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)   Tea Party speaker: "We will not be silenced by f*ggots." Clearly this is a tea-party colloquialism that somehow relates to economic issues. Perhaps he meant "Keynesian acolytes"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, keynesian  
•       •       •

7677 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:48 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



503 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
 
2012-04-17 11:02:30 AM  

rynthetyn: Salt Lick Steady: rynthetyn: You know how I learned that anal sex, BDSM and fisting were things? From the crazy anti-gay people I grew up around who were constantly complaining about the horrible things children were allegedly being taught in schools.

That's better than learning the hard way.

Dare I ask what the hard way would be? Because I don't think I can consider any scenario where learning about watersports when you're 12, twelve! by virtue of the crazy AFA lady's rants about what she thinks is going to be taught in public schools if Planned Parenthood gets funding is a particularly good way. I think even 4chan would be a better option.


Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

/[Hedley LeMar]: kin-ky
 
2012-04-17 11:04:45 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: sweetmelissa31: qorkfiend: Great. Now I'm forced to change your Farky note from "political credibility of a 6 year old boy"

Yikes, dare I ask what mine is?

Nacho Camacho?


img822.imageshack.us

Maus Jew.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:03 AM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Now the first protests in late 2008 were small, and didn't get much attention. But by God I was there. So I guess it really depends on what you consider to be the birth of the Tea Party movement. I say the movement began before Obama, but If you use the Santelli rant, the "movement" basically starts with Obama's election. Santelli's rant

fixed so as not to imply causality.

there was also that tax on soda protest in NY at the same time.

You're not bullshiatting anyone. I already said that the Tea Party existed during the Bush Presidency, when he started his rampant spending and turning our surplus into a record deficit but you know damn well no one knew who they were until the second Obama was elected.


The "second 0bama was elected"? So you mean November 2008. Do you have a citation for that?

The Santelli Rant was the start of it being mainstream. Google it and learn.
 
2012-04-17 11:07:26 AM  

sprawl15: Salt Lick Steady: sweetmelissa31: qorkfiend: Great. Now I'm forced to change your Farky note from "political credibility of a 6 year old boy"

Yikes, dare I ask what mine is?

Nacho Camacho?

[img822.imageshack.us image 363x550]

Maus Jew.


I still haven't seen that movie.
 
2012-04-17 11:07:34 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: ugh... "equality" of economic outcome

Good lord, that chicken is nothing but a bunch of bloody sticky feathers at this point.

" I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". 0bama.


Slowing the tide of wealth inequality =/= Everybody making the same amount.

The fact that you are even reduced to using such stale, easily countered talking points tells me you're running out of material.

/That noted, it's still marginally less silly than the "But, but, but... OWS" derp ITT.
 
2012-04-17 11:07:51 AM  

halfof33: Was there any corroboration of the tweet?

Or are we just going to go with nobody cares whether this headline and the Huff Po headline are true, and that I am a horrible person for questioning it?


You know what there is corroboration of? Scott Lively's presence there as a paid speaker. On a "tax day protest".

So he could talk about how dangerous the homogays are ... to your low taxes. Or something.
 
2012-04-17 11:07:55 AM  

Altair: This thread is now about Carl Winslow.


Late to the party, but:

28.media.tumblr.com
"Ghostbusters, the Mayor wants to talk to you."
 
2012-04-17 11:08:59 AM  

Jackson Herring: I still haven't seen that movie.


It's worth it to see Brad Pitt trying to talk like a southerner trying to talk like an Italian.
 
2012-04-17 11:09:22 AM  

sprawl15: img822.imageshack.us


Oh my gosh, look at my beautiful pecs.
 
2012-04-17 11:09:46 AM  

quatchi: tenpoundsofcheese: WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: ugh... "equality" of economic outcome

Good lord, that chicken is nothing but a bunch of bloody sticky feathers at this point.

" I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". 0bama.

Slowing the tide of wealth inequality =/= Everybody making the same amount.


.


Do you believe it is the government's job to manage the wealth distribution in the country?
 
2012-04-17 11:11:50 AM  

sweetmelissa31: sprawl15: img822.imageshack.us

Oh my gosh, look at my beautiful pecs.


And your hairy arms.
 
2012-04-17 11:13:33 AM  

sweetmelissa31: sprawl15: img822.imageshack.us

Oh my gosh, look at my beautiful pecs.


that tuft of chest hair
 
2012-04-17 11:13:53 AM  

BeesNuts: You know what there is corroboration of? Scott Lively's presence there as a paid speaker. On a "tax day protest".


So No corroboration of the incendiary claims in the headline on Fark, on Huff Po and in Daily Kos.

Thanks folks. Good work.
 
2012-04-17 11:15:47 AM  

halfof33: BeesNuts: Right, but you were replying to a post that specifically said that the slur is actually secondary to the fact that the TEA Party paid a guy who is a member of the Family and helped sell the idea of strict legislation banning gayness from Uganda a few years back. If the guy had been *completely* respectful about his terminology he'd still be a bigoted, ignorant, medieval dick-lock of a man... who was hired by the TEA Party to talk to the crowd for a while. That guy should be uniformly denounced in every free country in the world. But here in America we don't just give him a venue to speak. We don't just avoid censoring him. We give him a nice fat podium to stand on, some TV crews, an attentive audience, and a few grand.
And then when people get upset, we have two factions. One to get mad at the guy who called these people a mean name. And another to get mad at the people who dared get upset in the first place.

Yeah, the whole First Amendment thing, what are you going to do?

Three factions actually, maybe four. There is a group that looks into whether the claims are true, and the people who get absolutely enraged at them for doing so.

Fortunately, facts have a pro-halfof33 bias.


Hey, complete misunderstanding of the first amendment. Big surprise there. I've never seen this one before. Do I lead with the left foot or the right foot for this one?

I think the last two groups exist only in your mind. I've said nothing on the topic of the slur, which is uncorroborated, but I couldn't help but notice that all *you're* interested in discussing is whether or not this uncorroborated event can be corroborated. What I can tell you, though, is that I don't rightly give a fark if he called them f*gs, poofs, fairies, studs, beards, waffles, dames, broads, albinos, Meredith or truculent provocateurs. The much more interesting part of the story is the whole altercation. Not that one moment, but the whole thing. Why were these protesters there? Scott Lively. Why was Scott Lively there? No farking idea.
 
2012-04-17 11:16:09 AM  

halfof33: BeesNuts: You know what there is corroboration of? Scott Lively's presence there as a paid speaker. On a "tax day protest".

So No corroboration of the incendiary claims in the headline on Fark, on Huff Po and in Daily Kos.

Thanks folks. Good work.


From the same people who gave you the Zimmerman "coon-troversy" and the Zimmerman "He is black" editing.
 
2012-04-17 11:17:26 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The "second 0bama was elected"? So you mean November 2008. Do you have a citation for that?

The Santelli Rant was the start of it being mainstream. Google it and learn.


Are you seriously going to contend that the Tea Party, with everything that Bush did to the economy, were as loud when he turned our surplus into a record deficit, started all the corporate bailouts, got us into two wars that cost more than anything they're biatching about now, are you actually saying that they were just as loud then as they were the minute Obama was elected? Is that what you're really trying to sell?
 
2012-04-17 11:18:42 AM  

halfof33: So No corroboration of the incendiary claims in the headline on Fark, on Huff Po and in Daily Kos.


You would deny it if you had been standing next to the person saying it.
 
2012-04-17 11:19:15 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The Santelli Rant was the start of it being mainstream. Google it and learn.


The Santelli rant happened less than a month after Obama's inauguration. That spring the "tea party" movement caught fire. If you don't think allot of that momentum wasn't in response to the Obama presidency than your naive. As I said in an earlier post, many of the people at tea party rallies that spring were blaming Obama for Bush policies. As the movement grew, so did the number of people who were completely ignorant of the truth.

Then the movement was taken over by radical social conservatives. At that point it wasn't about economics, or freedom, or tax policy. The people who claim the tea party name today have nothing in common with 90% of the people who were there in 2008 and 2009.
 
2012-04-17 11:20:56 AM  

NateGrey: EWreckedSean: So how do you feel about progressives pushing their beliefs onto others? Or is it only ok when the other guys do it? (BTW I have no use for social conservatives than I do for progressives)

But mommy they do it too!

Republicans are such children.


The difference is I don't like it when either group does it, you guys don't like it when just the other guys do. And you think I'm the childish one. Shocking.
 
2012-04-17 11:21:35 AM  

trotsky: EWreckedSean: trotsky: meade2001: Well, if one guy on Twitter says it, it must be true!! Another hard-hitting investigation by DailyKos.

The thing is, everybody assumes they said it because they say shiat like this all the freakin' time. This is what these mouth breathing troglodytes believe, write (poorly) on signs and at the dinner table.

Because some signs on the internet obviously equal the majority thought of the whole movement. You know, like how those Occupiers all hate Jews and bathes.

It's an example, dipwad. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing and talking to Tea Baggers in real life and the internet. Based on these interactions, my statement stands. The signs just help visualize it.


So based on one persons personal experiences. Got it.
 
2012-04-17 11:23:36 AM  

EWreckedSean: NateGrey: EWreckedSean: So how do you feel about progressives pushing their beliefs onto others? Or is it only ok when the other guys do it? (BTW I have no use for social conservatives than I do for progressives)

But mommy they do it too!

Republicans are such children.

The difference is I don't like it when either group does it, you guys don't like it when just the other guys do. And you think I'm the childish one. Shocking.


I haven't seen any posts regarding these "progressive beliefs" that we're trying to force on everyone.
 
2012-04-17 11:25:08 AM  

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: sprawl15: img822.imageshack.us

Oh my gosh, look at my beautiful pecs.

that tuft of chest hair


Ahem, that's MY internet girlfriend from an internet threesome. Back. Off.
 
2012-04-17 11:25:35 AM  

BigBooper: The Santelli rant happened less than a month after Obama's inauguration. That spring the "tea party" movement caught fire


Well I think tenpoundsofcheese has been effectively shut down. If there's nothing else, it's time for liquid lunch.
 
2012-04-17 11:26:07 AM  

BeesNuts: Hey, complete misunderstanding of the first amendment. Big surprise there. I've never seen this one before. Do I lead with the left foot or the right foot for this one?


Gee, which ever one you want, sport, because either ends up in your mouth. Based on the First Amendment the USA has a very strong history of respecting people's rights to speak, even when unpopular. See Skokie v. Nazis.

WhyteRaven74: halfof33: So No corroboration of the incendiary claims in the headline on Fark, on Huff Po and in Daily Kos.

You would deny it if you had been standing next to the person saying it.


Well, I guess we'll never know, because it appears that it didn't happen.

You would claim it happened if you had been standing over a twitter-er when she made it up.
 
2012-04-17 11:26:54 AM  

BeesNuts: You know what there is corroboration of? Scott Lively's presence there as a paid speaker. On a "tax day protest".


That was the day he had open. He already had a booking for 4/20
 
2012-04-17 11:27:04 AM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: The "second 0bama was elected"? So you mean November 2008. Do you have a citation for that?

The Santelli Rant was the start of it being mainstream. Google it and learn.

Are you seriously going to contend that the Tea Party, with everything that Bush did to the economy, were as loud when he turned our surplus into a record deficit, started all the corporate bailouts, got us into two wars that cost more than anything they're biatching about now, are you actually saying that they were just as loud then as they were the minute Obama was elected? Is that what you're really trying to sell?


no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.
 
2012-04-17 11:29:41 AM  

Mugato: it's time for liquid lunch.


Is that what you kids are calling it these days? In my time we just called it a power shake.
 
2012-04-17 11:29:49 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese:
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
.


That's a bunch of utter bullshiat.
 
2012-04-17 11:31:19 AM  
i.huffpost.com

I didn't know Winslow was a Confessor...
 
2012-04-17 11:33:55 AM  

Jake Havechek: tenpoundsofcheese:
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
.

That's a bunch of utter bullshiat.


so you believe that there were no conservatives who were against Bush's spending? Really?? That is what you believe?
 
2012-04-17 11:36:44 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.


You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.
 
2012-04-17 11:40:21 AM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.


from 2005: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration.

go read editorials in WashPo and others that said the same thing.
 
2012-04-17 11:41:33 AM  

czei: burninbeaver: [upload.wikimedia.org image 500x332]

Wow, I didn't know the tea party went all the way back to 1959.


and they want to take everyone else back there with them.
 
2012-04-17 11:46:33 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.

from 2005: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration.

go read editorials in WashPo and others that said the same thing.



I'm talking to myself here.

As I said in my original post, the Tea Party did exist during Bush's terms but they didn't make themselves known, they weren't loud until Obama took office. Now you can find some one event that you can claim started the whole thing off that took place after Obama took office but you're not fooling anyone.
 
2012-04-17 11:48:13 AM  
 
2012-04-17 11:48:43 AM  

EWreckedSean: NateGrey: EWreckedSean: So how do you feel about progressives pushing their beliefs onto others? Or is it only ok when the other guys do it? (BTW I have no use for social conservatives than I do for progressives)

But mommy they do it too!

Republicans are such children.

The difference is I don't like it when either group does it, you guys don't like it when just the other guys do. And you think I'm the childish one. Shocking.


Sure Erection, you are as independent as they come!

/Vote Republican
 
2012-04-17 11:49:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.

oh look, from 2004...

The White House is used to being attacked by Democrats, but it came as something of a shock when fellow Republicans broke ranks over growth in government spending, hurting Bush at a time when his job approval numbers were already falling.

Conservatives from the Cato Institute criticized the president for overseeing a nearly 25 percent surge in spending over the last three years -- the fastest pace since the Johnson administration of the mid-1960s.



Like I said, talking to myself.
 
2012-04-17 11:53:02 AM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.

from 2005: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration.

go read editorials in WashPo and others that said the same thing.


I'm talking to myself here.

As I said in my original post, the Tea Party did exist during Bush's terms but they didn't make themselves known, they weren't loud until Obama took office. Now you can find some one event that you can claim started the whole thing off that took place after Obama took office but you're not fooling anyone.


you are lying.
you are denying that things had been building up..."Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole."
I cited things from 2004 and 2006 showing that.

Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.

The Santelli rant got it to be mainstream. It didn't start with the rant, it just started to be organized and mainstream.
 
2012-04-17 11:56:58 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.


Right, it wasn't an organized party until the end of Bush's term. Then they rolled out! Makes perfect sense.
 
2012-04-17 12:00:46 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.


The original Tea Party was the action of a well organized movement. The Sons of Liberty had been active for about 7 years at that point.
 
2012-04-17 12:00:55 PM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.

from 2005: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration.

go read editorials in WashPo and others that said the same thing.


I'm talking to myself here.

As I said in my original post, the Tea Party did exist during Bush's terms but they didn't make themselves known, they weren't loud until Obama took office. Now you can find some one event that you can claim started the whole thing off that took place after Obama took office but you're not fooling anyone.


I never understood this argument. Because the Tea Party took off under Obama, it's therefore invalid? New movements start all the time.
 
2012-04-17 12:03:51 PM  

NateGrey: EWreckedSean: NateGrey: EWreckedSean: So how do you feel about progressives pushing their beliefs onto others? Or is it only ok when the other guys do it? (BTW I have no use for social conservatives than I do for progressives)

But mommy they do it too!

Republicans are such children.

The difference is I don't like it when either group does it, you guys don't like it when just the other guys do. And you think I'm the childish one. Shocking.

Sure Erection, you are as independent as they come!

/Vote Republican


I'm a self admitted Republican, that doesn't mean I don't despise both groups. Social Conservative doesn't equal Republican. You understand that right? While they tend to be a retarded, vocal group that gets a lot of press, if they were the majority, Santorum would be the nominee. These states you always see pushing these social conservatives laws, Mississippi, Alabama, etc are all tiny southern states.
 
2012-04-17 12:03:58 PM  

halfof33: BeesNuts: You know what there is corroboration of? Scott Lively's presence there as a paid speaker. On a "tax day protest".

So No corroboration of the incendiary claims in the headline on Fark, on Huff Po and in Daily Kos.

Thanks folks. Good work.


I see you're not interested in actually talking so much as winning. Good work. Nothing else happened here. Just one single allegation of a guy calling people f@gs over the loudspeaker. Nope. Not one other event. Some gay people showed up on a whim to the TEA party rally so they could tweet from the site that they'd been slurred. Really that's all there is to it. Anyone who mentions things like Gary Johnson's refusal to attend as a speaker when he heard Scott Lively was invited, is just trying to distract. Comments about photographs of abuse of police authority are completely off limits. The issue here is whether someone dropped the F bomb.

Don't recall claiming that the events depicted in the article were factual, corroborated or provable, and Kos has treated the entire episode as suspect, mentioning the F@ggot comment precisely *one time* in their rather length post on the subject. But you shine on you crazy diamond.
 
2012-04-17 12:04:26 PM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.

Right, it wasn't an organized party until the end of Bush's term. Then they rolled out! Makes perfect sense.


It's still neither organized or a party.
 
2012-04-17 12:05:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese:

Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.
.


So they existed before they existed?

The Boston Tea Party was planned by a very organized and active anti British movement.
 
2012-04-17 12:06:05 PM  

EWreckedSean: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Of course they didn't "make themselves known" because it wasn't an organized movement at the time. Neither was the original Tea Party.

Right, it wasn't an organized party until the end of Bush's term. Then they rolled out! Makes perfect sense.

It's still neither organized or a party.


They also aren't tea.
 
2012-04-17 12:07:21 PM  
Look, the tea party is solely a movement relating to fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms. Also tricorner hats and elderly cosplay but mostly fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms. Oh, and aborted baby fetuses, and tricorner hats and elderly cosplay, but mostly fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms. Also restrictions on the rights of homosexuals and muslims, and aborted baby fetuses, tricorner hats and elderly cosplay but mostly fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms. Also eliminating the separation of church and state (because the baby Jesus will fix our fiscal problems) and establishing a theocracy, restricting the rights of homosexuals and muslims, aborted baby fetuses, tricorner hats and elderly cospplay, but mostly fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms. Also expanding the military and starting a war with Iran because Israel, eliminating the separation of church and state and establishing a theocracy, restricting the rights of homosexuals and muslims, aborted baby fetuses, tricorner hats and elderly cosplay, but mostly fiscal issues, debt reduction and the freedoms.

When you need advice on national policy you should turn to elderly cosplayers, dependent on the state to provide their income and health care coverage, because dressing up like revolutionary war characters gives you deep insight into fiscal issues. Because the freedoms.
 
2012-04-17 12:12:04 PM  

EWreckedSean: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: no.
it was building up for a while for some of the reasons you mentioned.
the Santelli rant had it go mainstream.

You understand that no one could possibly believe that horsehit, right? Building up? Over 8 years? Really, keep digging that hole.

from 2005: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration.

go read editorials in WashPo and others that said the same thing.


I'm talking to myself here.

As I said in my original post, the Tea Party did exist during Bush's terms but they didn't make themselves known, they weren't loud until Obama took office. Now you can find some one event that you can claim started the whole thing off that took place after Obama took office but you're not fooling anyone.

I never understood this argument. Because the Tea Party took off under Obama, it's therefore invalid? New movements start all the time.


I wouldn't say invalid, but the problems they are trying (and IMO failing) to highlight have existed for decades. If it had begun as a dull murmur and grown into a national movement with coverage after Obama had been elected I'd be more inclined to by that narrative, but here's the google trends on TEA Party. It calls the entire platform into question. And it lends itself to the impression that the TEA Party is using taxes and economics as an excuse to be angry at the democRAT president.

That's the argument anyway. Like how in about 3 months we're going to see a doubling of "people" active on this site. And they will have things to say about things. But they don't really care about those things so much as participating in their favored party's campaign.
 
2012-04-17 12:12:45 PM  
Sorry. Here* is the google trend promised earlier:
Link (new window)
 
2012-04-17 12:13:55 PM  

BeesNuts: I see you're not interested in actually talking so much as winning. Good work.


Should I apologize for being concerned with truth and whether or not the headline is accurate?

Well I won't be.
 
Displayed 50 of 503 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