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.

(Huffington Post)   Arizona GOP legislator says women should have to watch an abortion before having one, though the state doesn't currently have the funds to buy that many "According to Jim" DVDs   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line 514
    More: Sick, arizona gop, funds, abortions, legislators  
•       •       •

5919 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2012 at 10:44 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



514 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
 
2012-03-21 02:00:04 PM  
Well, you know, it's only fair that a woman has all the information she needs to make a wise decision so I'm ok with this as long as she also has to watch episodes of Supernanny and My Sweet 16 in addition to the abortion video.

/Not really ok with this
//At all
 
2012-03-21 02:01:32 PM  

jabelar:
Anyway, I'm saying that it is possible to support legalized abortion but also still generally consider the majority of women getting abortions as being negligent or selfish in some way.


Thanks for being rational. However, birth control fails. I'm not talking about the condom, or diaphragm, or such. The pill, Norplant, IUDs, all have that 1% or less risk.

Ask me, I know.

and the doc has nothing good to say when you find out you're almost 12 weeks, and you've been taking the strongest oral contraceptive available for the last 5 years. The risk of birth defect is uber high.

so it's still not all convenience or irresponsibility
 
2012-03-21 02:07:56 PM  
It's all good. I think all legislators and the president should have to take part in armed ground combat before they're allowed to send young people off to do it. Both ideas sound really crazy, right?
 
2012-03-21 02:08:52 PM  

spidermilk: People trying to ban abortions should have to adopt and properly care for all unwanted children or children who's parents can't care for them.


Oh, but they all claim to know "someone" who is an adopting fiend... It's almost never themselves, it's always a 'cousin', or 'friend in church', maybe even a 'sister', but it is almost NEVER the person screaming the loudest about the abortions. They also claim that every baby in need of adoption has about 2,000 people lined up outside the door, but having spent a lot of time in the Foster Care system, I call so much bullshiat on that.

For the most part, people only want to adopt 'perfect' babies; a certain age range, sex, race, and with minimal birth defects or health problems. That doesn't stop them from insisting that people who can't afford babies have them, while also screaming to get any kind of government assistance slashed.
 
2012-03-21 02:09:57 PM  

skullkrusher: Theaetetus: And yes, the father still has an obligation, even if the mother can afford to spend $10,000,000 a year on the child. That obligation is based on his income... if he only makes $30k a year, his obligation may be a hundred bucks a month or less. But that's representing the fact that if the parents were together, the child would have the benefit of both incomes. It's not about whether it's fair to the mother and father, it's about what's fair to the child.

what's fair for the child has nothing to do with where the money comes from. The father is not obligated to spend time with the child, take him to the zoo, anything. In this regard. whether he cuts a check to the mother for the child's support each month is irrelevant from the child's perspective if the mother can support him to a "satisfactory level".


Sure, because for a court to obligate the father to spend time would be slavery... But for a court to obligate someone to fulfill their legal or contractual obligations is not slavery. Time and money are different things.

And no, it's still relevant to the child. If the kid was going to get $5000 in support from the mother and $100 in support from the father, getting $5000 is clearly less than $5100, even if the kid could have been satisfactorily supported at $1000/month.

What your proposing is that the father should have a unilateral ability to permanently diminish the child's rights. I can't see how that could ever be constitutional.
 
2012-03-21 02:10:16 PM  

missiv: November is going to be a blood bath.


I hope, hope, hope, hope, hope, you're correct...but we have an awful lot of ignorant and uninformed/misinformed people in this country...

/SIGH
 
2012-03-21 02:10:33 PM  
Also, thanks for snipping. I'm on the mobile fark page, and the quote system leaves much to be desired.
 
2012-03-21 02:11:39 PM  
Seriously, women of America, how have you not started setting things on fire yet?
 
2012-03-21 02:13:57 PM  

mcwehrle: Thanks for being rational. However, birth control fails. I'm not talking about the condom, or diaphragm, or such. The pill, Norplant, IUDs, all have that 1% or less risk.


Yep, my wife had 2 babies on the Pill, 1 on Nuva RIng, and her mother got pregnant with her while on the Pill. Additionally, one of my stepsons was born after his dad had gotten a vasectomy.

Yeah, it's all about women being irresponsible, never failed BC, or a guy lying about using a condom, it;'s just the slutty woman's fault...

God, I'm glad I'm a guy. We don't get called derogatory names as soon as the Right wing finds out that we've had sex even once in our lives...
 
2012-03-21 02:16:53 PM  

mcwehrle: and the doc has nothing good to say when you find out you're almost 12 weeks, and you've been taking the strongest oral contraceptive available for the last 5 years. The risk of birth defect is uber high.


This is why we need to ban birth control!

/Man, this republican thinking is fun once you get the hang of it!
 
2012-03-21 02:22:23 PM  

mightybaldking: mcwehrle: and the doc has nothing good to say when you find out you're almost 12 weeks, and you've been taking the strongest oral contraceptive available for the last 5 years. The risk of birth defect is uber high.

This is why we need to ban birth control!

/Man, this republican thinking is fun once you get the hang of it!


Aw Man! You owe me a keyboard. And a good explanation for the other cubicle dwellers here. :^)
 
2012-03-21 02:22:35 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Seriously, women of America, how have you not started setting things on fire yet?


Well, considering the battlefield this is being waged on, I'm rather too partial to my reproductive bits to incinerate them to prove a point ;)
 
2012-03-21 02:27:51 PM  

GAT_00: ManateeGag: But is this a case of "screw them, they shouldn't be such whores"?

Uh yes. These farktards are convinced that anyone who has ever had an abortion only did so because they were a slut who got pregnant.


No, just a slut that didn't want stretch marks so she can continue to pursue her slutiness unfettered
 
2012-03-21 02:28:11 PM  

skullkrusher: what's fair for the child has nothing to do with where the money comes from. The father is not obligated to spend time with the child, take him to the zoo, anything. In this regard. whether he cuts a check to the mother for the child's support each month is irrelevant from the child's perspective if the mother can support him to a "satisfactory level".


I guarantee you this is not true. My daughter's father chooses to have nothing to do with her, a fact that hurts her very much. What helps her deal with it, though, is the fact that she knows he pays child support each and every month, on-time and without complaint (as far as she needs to know) and the fact that he does that means that she can do things like learn to play the cello and take karate lessons. I reinforce that although he can't be with her (for whatever reason) he makes sure he helps her out as much as he can.

Could I take care of her on my own? Absolutely. Would she still be able to do some of the things she is fortunate enough to do? Probably not. Does she have the right to be supported by both parents? Absolutely. She'd much rather he spent time with her, but no court in the world can force that (and I think forced time would be worse for the child in the end), but she is comforted by the fact that he at least cares enough to make sure she is taken care of.
 
2012-03-21 02:31:09 PM  

Biological Ali: fracto73: I don't think there is any thing in the law that says you are allowed to actively kill someone who isn't a threat to you. Self-preservation allows you to eliminate a threat but that is all.

Killing somebody who is threatening you would be self-defense. Self-preservation implies something different, something much broader, and self-defense would be a mere subset of that.

Now, I'm not sure if self-preservation (as opposed to merely self-defense) actually exists as a legal justification for otherwise unlawful acts, but if it does, then it might well be applicable to the heart scenario too. The question would still be practically moot though, since regardless of what consequences you face personally, you won't be able to successfully get a new heart this way without somebody being on the hook for some crime.



Well, that is sort of my point. I don't think there is any such thing. Geotpf said that there was, so I was looking for evidence of that. If such a law existed there would be many more homeless people robbing folks and getting away with it.
 
2012-03-21 02:37:33 PM  
Oh my look at all those jobs created after the 2010 midterms!
 
2012-03-21 02:45:22 PM  

Brandyelf: skullkrusher: what's fair for the child has nothing to do with where the money comes from. The father is not obligated to spend time with the child, take him to the zoo, anything. In this regard. whether he cuts a check to the mother for the child's support each month is irrelevant from the child's perspective if the mother can support him to a "satisfactory level".

I guarantee you this is not true. My daughter's father chooses to have nothing to do with her, a fact that hurts her very much. What helps her deal with it, though, is the fact that she knows he pays child support each and every month, on-time and without complaint (as far as she needs to know) and the fact that he does that means that she can do things like learn to play the cello and take karate lessons. I reinforce that although he can't be with her (for whatever reason) he makes sure he helps her out as much as he can.

Could I take care of her on my own? Absolutely. Would she still be able to do some of the things she is fortunate enough to do? Probably not. Does she have the right to be supported by both parents? Absolutely. She'd much rather he spent time with her, but no court in the world can force that (and I think forced time would be worse for the child in the end), but she is comforted by the fact that he at least cares enough to make sure she is taken care of.


understandable but not really relevant to the point I was making.
 
2012-03-21 02:47:25 PM  

palelizard: Look, it's God's law. It should be our law. I don't understand why liberals are so against the natural order. You'd think they'd know better by now.


I know, right! Just the other day I went around to some old people in my neighbourhood and asked them to kill my daughter because she wasn't listenning to me (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and they were all like "no way!".

Then the cops and child services show up and are all up in my business about my dissobedient child and I'm like "dudes, it's in the BIBLE!"
 
2012-03-21 02:48:55 PM  
scrapetv.com
 
2012-03-21 02:52:38 PM  

skullkrusher: understandable but not really relevant to the point I was making.



Your point is that the situation isn't fair. I would argue that you are right, but there is no way to make it more fair. Both parents are on the hook for child support if there is a child, seems fair. Both parents have the right to make medical decisions for them selves, also seems fair.
 
2012-03-21 02:55:43 PM  

skullkrusher: understandable but not really relevant to the point I was making.


I was responding to the part where you said "whether he cuts a check to the mother for the child's support each month is irrelevant from the child's perspective if the mother can support him to a "satisfactory level".

My response was that it very much matters, at least from my daughter's perspective. Without the knowledge that he at least cares enough to support her (she does not know it is court-enforced), she would feel completely abandoned, so I am disagreeing with your statement. She has the right to financial and emotional support from both parents. The court can only enforce one of those things.

Did I misunderstand something?
 
2012-03-21 02:57:01 PM  

monkey_licker: Santorum


Kinda gave yourself away, there, sport. .5/10
 
2012-03-21 03:00:19 PM  

Brandyelf: skullkrusher: understandable but not really relevant to the point I was making.

I was responding to the part where you said "whether he cuts a check to the mother for the child's support each month is irrelevant from the child's perspective if the mother can support him to a "satisfactory level".

My response was that it very much matters, at least from my daughter's perspective. Without the knowledge that he at least cares enough to support her (she does not know it is court-enforced), she would feel completely abandoned, so I am disagreeing with your statement. She has the right to financial and emotional support from both parents. The court can only enforce one of those things.

Did I misunderstand something?


I started the sentence with "In this regard" to refer to how the child is not missing out on support in the hypothetical of a massively wealthy mother who can give him or her all the things he could want. Of course it matters if the child is left financially wanting if the mother alone is left to support the kid not to mention the emotional hurt the child would feel having a dad who isn't interested in his or her life. Was talking about the financial obligation alone and where that should stand if the father did not want the pregnancy to go to term and the mother was able to give the child all the financial support he or she could wish for
 
2012-03-21 03:01:51 PM  

fracto73: skullkrusher: understandable but not really relevant to the point I was making.


Your point is that the situation isn't fair. I would argue that you are right, but there is no way to make it more fair. Both parents are on the hook for child support if there is a child, seems fair. Both parents have the right to make medical decisions for them selves, also seems fair.


I think no one could argue that that child should be negatively impacted in any potential scenario. Maybe there is no good way. I am still gonna stomp my feet and scream it's not fair despite the fact that I am never gonna be in this situation :)
 
MrT
2012-03-21 03:02:36 PM  

Biological Ali: Killing somebody who is threatening you would be self-defense. Self-preservation implies something different, something much broader, and self-defense would be a mere subset of that.


There is the more general defense of necessity in the US, but I would doubt that any jurisdiction would support it in the case of murder. The UK has the defense of duress, which increasingly has been taken to include "duress by circumstances" which is basically the same as necessity. The UK specifically forbids it in the case of murder: there is no level of coercion whether by human actions or natural circumstances that justifies murder. Self-defense is, I think, the only affirmative defense against murder.
 
2012-03-21 03:06:31 PM  
Can we force lawmakers to watch a child die from cancer before they vote on heath care reform bills?
 
2012-03-21 03:12:53 PM  

vudukungfu: Fair is fair.
I say the asshole should be raped, just so he knows what that is like.


Shut the fark up.
 
2012-03-21 03:17:18 PM  

monkey_licker: But answer this question for me - Why do you want women to be able to go through an invasive medical procedure with little to no medical understanding of the process or the outcomes?


Doing better, but you're still talking out of your ass. What proof do you have that women seeking abortions don't know what's going to happen?

/difficulty - peer reviewed articles, mainstream news sources
//I'll wait
 
2012-03-21 03:32:37 PM  
If men had the babies we'd never even have a discussion.

Something growing in me I don't want?
Bye.
 
2012-03-21 03:36:36 PM  

lysdexic: monkey_licker: But answer this question for me - Why do you want women to be able to go through an invasive medical procedure with little to no medical understanding of the process or the outcomes?

Doing better, but you're still talking out of your ass. What proof do you have that women seeking abortions don't know what's going to happen?

/difficulty - peer reviewed articles, mainstream news sources
//I'll wait


he doesn't have any idea what is explained to a woman when she's decided to have an abortion. He's under the impression that they just walk in, say "hey doc! Imma have a 'bortion!" and spreads their legs, and walk out 5 mins later, dancing and making plans to go screw someone later.

and apparently he thinks women are idiots, and would actually go along with something like that
 
2012-03-21 03:36:47 PM  

sprawl15: It's argumentum ad absurdum. If the assertion is that abortion is never OK because it is murder, then that assertion must hold true even for ridiculous inputs; if you're raped by your father and want to abort the baby, such an assertion would say that it's still murder and not allowed. It's similar to how people look at the "life begins at conception" argument and point out that such an argument implies that any activity by the mother that threatens said life is endangerment. That miscarriages are accidental deaths and should be investigated to see what influence the mother's actions had - if she chain smoked while guzzling liquor for the months prior to the miscarriage, she is culpable.

When the assertions break down with uncommon inputs, it's a good sign that the assertion is fundamentally flawed.


Off topic I know, but this is one of the best explanations of argumentum/reductio ad absurdum I've seen. Thanks for posting it; heck I can use this at work to explain to customers why their batsh*t crazy requirements analysis is fatally flawed and cannot possibly be made into a workable piece of software.

Kudos to youdos.
 
2012-03-21 03:38:38 PM  
Does the father also have to watch it?
 
2012-03-21 03:39:10 PM  

SnakeLee: Does the father also have to watch it?


No. She shouldn't have tempted him like that.
 
2012-03-21 03:49:39 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: Eddie Adams from Torrance: I'm introducing a bill that all abortions will be televised. That way everyone can watch.

We already have C-SPAN.


He said "televise abortions." Not "televise people who should have been aborted."
 
i^2
2012-03-21 03:50:38 PM  

mightybaldking: i^2: mightybaldking: HotWingConspiracy: Move to a real state. Simple.

Hate women? Hardly.

See the later post -- http://www.fark.com/comments/7006697/75704623#c75704623 (new window)


That'll teach me to read the whole thread before replying. Apologies for the snark--I'm sure Mayor Ford isn't your fault.
 
2012-03-21 03:59:31 PM  

i^2: mightybaldking: i^2: mightybaldking: HotWingConspiracy: Move to a real state. Simple.

Hate women? Hardly.

See the later post -- http://www.fark.com/comments/7006697/75704623#c75704623 (new window)

That'll teach me to read the whole thread before replying. Apologies for the snark--I'm sure Mayor Ford isn't your fault.


Actually, I told my wife that I would have to re-evaluate the status of our relationship if she voted for him. (Which was probably wrong.)
 
2012-03-21 04:03:24 PM  
nice job submitter, first headline i've laughed out loud at in about a year.
 
2012-03-21 04:12:30 PM  
Good idea. But let's not stop there. She should have to watch animals being slaughtered before she eats her next meal. And our legislators should have to be subjected to bombing before the vote in favor of a war.
 
2012-03-21 04:30:31 PM  

fracto73: Geotpf: Even if you add a "life of the mother" exception, then it's still consistant with "abortion is murder". That is, if carrying the child to term will kill the mother, then abortion could be permitted because you are under the "one lifejacket, two people drowning in the ocean" rule, if you understand my meaning.


I disagree. If one believes that abortion is murder then you can't make a life of the mother exception. How would it be different than killing a child to save a mother life, to take an organ for instance? It isn't the same as the lifejacket scenario because that relies on you doing nothing and passively letting someone die for lack of a life jacket. In a situation with only one life jacket it is still murder if you actively kill someone for their lifejacket.


Self defense. You can kill another to save yourself. Besides, in most such cases if she dies so does the fetus.

forfarkonly: Pro-choicers: First, if a pregnant woman's life is in danger, there is not one doctor or hospital in the US that will do everything in their power to enable the mother to survive, so get off your high-horse and deal with reality just one time your life


Reality check: There have been cases in the news where this is not what happened. Furthermore, there are laws in some places (IIRC 9 states) that specifically legalize the malpractice of a doctor not informing the woman that an abortion would be in her best interest.

bmfderek: onyxruby: The abortion watching idea is a crock. However I like the idea of watching a pregnancy and changing of a baby as being mandatory for high school sex ed classes.

Fool! It's the sex ed classes making the kids get pregnant. No sex ed, no teen sex.

It would seem that this is what they actually believe.


Look more carefully at their position. It's obviously inconsistent--their stated objectives won't be met by the actions they choose to pursue. That level of stupidity on a national scale makes no sense. Consider instead that what they really want is to make non-reproductive sex dangerous. Now everything is consistent.

CheekyMonkey: Also, watching a video of an abortion, or getting an ultrasound is not comparable to a doctor explaining the risks of a certain medical procedure. Pretty sure doctors performing abortions are ALREADY explaining the risks to their patients. And, as it turns out, the risks associated with carrying a baby to to term and birthing it are much, much greater than the risks from undergoing an abortion.

Thanks for playing, though.


Definitely. I know someone who went into the delivery room expecting a normal, uncomplicated delivery. There were no red flags. It was weeks before they were sure she was going to make it.
 
2012-03-21 04:54:11 PM  

Trivia Jockey: What kind of woman would vote Republican this year?



A farking dumb one. Just like the kind of man who would vote Republican this year...
 
2012-03-21 04:54:30 PM  

mightybaldking: Wall of text - Check
Judicious use of CAPSLOCK - Check.
Ad Hominem attacks - Check
Random Ellipses - Check
Bad Spelling - Nope.
Use of Hyperbole - Check
Reads like a Time Cube post - Check.

9/10 -- Pretty damn good.


i know, i actually took the time out to ignore this user.
 
2012-03-21 05:00:39 PM  

Trivia Jockey: What kind of woman would vote Republican this year?


A proper, humble woman who is obedient to her husband.
 
2012-03-21 05:51:41 PM  

Theaetetus: skullkrusher: Theaetetus: And yes, the father still has an obligation, even if the mother can afford to spend $10,000,000 a year on the child. That obligation is based on his income... if he only makes $30k a year, his obligation may be a hundred bucks a month or less. But that's representing the fact that if the parents were together, the child would have the benefit of both incomes. It's not about whether it's fair to the mother and father, it's about what's fair to the child.


One minor quibble. If you're a man who wants to avoid paying child support, there is a way. Only have sex with women who make more money than you do. If I made more money than my son's sperm donor, I'd have to pay him child support. The reality is that most women make waay less money than most men. Ergo, it's usually the man who has to pay child support. If women were the ones making more money, they would have to pay. I'm sure Skullkrusher would be thrilled to make less money so men don't have to pay child support.
 
2012-03-21 06:02:19 PM  

palelizard: We need to have more rules like this. I'm not saying all women are sluts, or that there are no times when it might be necessary to kill a baby, but really, most women just use abortions as secondary birth control, for when they forgot to bring condoms over to the apartment of their boyfriend of the week.

I think it's disgusting that women can willing go through with this procedure without any sort of thought or contemplation. I know Planned Parenthood isn't an abortion assembly line, but it's close and I'm sure they'd do it if they could. Pull the lever, turn the crank, press the button, BOOM, dead baby.

Some people claim the men are part of the process, and that's an understandable concern. However, biologically speaking, men are lustful creatures. God intended us to be fruitful. You're right, we should crack down on all the premarital sex. There's two easy ways to do it--one is to make it illegal to have premarital sex. Period. Any woman or man spending the night at a "friend's" residence (or sharing a hotel etc) should go to jail for a month, no trial, same procedure as a parking ticket. BAM, you'd cut down on it pretty quick. Prohibition and the War on Drugs has shown time and time again, the best way to reduce the quantity of a vice is to make it illegal. Oh, and no more birth control at all. Period.

Second, we need to stop women from being allowed to dress like tarted up prostitutes all the time. If you really look at bathing suits and most modern fashion, it's like women want to have abortions. They're begging to get pregnant. We need laws that force women to cover up more, hide their forms from men, maybe their faces too. They'd save on make-up, so that one should pass pretty easily.

Look, it's God's law. It should be our law. I don't understand why liberals are so against the natural order. You'd think they'd know better by now.


[slowclap.jpg]

Are you a Pocket Ninja alt? Because that's some of the best trolling I've seen in a long time!

10/10

/.....please say you're trolling
 
2012-03-21 06:10:06 PM  
I'd like to see a law crafted that says all men who want to get vasectomies should have to watch a video beforehand of children playing, babies fussing with toys in a crib, shiat like that. If these people truly believe that every sperm is sacred, then men should be forced to see images of all the potential babies they're eliminating by getting snipped.

Oh wait, we'd never see that, because it's only prudent politically to attack women.
 
2012-03-21 06:13:32 PM  

ShanNM: Theaetetus: skullkrusher: Theaetetus: And yes, the father still has an obligation, even if the mother can afford to spend $10,000,000 a year on the child. That obligation is based on his income... if he only makes $30k a year, his obligation may be a hundred bucks a month or less. But that's representing the fact that if the parents were together, the child would have the benefit of both incomes. It's not about whether it's fair to the mother and father, it's about what's fair to the child.

One minor quibble. If you're a man who wants to avoid paying child support, there is a way. Only have sex with women who make more money than you do. If I made more money than my son's sperm donor, I'd have to pay him child support. The reality is that most women make waay less money than most men. Ergo, it's usually the man who has to pay child support. If women were the ones making more money, they would have to pay. I'm sure Skullkrusher would be thrilled to make less money so men don't have to pay child support.


nah, I'll keep making the same and let those deadbeat bastards pay their child support.
 
2012-03-21 06:30:07 PM  
I'd hope the first woman who was subjected to medically unnecessary medical penetration call the police and the have the technician and/or doctor arrested for assault then name their state legislator as an accessory.
 
2012-03-21 06:30:09 PM  

Lollipop165:
BC protects eggs from fertilization. The morning after pill (technicaly an abortion) protects the uterus from the egg implanting itself.


Plan B (the morning after pill) is not, even technically, an abortifacent. It's a large dose of the same hormone formulations in the birth control pill. It's main function is to convince your body not to ovulate for a few days, keeping it away from any sperm that might be in your reproductive tract.. It prevents conception, first and foremost. An already fertilized egg may not implant, but this is much less likely than if a woman were on the regular pill. Either way, no abortion because a pregnancy has not started. A pregnancy is not considered begun medically until the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine wall.

I'm not trying to harp on you, but I see this around a lot and the misinformation bugs me.
 
2012-03-21 07:43:56 PM  

i.huffpost.com

Proud.



/Can't believe I'm the first.
 
2012-03-21 07:45:59 PM  

Mikey1969: Not sure what you're saying.


TotalFarkers can comment on ANY headline that's submitted
 
Displayed 50 of 514 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 »
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