from Fort Mac. There will likely eventually be one, but today there isn't. Hint: It's a substantial ways to go, across several ranges of the Canadian Rockies, and will be very expensive to build.

Pipelines get re-routed all the time. You should see the map of pipelines going to the US- the routes make no sense, until you overlay them on Caribou migration routes and wolverine habitat. This little Sand Hills diversion is a meaningful exercise environmentally, but in the grand scheme of things, will likely only delay the project about 6 months, tops.

Trust me, you'll get your dose of sweet, sweet crude soon enough. You're our #1 customer, and we want to keep you happy, eventually.

You can unbunch your scooby doo panties now, lil fella.


Favorited.
 
2012-01-18 03:38:20 PM  

tequilasundae: dick lugar is already running on the OBAMA JUST KILLED 20000 JOBS platform complete with stock footage of beer gutted men in hard hats with fwoney faces.. Not one mention of the other side of the story.


The other side of the story that 20,000 jobs is false?
 
2012-01-18 03:38:20 PM  

apoptotic: I've read a handful of (Canadian and US) articles in the past hour or so and it seems to me that Obama hasn't actually rejected Keystone, he's rejected the demand that its approval be fast tracked without completed EIAs for the new route. Am I missing something?


Nope, that pretty much covers it.
 
2012-01-18 03:39:51 PM  
The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

Cuchulane
Kochs win big if Keystone XL pipeline is approved (new window)

Shocker.
They are pure evil.
 
2012-01-18 03:41:21 PM  

RexTalionis: 1) The rejection was non-prejudicial - that is to say, they can simply refile with an alternate plan. (Or, in a more general term, they haven't suffered any damage yet)


They sort of have. They've already ordered a shiatload of material, with some already being delivered. Were the pipeline to be completely denied those would be a huge loss, but it is a small loss to have that investment just sitting there holding their floor down.
 
2012-01-18 03:41:54 PM  
Oh God, Boehner is pulling the "But..but...Solyndra" card.

And the BS 200,000 jobs talking point.
 
2012-01-18 03:44:46 PM  
Another chapter in the continuing saga of "America's Failed Energy Policy", AKA "American's continue to get farked over, six ways to Sunday". Sooner or later, somebody in charge HAS to get it right.
 
2012-01-18 03:45:23 PM  

OgreMagi: If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate


This doesn't make sense at all. How does the pipeline being in the US affect what happens after it's sold to foreign sources and burned?
 
2012-01-18 03:45:43 PM  

sprawl15: RexTalionis: 1) The rejection was non-prejudicial - that is to say, they can simply refile with an alternate plan. (Or, in a more general term, they haven't suffered any damage yet)

They sort of have. They've already ordered a shiatload of material, with some already being delivered. Were the pipeline to be completely denied those would be a huge loss, but it is a small loss to have that investment just sitting there holding their floor down.


That's why I said in a general term. However, ultimately, since they were already in the process of adjusting the pipeline path to accommodate ranchers and environmentalsts before the House Republicans forced the issue and imposed the deadline, I'd say they're not out very much.
 
2012-01-18 03:47:41 PM  

3StratMan: Another chapter in the continuing saga of "America's Failed Energy Policy", AKA "American's continue to get farked over, six ways to Sunday". Sooner or later, somebody in charge HAS to get it right.


What are you talking about. We already get most of our oil from Canada. All this pipeline would've done is ship it down to Texas where God knows where the oil will end up after that (But I bet it won't be here in the US).

You really bought the pro-pipeline propaganda hook like and sinker.
 
2012-01-18 03:48:43 PM  

patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?


The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).
 
2012-01-18 03:49:29 PM  

GAT_00: unyon: The regulatory and compliance framework has been beefed up in recent years, which has forced the industry to have to pay attention to aging pipelines in a way that they never had before. Provided that the route is a sound one, this is something worth supporting. And I say that even as a filthy hippie.

None of which addresses why we should even allow this to be built. There's little to no economic benefit for us. All it will do is ship oil across our borders to sell outside the US. It's not built to sell oil to us.


Yeah it is, but that's not the kicker. The kicker is in the refinement. This isn't a crude pipeline, it's a pipeline for the undigested slurry of marginally useful and only partially processed oilsands. The argument up here against it is "why aren't we doing that value add refining ourselves, instead of just shipping away the raw materials as we always do?".

But the bottom line is- we have the input, you guys have the idle refining capacity. From a pure efficiency/economics perspective, it makes a certain degree of sense for everyone.
 
2012-01-18 03:50:10 PM  

canyoneer: Carth: Would an American company seeking to build the pipeline be subject to this approval processes?

As I understand it, the State Department has rejected the pipeline. An American company seeking to build and operate a pipeline wouldn't involve the State Department, but probably the FERC. Research FERC's role in this whole imbroglio - there are some interesting players involved. The current head of the FERC commission was on the commission when the original go-ahead was granted. At least that's what I recall.

At any rate, it seems likely that TCPL will sue and at least recoup all their costs, and perhaps some potential future revenues. The latter could be a lot of moolah.


I'm sure they have enough lawyers looking into it. I know the California case was a pretty easy one since a US company sued in Canada for a similar reason and won a few years earlier.
 
2012-01-18 03:50:21 PM  

ringersol: Mart Laar's Beard Shaver: "OMG, STOP THE PIPELINE BEFORE SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS ..."
... did you just post a map of *natural gas* pipelines?
You do realize those are completely different from oil pipelines, right?


I think he's trying to illustrate that there's already a shiatload of pipelines in this country. That were all approved, built, and are now being used without much comment from anybody.

birchman: I live in Nebraska. Probably one of the most satisfying things I experienced this year was watching all the drill-baby-drill conservatives around here lose their shiat when suddenly it was going to be THEIR property and environment that might be impacted. Funny, that.


I'll just enjoy that image with you.
 
2012-01-18 03:51:37 PM  
On the high side, mining Oilsands and thusly producing synthetic crude produces about 0.303 metric tonnes CO2 per barrel produced [http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate]

KXL pipeline is designed ultimately for 1 million barrels per day flow

So then the carbon emissions of producing the crude for this pipeline are 0.3 million tonnes / day

-------------------------------------------

War in Iraq and subsequent US Navy protection of tankers in the Persian Gulf carbon emissions: 77.7 million metric tonnes annually [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721121657.htm]

Bring the boys home, you can get about 260 days of Candian oilsands production for this pipeline, for the same carbon emissions as one year of mideast war operations. The other 100 days of pipeline operation will come from internal movements, i.e. shipments from Montana to Cushing / Nederland, TX.
 
2012-01-18 03:52:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 3StratMan: Another chapter in the continuing saga of "America's Failed Energy Policy", AKA "American's continue to get farked over, six ways to Sunday". Sooner or later, somebody in charge HAS to get it right.

What are you talking about. We already get most of our oil from Canada. All this pipeline would've done is ship it down to Texas where God knows where the oil will end up after that (But I bet it won't be here in the US).

You really bought the pro-pipeline propaganda hook like and sinker.


Hey if the pipeline was approved at least we'd have SOMETHING to ship to China... even if it is Canadian oil.
 
2012-01-18 03:52:21 PM  

3StratMan: Another chapter in the continuing saga of "America's Failed Energy Policy", AKA "American's continue to get farked over, six ways to Sunday". Sooner or later, somebody in charge HAS to get it right.


See, the problem is as the people in charge see it, they are getting it right. By that I mean completely stripping countries of their natural resources in exchange for megabucks, setting the unwashed masses against one another to keep them from stopping to think long enough about who really is the problem and doing something about it, and as soon as there's no blood left in the turnip jetting off scot-free for greener pastures to find other peoples and resources to exploit.
 
2012-01-18 03:52:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)


Energy security is a moronic idea. But jobs in the United States, which refining and entrepot from this project would certainly generate, certainly benefit the United States.
 
2012-01-18 03:53:12 PM  

trappedspirit: Wouldn't the footprint on this thing be about the same as a new interstate?


Rural interstates on new location tend to have about 300' of R/W, and 76' of pavement (4 12' lanes, two 10' outside paved shoulders, and 2 4' inside shoulders). I don't know how wide a pipeline R/W is required, but they don't pave anything so I'd say no, the footprint isn't nearly as bad as an interstate. Unless you own a forest, that is; then you get a nice wide swath cut through it for the pipeline.
 
2012-01-18 03:53:23 PM  

AirGuitarChampion: On the high side, mining Oilsands and thusly producing synthetic crude produces about 0.303 metric tonnes CO2 per barrel produced [http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate]

KXL pipeline is designed ultimately for 1 million barrels per day flow

So then the carbon emissions of producing the crude for this pipeline are 0.3 million tonnes / day

-------------------------------------------

War in Iraq and subsequent US Navy protection of tankers in the Persian Gulf carbon emissions: 77.7 million metric tonnes annually [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721121657.htm]

Bring the boys home, you can get about 260 days of Candian oilsands production for this pipeline, for the same carbon emissions as one year of mideast war operations. The other 100 days of pipeline operation will come from internal movements, i.e. shipments from Montana to Cushing / Nederland, TX.


That's cute that you think this oil was intended for consumption in the US.
 
2012-01-18 03:53:48 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Mrtraveler01: You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)

Energy security is a moronic idea. But jobs in the United States, which refining and entrepot from this project would certainly generate, certainly benefit the United States.


When they say 20K jobs, they mean (10K jobs for 2 years). The "jobs" are actually "job-years". Studies have shown that only a handful (
And of those short-term jobs (1-2 years in length), 30% of those will be in Canada, not the US.
 
2012-01-18 03:54:22 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Mrtraveler01: You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)

Energy security is a moronic idea. But jobs in the United States, which refining and entrepot from this project would certainly generate, certainly benefit the United States.


Oh God, don't tell me you believe that BS "200,000 jobs created" talking point? :P
 
2012-01-18 03:55:36 PM  

unyon: But the bottom line is- we have the input, you guys have the idle refining capacity. From a pure efficiency/economics perspective, it makes a certain degree of sense for everyone.


The Midwest already has the refining capability to do it. Adding the connection to the Gulf Coat doesn't add a massive amount of extra refinery capability, it just enables it to be sold on the global market instead of domestically.

And by clearing up the glut of oil, it drives up oil prices in the Midwest, which will net greater job losses than even the cheeriest estimates of jobs created within two years.
 
2012-01-18 03:58:26 PM  

apoptotic: I've read a handful of (Canadian and US) articles in the past hour or so and it seems to me that Obama hasn't actually rejected Keystone, he's rejected the demand that its approval be fast tracked without completed EIAs for the new route. Am I missing something?


That's exactly right, which is why everyone (including the pipeline company) thought Boehner's demand was stupid. He wanted to force Obama to override everyone and say "OMG this is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY!! We HAVE to build this pipeline RIGHT NOW!!!!1!"
 
2012-01-18 03:58:53 PM  
 
2012-01-18 03:59:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: YixilTesiphon: Mrtraveler01: You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)

Energy security is a moronic idea. But jobs in the United States, which refining and entrepot from this project would certainly generate, certainly benefit the United States.

Oh God, don't tell me you believe that BS "200,000 jobs created" talking point? :P


Nono, it's 2,000,000 jobs! ALL OF THE JOBS
 
2012-01-18 04:00:27 PM  

apoptotic: I've read a handful of (Canadian and US) articles in the past hour or so and it seems to me that Obama hasn't actually rejected Keystone, he's rejected the demand that its approval be fast tracked without completed EIAs for the new route. Am I missing something?


Only missing that it was specifically a Republican demand.
 
2012-01-18 04:00:48 PM  

DeltaPunch:
1) Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2) Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3) Never invade Canada in the middle of winter.


Don't need an army when you have winter.
 
2012-01-18 04:01:20 PM  
The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.
 
2012-01-18 04:02:13 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Wow, he managed to unite the GOP and the Tea Party? Well done!


smileys.smilchat.net
 
2012-01-18 04:04:13 PM  

Mrtraveler01: That's cute that you think this oil was intended for consumption in the US.


Most folks who argue for domestic production and infrastructure based around crude oil seem to have a remarkably lack of knowledge as to exactly what that production and infrastructure is intended to produce, for whom and for what.
 
2012-01-18 04:05:18 PM  

Knara: Mrtraveler01: That's cute that you think this oil was intended for consumption in the US.

Most folks who argue for domestic production and infrastructure based around crude oil seem to have a remarkably lack of knowledge as to exactly what that production and infrastructure is intended to produce, for whom and for what.


Sadly that's a large majority of Americans.

/I has a sad :(
 
2012-01-18 04:05:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: YixilTesiphon: Mrtraveler01: You admitted that this oil is destined for export. Which is something the pro-pipeline folks are real hesitant to admit because it completely demolishes their talking point on how this pipeline would ensure "Energy security" in North America.

Thanks. :)

Energy security is a moronic idea. But jobs in the United States, which refining and entrepot from this project would certainly generate, certainly benefit the United States.

Oh God, don't tell me you believe that BS "200,000 jobs created" talking point? :P


Who cares how many? Some.
 
2012-01-18 04:06:28 PM  

Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.


Of course, that amount of crude is dwarfed by our domestic supply of crude.

The GOP
 
2012-01-18 04:07:17 PM  
To: Nachum

There has never been a more destructive force in this nation than ghettobama.

2 posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:14:43 PM by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-01-18 04:08:01 PM  

YixilTesiphon:
Who cares how many?


A lot of Americans. Because that's how this pipeline is being sold (that and the BS "energy security" talking point.). Even though in reality, the 20,000 estimate might still be too generous.
 
2012-01-18 04:09:05 PM  

unyon: GAT_00: unyon: The regulatory and compliance framework has been beefed up in recent years, which has forced the industry to have to pay attention to aging pipelines in a way that they never had before. Provided that the route is a sound one, this is something worth supporting. And I say that even as a filthy hippie.

None of which addresses why we should even allow this to be built. There's little to no economic benefit for us. All it will do is ship oil across our borders to sell outside the US. It's not built to sell oil to us.

Yeah it is, but that's not the kicker. The kicker is in the refinement. This isn't a crude pipeline, it's a pipeline for the undigested slurry of marginally useful and only partially processed oilsands. The argument up here against it is "why aren't we doing that value add refining ourselves, instead of just shipping away the raw materials as we always do?".

But the bottom line is- we have the input, you guys have the idle refining capacity. From a pure efficiency/economics perspective, it makes a certain degree of sense for everyone.


I didn't know that. I thought it was crude. That refining process is very intense and grinds up equipment like crazy. My buddy was one of many welders up there. If cancelling that US pipeline, keeps more refining jobs in Canada and all the supporting jobs, than I change my mind and I'm for it (the cancellation of it that is).
 
2012-01-18 04:09:13 PM  

Jake Havechek: The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11


A SECOND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS STRUCK THE SOUTH TOWER
 
2012-01-18 04:10:18 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.

Of course, that amount of crude is dwarfed by our domestic supply of crude.

The GOP


I thought the GOP was converting to a crass-based platform.
 
2012-01-18 04:10:32 PM  
I've said it once and I'll say it again:

"Energy Independence" and "Energy Security" are two of the biggest scams the oil industry and the right-wing of America has pulled on the American public.

It amazes me how many people buy this BS.
 
2012-01-18 04:11:01 PM  

sprawl15: thoughtpol: demand is independent from supply (in the short run). oil is traded internationally, so if the supply increases the price will go down (in the short run). it doesn't matter if they sell it to them or to us; an increase in supply is good, with regard to price, for the whole world.

There's a difference in this situation, though. Currently, crude from Canada is building up in Cushing, OK. It's either shipped via truck/train/one of the few pipelines to the Gulf Coast for international sale or piped up to the Midwest refineries in the Great Lakes area for refinement and domestic sale. There's so much there that it's depressing gas prices in the Midwest, because the cost of trucking a supertanker full of oil is farking ludicrous. Even though global prices may drop slightly, the local price of oil (and the national price of food, what with it being the Midwest) will spike.


Its important to differentiate crude from oilsands refinement. There are lots of pipelines that link Alberta with the US (largely through the Edmonton-Regina-Minneapolis-Chicago corridor). However, what will (likely) ship from Fort Mac will be crude-ish, but still in need of upgrading. It has to go to a refining facility before use. And there is lots of idle refining capacity on the Gulf coast.

Whatever is building up in Oklahoma, I can assure you that it's not from the oil sands awaiting refinement.
 
2012-01-18 04:11:25 PM  

unyon: Yeah it is, but that's not the kicker. The kicker is in the refinement. This isn't a crude pipeline, it's a pipeline for the undigested slurry of marginally useful and only partially processed oilsands.


That's the drum I've been beating since I got clued into it by a former geology prof who spent about 20 years as a field geologist for oil companies. Athabasca oil sands are not light, sweet crude Americans have been programmed to think of any time they hear "crude oil". Hell, for that matter refining isn't the alchemical process Americans have been programmed to believe it is in which just about any hydrocarbon on Earth is poured into a magical barrel that poofs it into gasoline at the push of a button. It's not a goddamn Mr. Fusion.

The very fact oil sands are "economically feasible" for extraction and refining ought to be a god damn pulsating, flashing multi-colored beacon coupled with waving red flags and triple-digit-decibel warning klaxon that we need to get off farkin' fossil fuel not "some time in the future...", "well when it becomes economically feasible itself...", or even "in a foreseeable time span". We need to get off that shiat as soon as possible, if for no other reason than the catch-all group of resources known popularly as petroleum has uses more important central to our economy that aren't burning it.

It's not even an environmental issue for me. The environment's nice and all, and I'd prefer to not see it get wrecked because we're too stupid to recognize unsustainable policy and do anything about it before we're past the point of no return, but economic and political reality is much more important to me personally. And, as unfortunate as it is the latter of those two is the genuine problem: our politicians are too busy taking "campaign contributions" from damn oil companies to do what is to any marginally-educated person on the issue who's not trying to sell snake oil rather emergent and self-evident.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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