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.

(Reading Is For Snobs)   Idiot congressman defends denying poor children school lunches by quoting non-existent scripture   (readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com) divider line 292
    More: Dumbass, congressman, widows and orphans, Meals on Wheels, school lunches, Methodist Church, scriptures, United Methodist  
•       •       •

6533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 9:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-17 11:43:21 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: AiryAnne: So please enlighten us, dumbass.

You're kind of a dick, aren't you?


I didn't start the name calling, Ass.
 
2012-05-17 11:44:04 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.


Loophole!
Give a beggar a twen' and call it a stamped ticket, Hoss!
 
2012-05-17 11:44:39 AM  

Jackson Herring: That was a rhetorical question, I know that you are as usual making a ridiculous "both sides bad" argument.


no, a simplistic understanding on your part, as usual. I think it is a stupid line of questioning. OK, the guy is a hypocrite. How does that impact his policy on school lunches? It doesn't.

Jackson Herring: Seriously, that might be one of the dumbest sentences I've ever seen you type on Fark


if you say so. I don't find ad homs particularly convincing in arguing for or against something. Perhaps you think it is the height of debate. I am referring to the ad hom that Bashir used. Not the one you did. That's just an example of what people with little else to say do.
 
2012-05-17 11:45:57 AM  
You know who else was unexpectedly obsessed with a 'cleanliness of blood' that excluded indigenous Amerindian ancestry?
 
2012-05-17 11:46:13 AM  
Farkin' poor children need to get off of their lazy asses and get a job.
 
2012-05-17 11:47:02 AM  

Rashnu: You know who else was unexpectedly obsessed with a 'cleanliness of blood' that excluded indigenous Amerindian ancestry?


Damnit....
 
2012-05-17 11:47:13 AM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Stop complaining when they don't act like theocrats, left

You be sure & let us all know when that happens, and I promise I'll stop complaining.

right in this instance. A country whose policies were based on the teaching of Jesus would have school lunches and programs to help the poor, no?

The problem isn't that they make policy that goes against their religion, the problem is that they cloak themselves in religion while they do it. The fact that they're hypocrites makes them no less theocratic.


The plans to cut aid to the poor or eliminate health reforms are not cloaked in religion. If he were not a hypocrite, he'd support aid to the poor, school lunches AND bans on abortion. He's a hypocrite. Great. We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs. We just pointed out that the congressman is inconsistent.
 
2012-05-17 11:47:57 AM  

GentDirkly: deadcrickets: GentDirkly: Bendal: GentDirkly: Bendal: I call people who pick and choose quotes out of the Bible to justify their opinions "fake Christians". I work with a lot of them; when we were voting for the amendment that would ban gay marriage (even though we had a law that already made it illegal), I kept hearing how "the Bible says it is wrong" as reason to vote for it. But then, these same people would claim "we don't follow the OT so don't ask why we're wearing two kinds of fabric at the same time, or working on Sunday", but couldn't find a quote in the NT condemning homosexual acts.

/or they could be called hypocrites
//or bigots

Such an NT quote is easily found. Romans 1:26-27. Acts 15. Lots of praise and expounding of male-female marriage, while homosexuality is referred to as a sin belonging in a believer's past. So your co-workers are correct. The word you are looking for is maybe ignorant, but even that is too harsh. They know what it says, they just can't remember exactly which chapter and verse. Hypocritical, maybe, is a better word for you, since you expect them to hold to some vague code of behavior that neither of you understand.

Well yes, there's that phrase, written by Paul, right? So are you saying that this one phrase by a disciple overrules all the quotes by Jesus about helping your fellow man, treating him as you would yourself, etc, etc, etc? Or would you consider that Paul's quote was added by later scribes of the Bible, who added that quote to reflect current (at the time) thinking?

Or do you have some other explanation to justify Paul's comment over those of Jesus?

Acts 15, written by Luke, records unanimous consent by all disciples.

Link

Enough said.

So we don't know for sure that Luke wrote Acts... if we accept that, how do we know for sure that Jesus actually said the things attributed to him in Luke or any other Gospel? You seem to imply that you would respect my analysis if I used only the words of Jesus, not of Paul or o ...


Derp derp derp. Putting words into the mouths of others to hide your own incompetence does not assist your case. Did Jesus or did Jesus not say anything DIRECTLY about people should help themselves? The obvious, non-'You're going to Hell for being a hypocrit and liar" answer is NO, He did not.
 
2012-05-17 11:48:04 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Citrate1007: skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: Stop complaining when they don't act like theocrats, left

what are you even trying to do here

Don't force your religion down our throats. Why are you not forcing your religion down our throats?

Normally I'm all for free speech, but I want a law that makes this phrase illegal.

I vote to change it to "down our pants."

/Why are you forcing your beliefs down my pants?!


works for me
 
2012-05-17 11:48:33 AM  

AiryAnne: I did, but I think Bashir is trying to say that public policy should be shaped on religious doctrine because it fits Bashir's particular opinion on a matter.


Holy christ you're obtuse. Simply because Bashir has certain moral values and opinions on a matter, it doesn't mean they're based on religion. Barton, on the other hand, openly proclaims that his values are grounded in his religion; Bashir was pointing out the hypocrisy in Barton's likely vote.

Get it now?
 
2012-05-17 11:49:33 AM  

skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.


Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy
 
2012-05-17 11:50:09 AM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Stop complaining when they don't act like theocrats, left

You be sure & let us all know when that happens, and I promise I'll stop complaining.

right in this instance. A country whose policies were based on the teaching of Jesus would have school lunches and programs to help the poor, no?

The problem isn't that they make policy that goes against their religion, the problem is that they cloak themselves in religion while they do it. The fact that they're hypocrites makes them no less theocratic.

The plans to cut aid to the poor or eliminate health reforms are not cloaked in religion. If he were not a hypocrite, he'd support aid to the poor, school lunches AND bans on abortion. He's a hypocrite. Great. We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs. We just pointed out that the congressman is inconsistent.


There is NOTHING in the bible that talks against abortion. Indeed, there are points where God, Himself, tells his followers to smash the heads of the little ones against the rocks and more (over nearly 100 verses strewn across the bible).
 
2012-05-17 11:50:26 AM  
And Jesus said, "Eat me."
 
2012-05-17 11:50:28 AM  

AiryAnne: Headso: AiryAnne: People say keep church out of the state. Then Martin Bashir says how can you create policies that contradict church doctrine. That's called putting church into state, the opposite of "separation".

Did you consider that he probably said that because of the past track record of republicans and not as an advocation of mixing church and state?

I did, but I think Bashir is trying to say that public policy should be shaped on religious doctrine because it fits Bashir's particular opinion on a matter.


having a safety net for the poor and infirm is practical, it happens to be something Jesus would agree with so when arguing with a theocrat that wants to take it away you might implore that person using bible stuff.
 
2012-05-17 11:50:59 AM  

AiryAnne: Salt Lick Steady: AiryAnne: So please enlighten us, dumbass.

You're kind of a dick, aren't you?

I didn't start the name calling, Ass.


"But mom, he did it first!" doesn't justify actually behaving like a dick.
 
2012-05-17 11:52:24 AM  

GentDirkly: Such an NT quote is easily found. Romans 1:26-27. Acts 15. Lots of praise and expounding of male-female marriage, while homosexuality is referred to as a sin belonging in a believer's past. So your co-workers are correct. The word you are looking for is maybe ignorant, but even that is too harsh. They know what it says, they just can't remember exactly which chapter and verse. Hypocritical, maybe, is a better word for you, since you expect them to hold to some vague code of behavior that neither of you understand.


Act 15 has nothing to do with homosexuality. It mentions "sexual immorality" rather vaguely, but you would have to prove that this includes homosexuality. There are many things that the writers of the OT and NT considered "sexually immoral" and homosexuality may not have been on their mind.

Romans is probably your best bet for arguing against homosexuality in the NT, but even that is being clearly tied to pagan rituals and worshiping false gods. Such events in Rome were often fertility rites that involved orgies where the people may or may not have been homosexual. This is more about their false idols and perceived culture than homosexuality as we think of it today.
 
2012-05-17 11:53:48 AM  
You have to admit, without a robust poverty population, we won't have anything to really scare the shiat out of the middle class.
 
2012-05-17 11:54:40 AM  

deadcrickets: There is NOTHING in the bible that talks against abortion. Indeed, there are points where God, Himself, tells his followers to smash the heads of the little ones against the rocks and more (over nearly 100 verses strewn across the bible).


pick a topic... gay marriage. Doesn't matter to the point
 
2012-05-17 11:55:42 AM  
AiryAnne 2012-05-17 11:06:20 AM


So now it's ok to remove the separation of church and state?

We must feed the poor, etc because the bible says so?


WTF

is this the new talking point!!!!!??????
 
2012-05-17 11:55:44 AM  

sweetmelissa31: skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.

Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy


Pros: healthy meals for at least one a day
Cons: mind controlling flouride in the government run school drinking fountains
 
2012-05-17 11:56:05 AM  
skullkrusher:

Ah so asking a politician how he reconciles his "fark the poor" policies with the religious beliefs which he has publicly stated influence many of his other policies is not only irrelevant now, but some kind of personal attack? For someone who's entire posting MO is to be a pedantic twat, you are taking some pretty serious liberties here.
 
2012-05-17 11:56:34 AM  

sweetmelissa31: skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.

Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy


You know, if they had a class where they produced something of value, they could pay for their own lunches. If said class was immediately before lunch, they could get a better lunch based on performance (like how many sneakers they sewed or whatever). They'd learn a trade skill and see the immediate benefits to a good work ethic.
 
2012-05-17 11:56:40 AM  

Headso: As soon as republicans found out it was satire they turned on him


And as soon as they Liberals and Occunanistas find out it all ain't satire, (case in point, the repeated quote in this thread from St. Stephen the Martyr) what will happen then?

Just kidding, they'll never find out given their mixture of smug self-satisfaction and feeble intellect (case in point, this thread).
 
2012-05-17 11:59:02 AM  

skullkrusher: The plans to cut aid to the poor or eliminate health reforms are not cloaked in religion.


Oh, please. The entire GOP cloaks itself in religion. They push the idea that the US is a Christian nation, they support and receive support from (self-proclaimed) Christian organizations, they use their Christianity as a campaign tool. The fact that this particular policy is decidedly anti-Christian doesn't change these facts.
 
2012-05-17 12:01:04 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You have to admit, without a robust poverty population, we won't have anything to really scare the shiat out of the middle class.


Truthier words have never been spoken. Are you running for/in office? I want to be in your district.
 
2012-05-17 12:02:14 PM  

Jackson Herring: Ah so asking a politician how he reconciles his "fark the poor" policies with the religious beliefs which he has publicly stated influence many of his other policies is not only irrelevant now, but some kind of personal attack?


It's actually more of a ad hom tu quoque. Using his position on other things to argue against his position on something else. It can certainly give an indication of hypocrisy but it doesn't address the point in question. Since it doesn't address his support for ending school lunches, what is it aside from a personal attack? It isn't a debate on school lunch programs. It's a "you personally are inconsistent". Great. No surprise there. He's a Republican senator. Now about those school lunch programs...

We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.
 
2012-05-17 12:03:22 PM  

skullkrusher: sweetmelissa31: skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.

Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy

Pros: healthy meals for at least one a day
Cons: mind controlling flouride in the government run school drinking fountains


You're kidding, right?
 
2012-05-17 12:03:40 PM  

halfof33: case in point, the repeated quote in this thread from St. Stephen


Advocating for a safety net for the poor isn't really something that liberals don't agree with.
 
2012-05-17 12:03:55 PM  

skullkrusher: sweetmelissa31: skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.

Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy

Pros: healthy meals for at least one a day
Cons: mind controlling flouride in the government run school drinking fountains


The children should, early in the year, be forced to select one of their own for consumption. Generally, they'll pick the fat kid, removing one more hungry undesirable from the pool. The rest of the year, they will be reminded at meal times that they chose one of their own to give his life so the poor might feast.

They won't actually eat the dead kid, mind you. That's how you get prions and stuff. But they'll be told the whole year that they are still eating him. If they picked a skinny or attractive kid, maybe make the portions smaller towards the end of the year and explain the concept of rationing.
 
2012-05-17 12:04:00 PM  

DarwiOdrade: They push the idea that the US is a Christian nation, they support and receive support from (self-proclaimed) Christian organizations


yep

DarwiOdrade: hey use their Christianity as a campaign tool


yep

DarwiOdrade: The fact that this particular policy is decidedly anti-Christian doesn't change these facts.


nope.

so, did they cloak opposition to health care reform in general in Christianity? Of course not, because there is no Christian defense of that opposition.
 
2012-05-17 12:04:36 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Stop complaining when they don't act like theocrats, left

You be sure & let us all know when that happens, and I promise I'll stop complaining.

right in this instance. A country whose policies were based on the teaching of Jesus would have school lunches and programs to help the poor, no?

The problem isn't that they make policy that goes against their religion, the problem is that they cloak themselves in religion while they do it. The fact that they're hypocrites makes them no less theocratic.

The plans to cut aid to the poor or eliminate health reforms are not cloaked in religion. If he were not a hypocrite, he'd support aid to the poor, school lunches AND bans on abortion. He's a hypocrite. Great. We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs. We just pointed out that the congressman is inconsistent.


Now we all know that you believe that a politicians' hypocrisy is not an issue. I am certain that you will be very even handed in how you apply that standard to politicians of all political leanings.
 
2012-05-17 12:05:19 PM  

skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.


But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.
 
2012-05-17 12:06:46 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.

But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.


no, because that doesn't refute their assertions. You argue with them based on the fact that we're a secular country and their faith based laws are not welcome here.
 
2012-05-17 12:07:17 PM  

AiryAnne: lennavan: AiryAnne: So please enlighten us, dumbass.

I would love to.

AiryAnne: People say keep church out of the state.

No no no. Dumbasses say keep church out of the state. People say keep state out of the church. There's an enormous difference. One statement has the backing of the first amendment to the constitution. The other does not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

CONGRESS shall make no law. This tells congress what it cannot do. It does not tell churches what it can or cannot do, indeed, it actively prevents government telling churches what they can or cannot do.

AiryAnne: That's called putting church into state

And? Church into state is perfectly fine. Well, fine as in perfectly legal, still kinda stupid when Bush said shiat like God told him to go invade Iraq. But it was legal. State into church violates the first amendment.

I'm glad I was able to teach you something today but really sad you didn't know it beforehand if you're actually an elected government official.

So you do get it, genius. I was originally pointing out the left's hypocrisy and or ignorance when it comes to church and state. Strangely you understand this, yet do not catch sarcasm.

Bashir is a hard left winger. Hard left wingers blast hard right wingers when they interject their religious views onto the citizenry. Example: gay marriage.

But then a hard left winger tries to use Judeo-Christian reasoning to convince Joe Barton he's wrong on an issue. Neither side should try and use biblical teachings as basis for public policy.


This is true. I'm pretty sure this principle is explicitly stated in the constitution. Doesn't it say something like "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... unless people of faith would express themselves in which case they should shut the hell up -- especially those bleeding heart Christers who are always whining about the damned poor and down-trodden. Congress shall authorize forces to crack their skulls if they get out of line."

That's about how that portion of the first amendment reads, isn't it?
 
2012-05-17 12:07:35 PM  

halfof33: Occunanistas


What do Italian skullf*ckers have to do with this?
 
2012-05-17 12:08:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Now we all know that you believe that a politicians' hypocrisy is not an issue. I am certain that you will be very even handed in how you apply that standard to politicians of all political leanings.



I called the guy a hypocrite 4 or 5 times now. Do you want me to start doing the same for Democrats?
 
2012-05-17 12:08:44 PM  

skullkrusher: so, did they cloak opposition to health care reform in general in Christianity? Of course not, because there is no Christian defense of that opposition.


No, they just hope their base doesn't notice how their policy decisions don't jibe with the values they claim to share.

I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this into an attack on Bashir, except that you're a tool.
 
2012-05-17 12:09:18 PM  

palelizard: skullkrusher: sweetmelissa31: skullkrusher: We still haven't discussed the pros and cons of school lunch programs.

Pros: kids get to eat
Cons: kids don't learn how to be bootstrappy

Pros: healthy meals for at least one a day
Cons: mind controlling flouride in the government run school drinking fountains

The children should, early in the year, be forced to select one of their own for consumption. Generally, they'll pick the fat kid, removing one more hungry undesirable from the pool. The rest of the year, they will be reminded at meal times that they chose one of their own to give his life so the poor might feast.

They won't actually eat the dead kid, mind you. That's how you get prions and stuff. But they'll be told the whole year that they are still eating him. If they picked a skinny or attractive kid, maybe make the portions smaller towards the end of the year and explain the concept of rationing.


ooh, kids love the Hunger Games shiat
 
2012-05-17 12:10:46 PM  

DarwiOdrade: No, they just hope their base doesn't notice how their policy decisions don't jibe with the values they claim to share.


well I think they hope their base shares their same love for selective theocracy. They do.

DarwiOdrade: I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this into an attack on Bashir, except that you're a tool.



"how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot"

Scathing attack. Hehe, "tool". I don't think I've heard that since my dorm in 1994.
 
2012-05-17 12:12:38 PM  

skullkrusher: Tyrano Soros: skullkrusher: "So Bashir quoted scripture to make his case against the Repubicans' policy"

how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot


It's the Republicans that use the Bible to support their policies. It's only right that biblical scripture should be used to counter.
I can say the day republican presidential contenders stop using Jesus as a selling point, your arguments would be valid.

yes, and virtually to a person around these parts we think that's bullshiat. So, most idiot Republican congressmen is are selective Christians and hypocrites. Ric Romero reporting.


FTFY
 
2012-05-17 12:12:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.

But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.

no, because that doesn't refute their assertions. You argue with them based on the fact that we're a secular country and their faith based laws are not welcome here.


If you really want to seriously win a debate with a republican you would just use the most extreme hyperbole possible and keep repeating it as loudly as possible while you cut his mic off. In the real world "Refuting assertions" is laughable as is my suggesting that you implore them using their own religion as a gotcha.
 
2012-05-17 12:13:01 PM  

Headso: Advocating for a safety net for the poor isn't really something that liberals don't agree with


They sure as shiat do when it is cloaked in religion. Tell you what, I'll bring in the lunches next week, if I can give my speech about "5 great days in the Cult of 16.5."

/If you like this post, and want to sponsor me, instead just spend the five bucks on cheap vodka. lolz
 
2012-05-17 12:13:12 PM  
Even IF the Bible had said that quote, it surely wouldn't be talking about school lunches. Children who be definition CANT get a job, who are going to school so that they might have a better future, aren't the ones you should be pointing and saying that they should help themselves.


//Or do they really want child labor? That might be an explanation.
 
2012-05-17 12:14:41 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.

But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.

no, because that doesn't refute their assertions. You argue with them based on the fact that we're a secular country and their faith based laws are not welcome here.

If you really want to seriously win a debate with a republican you would just use the most extreme hyperbole possible and keep repeating it as loudly as possible while you cut his mic off. In the real world "Refuting assertions" is laughable as is my suggesting that you implore them using their own religion as a gotcha.


actually it's just that most Republicans these days don't know when they've lost the debate. It is quite easily winnable
 
2012-05-17 12:14:42 PM  

skullkrusher: ooh, kids love the Hunger Games shiat


Definitely a selling point. We could even combine my two ideas. "Oh, well done, Li'l Billy, you made an extra shoe over your requirements! You get an extra scoop of Timmy Lardass pot pie today!"

The best thing, I think, is that the overachievers then get fattened up and are more likely to be chosen the next year. I think the whole thing will educate children on mediocrity and drudging toil, which is great, as school is supposed to prepare you for the real world.
 
2012-05-17 12:20:13 PM  
This is why I don't attend my old megachurch anymore. It's nothing but a bunch of dumbass Republicans who take Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality dead seriously, but think New Testament exhortations to feed the poor are more of a suggestion.
 
2012-05-17 12:21:16 PM  

AiryAnne: So you do get it, genius. I was originally pointing out the left's hypocrisy and or ignorance when it comes to church and state. Strangely you understand this, yet do not catch sarcasm.

Bashir is a hard left winger. Hard left wingers blast hard right wingers when they interject their religious views onto the citizenry. Example: gay marriage.

But then a hard left winger tries to use Judeo-Christian reasoning to convince Joe Barton he's wrong on an issue. Neither side should try and use biblical teachings as basis for public policy.


No no no, I disagreed with you. When a hard left winger tried to use Judeo-Christian reasoning to convince Joe Barton he's wrong on an issue, it had nothing to do at all with the separation of church and state.

By all means, say it's stupid reasoning. But it is not a separation of church and state issue at all. The irony is you said it was a separation of church and state issue and then called someone else for being a dumbass for not knowing what the hell they were talking about. I just couldn't help but reply, I got so jacked up on your derp.

Tell you what, I won't pass up an opportunity to agree with you so here goes. We'll agree to amend your post:

AiryAnne: So now it's ok to remove the separation of church and state?

We must feed the poor, etc because the bible says so?

And neither one of these dumbasses knows what the hell they are talking about.


Hah, sure I'll agree, why not.
 
2012-05-17 12:22:25 PM  

AiryAnne: I did, but I think Bashir is trying to say that public policy should be shaped on religious doctrine because it fits Bashir's particular opinion on a matter.


I took it as Bashir trying to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP running on religion while simultaneously passing legislation that directly contradicts their own religion.

But I respect your point of view.
 
2012-05-17 12:24:42 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Now we all know that you believe that a politicians' hypocrisy is not an issue. I am certain that you will be very even handed in how you apply that standard to politicians of all political leanings.


I called the guy a hypocrite 4 or 5 times now. Do you want me to start doing the same for Democrats?


No of course not. Why would you? Hypocrisy is unimportant as you have clearly stated, not matter what the political leanings of the politician are. I would expect you never to mention hypocrisy about any politician again. You will only discuss the pros and cons of their policies, right?
 
2012-05-17 12:25:12 PM  

MindStalker: //Or do they really want child labor? That might be an explanation.


A major contender for the GOP Presidential nomination specifically suggested child labor as a solution, so yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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