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.

(Fox News)   Chris Matthews calls GOP "Grand Wizard crowd". Michael Steele, Ku Klux Klan offended   (nation.foxnews.com) divider line 220
    More: Dumbass, GOP, Ku Klux Klan, grand wizard  
•       •       •

1175 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:28 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 06:35:11 PM  

Paul Baumer: Chris Matthews and fark posters represent the national Democratic party strategy committee and Obama was running in the 2010 elections


How sad. Doctoring up your own words as if they were something I said? Is that the approach you think best supports your position?

Really? That is some extraordinaryly weak troll-fu and frankly you should be ashamed of that level of limp-wristed trolling. (well, trolling in general is shameful, but at least TRY to be good at what you do)

Seriously. I keep looking at your post and it just makes me depressed. This had been such a refreshingly energetic and civil discussion thread (which are all too rare) and then there's your post.

Like a turd in a punchbowl. But more sad and depressing. Like a grown man who just shiat himself and sits their grinning.

I make it a rule not to use the ignore button unless there is a long and pronounced history of trolling for the sake of trolling, but that was just soooo bad, I think I'll make an exception rather than run the risk of reading another one of these posts from you.

So, anyway, all the best.
 
2012-04-24 06:58:39 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

Good heavens, a talking points recycling, logically fallacious, intellectually dishonest concern troll has put me on ignore. Whatever shall I do.
 
2012-04-24 11:28:22 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But keep on calling anyone who votes against Obama a secret racist. It's a sure-fire way to push away people.


It certainly would be if it were true but it's not.

It's a false absolutist narrative attributed to the left by RW shills like yourself.

Many in the GOP do not vote for Obama not because he black but because they have been sold a false narrative that depicts him in a bad lights while making the GOP look the greatest thing since sliced Freedom.

That all noted, there's a very real reason why minorities tend to look askance at the GOP and vote for the Dems over them.

It's because the GOP has historically had a very bad record dealing with concerns of minorities.

Because the GOP have used political strategies that capitalize on some people's inherent biases and bigotries for generations now.

You can acknowledge this record or you can try to deny or defend it but it remains the truth regardless.
 
2012-04-24 11:50:36 PM  

quatchi: BojanglesPaladin: But keep on calling anyone who votes against Obama a secret racist. It's a sure-fire way to push away people.

It certainly would be if it were true but it's not.

It's a false absolutist narrative attributed to the left by RW shills like yourself.

Many in the GOP do not vote for Obama not because he black but because they have been sold a false narrative that depicts him in a bad lights while making the GOP look the greatest thing since sliced Freedom.

That all noted, there's a very real reason why minorities tend to look askance at the GOP and vote for the Dems over them.

It's because the GOP has historically had a very bad record dealing with concerns of minorities.

Because the GOP have used political strategies that capitalize on some people's inherent biases and bigotries for generations now.

You can acknowledge this record or you can try to deny or defend it but it remains the truth regardless.


The sad part is, Republican pundits and politicians have openly admitted it, and yet some people still deny it.

Here's a great example from just last year:

HANNITY: I guess the issue or the argument that you are making though is, what? That the value system is different because 90 percent of African-Americans traditionally historically vote Democratic.

BUCHANAN: Ever since, '64, correct.

HANNITY: And the Hispanic vote goes what demographically?

BUCHANAN: It goes -- the Hispanic goes 60 to 70 percent Democratic. Asian-Americans which is a bit of a surprise, 60 to 70 percent. Africans- Americans, 90 to 95 percent. That's what Barack Obama got.

What I'm saying is, if that is half of the country, and Republicans will never win another election. And I mentioned California for this reason. Demographically what California is will tell you also what California is politically. Republic Party, Nixon and Reagan won California nine times, Nixon lost it once. Republican can't win California today. It's not because the people are evil. But they are democratic. They depend on government. They believe in government. And they vote for the party of government. And when Texas goes the same way and whites are a minority in Texas, when it becomes predominantly overwhelmingly Hispanic, it is going to become predominantly Democratic. That's the end of the Republican Party.

HANNITY: What do you say to those people saying there is Pat Buchanan? Well, no, no. What do you say to them, they say, why don't you break it down along belief system rather than racial lines?

BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position.


Link

It's about policies, not personalities.

/And Buchanan would know, since he helped craft the plan.

Nixon was coldly mixing and pouring volatile passions. Although he was careful to renounce the extreme fringe of Birchites and racists, his means to power eventually became the end. Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum-"A little raw for today," he warned-that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading "Dividing the Democrats." Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in "the Old Roosevelt Coalition," it recommended that the White House "exacerbate the ideological division" between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon's policies; highlight "the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party"; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. "Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country," Buchanan wrote. "We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention." Such gambits, he added, could "cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

The Nixon White House didn't enact all of these recommendations, but it would be hard to find a more succinct and unapologetic blueprint for Republican success in the conservative era. "Positive polarization" helped the Republicans win one election after another-and insured that American politics would be an ugly, unredeemed business for decades to come.

Link
 
2012-04-24 11:59:55 PM  

quatchi: That all noted, there's a very real reason why minorities tend to look askance at the GOP and vote for the Dems over them.

It's because the GOP has historically had a very bad record dealing with concerns of minorities.

Because the GOP have used political strategies that capitalize on some people's inherent biases and bigotries for generations now.

You can acknowledge this record or you can try to deny or defend it but it remains the truth regardless.


I think you are getting confused and assuming a correlary that I do not subscribe to. I am not arguing that minorities SHOULD vote Republican (or anyone else for that matter). I am not arguing that Republicans have a great record of championing the casues of minorities and special interest groups (at least in the last 30 years or so).

I am simply saying that most Republicans are not racist, and opposition to Obama can and does exist absent any consideration of race.

And the continued insinuation by those on the left that Republicans are somehow inherently racist is counter-productive. Continuing to attack nearly half of the country for secretely being bigoted racists is no way to win support.

And it seems like Obama's race is more concerning to his defenders than it is to the average voter.
 
2012-04-25 12:29:27 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: quatchi: That all noted, there's a very real reason why minorities tend to look askance at the GOP and vote for the Dems over them.

It's because the GOP has historically had a very bad record dealing with concerns of minorities.

Because the GOP have used political strategies that capitalize on some people's inherent biases and bigotries for generations now.

You can acknowledge this record or you can try to deny or defend it but it remains the truth regardless.

I think you are getting confused and assuming a correlary that I do not subscribe to. I am not arguing that minorities SHOULD vote Republican (or anyone else for that matter). I am not arguing that Republicans have a great record of championing the casues of minorities and special interest groups (at least in the last 30 years or so).

I am simply saying that most Republicans are not racist, and opposition to Obama can and does exist absent any consideration of race.

And the continued insinuation by those on the left that Republicans are somehow inherently racist is counter-productive. Continuing to attack nearly half of the country for secretely being bigoted racists is no way to win support.

And it seems like Obama's race is more concerning to his defenders than it is to the average voter.


This isn't about Obama; this is about the long history of Republicans using race as a wedge issue.

From an earlier post:

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." - Ken Mehlman RNC Chairman

I think he was referring to this:

Goldwater was a believer in both civil rights and state's rights, but made a political calculation to disregard the former principle in favor of the latter to win votes among whites. The Arizona senator told supporters in Atlanta that the GOP was "not going to get the Negro vote . . . so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are."

Link
 
2012-04-25 12:30:14 AM  

Overfiend: Alphax: You are completely full of shiat, Overfiend.

Lemme guess - I am a troll too.

The Fark Progressive way - if someone disagrees they are either a troll or full of crap.

No wonder there is no such thing as civil discussions on the Fark Politics tab!

You should be proud Alphax. Your astute observation that I am full of shiat (in your opinion) means you win the award for the most ignorant poster in this thread.


When you post a pack of falsehoods, I'm not inclined to pick them apart in detail. I know that you are lying, and you know that you are lying, so why bother?
 
2012-04-25 12:40:06 AM  

HighOnCraic: This isn't about Obama; this is about the long history of Republicans using race as a wedge issue.


Yeah. For YOU it clearly is. Have you noticed how no one has thanked you for long cut-n-paste job after long cut-n-paste job over and over?

It's because you are posting to yourself here. You are making (and have long ago finished making) a point no one is disputing. The horse isn't breathing anymore dude.

We get it. Republicans used race for political advantage thirty years ago, and talk about it to this day. (and I suppose means that all the racists are mostly former Democrats). Nixon, Goldwater,? Do you think the 60s Republicans were the first to figure out race politics? Seriously?

I notice that you aren't posting examples of all the times the Democrats have used race as a wedge issue, like... I dunno.. NOW. But please. Seriously, I'm not asking you to fill another twenty screens with cut and paste jobs.
 
2012-04-25 12:42:51 AM  
It's hard to separate racial issues from the modern conservative movement, since race was central to their ideological founders.

Here's an article by a far-right fringe group, mainly complaining that the modern National Review has softened up on racial issues, but started out in line with today's far-right fringe:

"In fact, the National Review of the 1950s, 60s and even 70s spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism - Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley - wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. NR attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance."

http://www.amren.com/ar/2000/09/

Perhaps the author of the American Renaissance article was referring to stuff like this National Review article from August, 1957:

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numberical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majorit of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.
Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).

/Just in case you were wondering why some people associate racism with the Republican Party. Sure, they've changed a bit since then, but the modern GOP's theme of "Anything done by the Federal government is BAD!" is not inherently racist, it's just a very attractive issue with racists.
 
2012-04-25 12:48:52 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: This isn't about Obama; this is about the long history of Republicans using race as a wedge issue.

Yeah. For YOU it clearly is. Have you noticed how no one has thanked you for long cut-n-paste job after long cut-n-paste job over and over?

It's because you are posting to yourself here. You are making (and have long ago finished making) a point no one is disputing. The horse isn't breathing anymore dude.

We get it. Republicans used race for political advantage thirty years ago, and talk about it to this day. (and I suppose means that all the racists are mostly former Democrats). Nixon, Goldwater,? Do you think the 60s Republicans were the first to figure out race politics? Seriously?

I notice that you aren't posting examples of all the times the Democrats have used race as a wedge issue, like... I dunno.. NOW. But please. Seriously, I'm not asking you to fill another twenty screens with cut and paste jobs.


A lot of the more egregious ones were: Trent "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the GOP platform" Lott, Jesse "Happy Birthday Martin Luther King" Helms Link, Strom "Longest Filibuster in Senate History in Opposition to a Civil Rights Bill" Thurmond

I apologize for the abundance of evidence I have to support my argument. Have a good night, dude!
 
2012-04-25 12:59:20 AM  

HighOnCraic: Sure, they've changed a bit since then, but the modern GOP's theme of "Anything done by the Federal government is BAD!" is not inherently racist, it's just a very attractive issue with racists.


Ummmm... yeah. You are seeing racists under every bed now. Also, I think you overlook that there ARE actually minorities in the Republican party. Shocking, but true.

Seriously. Now being for small government is a sign of racist tendancies?

Why stop there? I understand that drinking beer is very attractive with racists too. How long to you think Drew has been a bigot? Come to think of it YOU probably drink beer and you post on a known bigot's blogsite. You are probably a beer-drinking Fark-posting racists yourself! After all, it's been proven that things that racists are known to like can be used to identify racists.

Also, racists racists are racists racists because racists racists are racist about racism.

Good night man. I think you need some sleep.
 
2012-04-25 06:03:46 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: So if Obama was white you think a significant portion of the African American community would have voted for McCain instead?

No.

But it is indisputable that a significantly higher percentage of African American voters showed up to vote for Obama than for any other white Democratic candidate.

I wonder if anyone can point to a similar uptick in white voters who voted AGAINST Obama in the same election?


Obama lost the white vote in 2008.

That's pretty significant.

He won with blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, the young and women.

That scenario will probably play out again here in 2012.

There really is no reliable data regarding how much race factors into the decision making process of voter because it's not the kind of thing people admit to honestly.

That noted, between 'Obama as witch doctors' posters, 'don't re-nig in 2012' stickers, birthers, people comparing the Obama's to primates and the undeniable rise in anti-Obama militia groups and death threats to the POTUS, racist posts on RW blogs from Freep to Stormfront and a host of other pieces of incontrovertible evidence of a rise in RW racism pretending that it's not an issue with the right or that it it is somehow offset by some weird notion of reverse racism is a non starter.

Not that that stops some people.
 
2012-04-25 06:59:15 AM  

HighOnCraic: The sad part is, Republican pundits and politicians have openly admitted it, and yet some people still deny it.


Agreed. It seems I go from one thread in which some RWers try to deny their racist past and present and others like the Martin/Zimmerman in which they confirm it. It's a bit maddening at times.

BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position.

It's about policies, not personalities.


Yuppo. Good example. The RW narrative states that the black community is kept in thrall to the Democratic party's policies which keep them in perpetual poverty but the reality is that the GOP don't give a crap about poor people as a rule and poor minorities especially. The GOP use the inherent racism in their base as a way of pushing cuts to the social safety net by telling poor to middle class white folks that all their hard earned tax dollars are going to blah people. They use code words and dog whistles but the message is unmistakable. The racism is just the tool, of course, the policies redistributing wealth away from the lower to middle classes and up towards the top 10% is their real goal.

TY for excellent postage.
 
2012-04-25 07:06:11 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think you are getting confused and assuming a correlary that I do not subscribe to. I am not arguing that minorities SHOULD vote Republican (or anyone else for that matter). I am not arguing that Republicans have a great record of championing the casues of minorities and special interest groups (at least in the last 30 years or so).

I am simply saying that most Republicans are not racist, and opposition to Obama can and does exist absent any consideration of race.


I'm not arguing that point, in fact I pointed out above that there were Republicans who voted against Obama purely because they had been sold a bill of goods by RW media that had nothing to do with race.

And the continued insinuation by those on the left that Republicans are somehow inherently racist is counter-productive. Continuing to attack nearly half of the country for secretely being bigoted racists is no way to win support.

Saying "The GOP as a political party have used racism subtly and sometime less so for almost 50 years in order to gain political power" is not saying "All Republicans is racist"

And it seems like Obama's race is more concerning to his defenders than it is to the average voter.

The only people who seem to care about Obama's race that I've noticed are all on the right.
 
2012-04-25 02:07:38 PM  

quatchi: I'm not arguing that point, in fact I pointed out above that there were Republicans who voted against Obama purely because they had been sold a bill of goods by RW media that had nothing to do with race.


Out of curiosity, are you genuinely of the belief that the two reasons why someone would have voted against Obama are either racism, or they were tricked?

quatchi: The only people who seem to care about Obama's race that I've noticed are all on the right.


Really?
 
2012-04-25 03:19:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Sure, they've changed a bit since then, but the modern GOP's theme of "Anything done by the Federal government is BAD!" is not inherently racist, it's just a very attractive issue with racists.

Ummmm... yeah. You are seeing racists under every bed now. Also, I think you overlook that there ARE actually minorities in the Republican party. Shocking, but true.

Seriously. Now being for small government is a sign of racist tendancies?


Pat Buchanan seems to think it's a factor in why blacks stopped supporting Republicans long before Obama came along.

BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position.


Again, I apologize for saying that all Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation. The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century. And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility.

/Oh wait, it was Newt Gingrich who said that.
//I apologize for repeating Newt Gingrich's words.
 
2012-04-25 04:06:39 PM  

HighOnCraic: Pat Buchanan seems to think it's a factor in why blacks stopped supporting Republicans long before Obama came along.


That might be a reason why blacks don't vote Republican, but that's neither here nor there.

It certainly isn't support for the idea that wanting a smaller government is somehow a racist position.
 
2012-04-26 02:05:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Pat Buchanan seems to think it's a factor in why blacks stopped supporting Republicans long before Obama came along.

That might be a reason why blacks don't vote Republican, but that's neither here nor there. [Wait, weren't you arguing earlier that Obama's race was the only reason black didn't vote Republican in the last election?]

It certainly isn't support for the idea that wanting a smaller government is somehow a racist position.


BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position.

The main issue is that many Republicans believe that state governments are inherently good and the Federal government is inherently bad, and they're "constantly knocking" the Federal laws and activist judges that helped end segregation. It's like saying, "I'm pro-life, no exceptions, not even for pregnant rape victims," and wondering why pregnant rape victims don't support you.

Far too often, conservatives followed the arguments made by guys like Buckley and Goldwater that regardless of how you felt about segregation, using Federal power to end it was inherently wrong. That was a shameful cop-out.

There is evidence that Buckley later softened some of his racist views. When Time (4/5/04), asked if he'd taken any positions he'd come to regret, he answered: "Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: Federal intervention was necessary."

They've always known that it was a bullshiat argument, but some of them (like Ron Paul) are still making it.
 
2012-04-26 03:01:50 PM  

HighOnCraic: BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Pat Buchanan seems to think it's a factor in why blacks stopped supporting Republicans long before Obama came along.

[Wait, weren't you arguing earlier that Obama's race was the only reason black didn't vote Republican in the last election?]


No. I was saying it was as absurd to argue that the black increase in votes for Obama was an indication of racism as it was to argue that votes AGAINST Obama must be racist.

And still, you may be demonstrating that Republicans understand why African-Americans favor the policies of the Democratic party, but that has nothing to do with implying that wanting a smaller government is somehow a racist position.
 
2012-04-27 01:11:46 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Pat Buchanan seems to think it's a factor in why blacks stopped supporting Republicans long before Obama came along.

[Wait, weren't you arguing earlier that Obama's race was the only reason black didn't vote Republican in the last election?]

No. I was saying it was as absurd to argue that the black increase in votes for Obama was an indication of racism as it was to argue that votes AGAINST Obama must be racist.

And still, you may be demonstrating that Republicans understand why African-Americans favor the policies of the Democratic party, but that has nothing to do with implying that wanting a smaller government is somehow a racist position.


I'm just saying that sticking to the "small government" argument when it came to the issue of ending segregation was a bullshiat cop-out. Read the chapter on civil rights from Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" when you have some free time. He basically says, "Sure, I'd like to end segregation, but my principles forbid me from doing anything about it, even though I know it's wrong."

But hey, it's a free country. I'm free to make an argument with numerous citations to support it. You're free to refuse to comprehend it. It's just the way the Founders wanted it!
 
Displayed 20 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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