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.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court says asking "Papers, please" is perfectly okay, but overturns rest of Arizona immigration law   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 392
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

14011 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:29 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 12:31:24 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: No, but if you are a Guatemalan illegal immigrant in Mexico and get caught you're going to have a bad day.

It has been proposed that we take Mexico's illegal immigrant laws, translate them into English, and enact them just to get them to STFU. They are more strict than ours.


I always loathe this line of reasoning. We're The United States of America see, we're supposed to do things differently. Arguing that we should enforce draconian laws of 3rd world countries, just to show 'em is retarded.
 
2012-06-25 12:31:25 PM  

simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.


Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2012-06-25 12:32:43 PM  

jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?


This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.
 
2012-06-25 12:32:50 PM  
Ha! So the part that really pissed people off was the main part left standing. That's fantastic.
 
2012-06-25 12:33:11 PM  

simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.


Rights aren't just for Americans. American citizenship rights are a sub-set of universal rights.
 
2012-06-25 12:33:28 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Hmmm, that would be a pretty nifty way of going around slavery laws ... Oh, those brown people aren't American citizens, they're my property ... hmmmm ...
 
2012-06-25 12:33:54 PM  
Fox Nation

cloudfront.mediamatters.org

vs

Fox News Latino

cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
2012-06-25 12:33:58 PM  

pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.



Ok, so does the detaining of the driver violate some federal law?
 
2012-06-25 12:34:29 PM  

Blowmonkey: TheGreatGazoo: No, but if you are a Guatemalan illegal immigrant in Mexico and get caught you're going to have a bad day.

It has been proposed that we take Mexico's illegal immigrant laws, translate them into English, and enact them just to get them to STFU. They are more strict than ours.

I always loathe this line of reasoning. We're The United States of America see, we're supposed to do things differently. Arguing that we should enforce draconian laws of 3rd world countries, just to show 'em is retarded.


No more retarded than letting anyone and everyone come in without any controlls or consequences.
 
2012-06-25 12:34:38 PM  
what a shocking turn of events, just kidding we cannot trust the corrupt political scum with our well being anymore!
 
2012-06-25 12:35:18 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fox Nation

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 428x313]

vs

Fox News Latino

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 450x340]


Fox knows to feed different people different bullshiat.
 
2012-06-25 12:36:28 PM  

pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.


Sounds like a whole lot of hassle for just a broken light ... oh, that's right, I forgot, you're all racist, fear-mongering, wankers to feel their need to be vindictive pricks to anyone who didn't come here 'legally' ... Maybe we should ask the Native Americans what they think of that ... oooh, the lulzy that would be if SCOTUS determined the USA to be an illegal occupation ... hahaha.
 
2012-06-25 12:36:31 PM  
As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.

He also drew a penis in the margin.
 
2012-06-25 12:37:29 PM  

Somacandra: mrshowrules: "Papers please" is what they really wanted. They won.

No, they didn't. The Court said they wanted guidance from the State Courts. This just means the law will be in effect for about a month when the ACLU challenges it in State Court. It just means there will be a Round 2. That's all.


This.

The SC can't/won't really rule on any racial profiling or civil liberties related issues until someone brings it before the court in that respect. Not striking down that last section of SB 1070 was written in such a way to say "Not yet, but give us a good argument and it'll be considered"
 
2012-06-25 12:37:31 PM  
Apparently, I was wrong...

www.wearysloth.com

/not obscure
 
2012-06-25 12:37:33 PM  
I wonder how Kris Kobach is taking this loss? He is the one who has been writing these anti immigration bill for the states that want them.
 
2012-06-25 12:37:44 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.
 
2012-06-25 12:38:02 PM  

pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.


I think in your example, impounding the vehicle would be an option.

In the Arizona law ruled on, you can have pulled over a person for being brown (nothing else) and asked them for papers. Hell, you still can I guess.
 
2012-06-25 12:38:06 PM  

Joe Blowme: James!: Joe Blowme: FARK, where protecting a country's Sovereignty is a bad thing.

Hey, at least we know what sovereignty means.

[www.acebmc.com image 630x380]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-25 12:38:16 PM  

pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.


So basically we're left with something that sounds reasonable, but because the Feds refuse to enforce the law, we're basically right back where we started.

*sigh*
 
2012-06-25 12:38:38 PM  

VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?


If illegal immigration from the US they certainly would. Ask someone from El Salvador about trying to get into Mexico illegally, they watch their southern border like a hawk.

Guarding your nations borders against the unwanted, how does it work?
 
2012-06-25 12:39:30 PM  

RobertBruce: rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.


You don't know what the word "jurisdiction" means, do you?
 
2012-06-25 12:40:01 PM  
 
2012-06-25 12:40:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fox Nation

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 428x313]

vs

Fox News Latino

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 450x340]


If there's one thing Fox is good at, it's how to market to their target audiences.
 
2012-06-25 12:40:36 PM  

seadoo2006: pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.

Sounds like a whole lot of hassle for just a broken light ... oh, that's right, I forgot, you're all racist, fear-mongering, wankers to feel their need to be vindictive pricks to anyone who didn't come here 'legally' ... Maybe we should ask the Native Americans what they think of that ... oooh, the lulzy that would be if SCOTUS determined the USA to be an illegal occupation ... hahaha.


Wow, so much retardation. When did legality = race? You sound racist.
 
2012-06-25 12:40:37 PM  

topcon: Gotfire: [i45.tinypic.com image 306x310]

Meanwhile on Freerepublic...

I went on Freerepublic to try and find a funny post to repost here, but that website is an utter piece of shiat. It looks like it was designed by the same dumbfark who started it.

WEB GURU.

[my2bucks.files.wordpress.com image 639x450]


Why is this mangy, smelly looking Fark posing with a hot Latina?
 
2012-06-25 12:40:38 PM  
You know who else required papers?

/boo yah
 
2012-06-25 12:41:16 PM  

hdhale: but because the Feds refuse to enforce the law, we're basically right back where we started.


You have any citations on this? Because the Feds have deported a RECORD number of people during the Obama administration. Link
 
2012-06-25 12:41:31 PM  

jaybeezey: your nation


You are a collectivist.

Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature, and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation.
 
2012-06-25 12:41:44 PM  

Joe Blowme: James!: Joe Blowme: FARK, where protecting a country's Sovereignty is a bad thing.

Hey, at least we know what sovereignty means.

[www.acebmc.com image 630x380]


Thats the absolute worst meme pic I have ever seen. The correct answer would have been to use the one with no words on it.
 
2012-06-25 12:41:48 PM  

what_now: RobertBruce: rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.

You don't know what the word "jurisdiction" means, do you?


They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.
 
2012-06-25 12:42:26 PM  

hdhale: pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.

So basically we're left with something that sounds reasonable, but because the Feds refuse to enforce the law, we're basically right back where we started.

*sigh*


It's reasoable to pull random people off of the street and ask for their ID?

I mean it's one thing if you got arrested and they wanted to check your immigration status. But it's another, and pretty absurd, to just pick on a random person who looks "suspicious".
 
2012-06-25 12:43:22 PM  

Nabb1: And Roberts was the key vote. How about that.


It's not often you find a "key" vote in an unanimous decision.
 
2012-06-25 12:43:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Statement by the President on the Supreme Court's Ruling on Arizona v. the United States

A patchwork of state laws is not a solution...


Obama's answer to everything.
 
2012-06-25 12:43:54 PM  

RobertBruce: They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.


That is completely wrong. What you're saying is that if an illegal immigrant murders someone, we can't charge him, because we don't have jurisdiction over that person. Try again.
 
2012-06-25 12:45:09 PM  

jigger: pxsteel: jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.


Ok, so does the detaining of the driver violate some federal law?


Not directly. It is being interpreted that the feds are the only ones that can detain.
 
2012-06-25 12:45:09 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fox Nation

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 428x313]

vs

Fox News Latino

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 450x340]



Faux News knows the rednecks don't read their Latino edition, so they can pander to the Latinos on one site, and laugh at them over on their usual redneck edition.
 
2012-06-25 12:45:47 PM  

what_now: RobertBruce: They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.

That is completely wrong. What you're saying is that if an illegal immigrant murders someone, we can't charge him, because we don't have jurisdiction over that person. Try again.



True but they could be summarily executed as a good warning against other illegals committing crimes here.
 
2012-06-25 12:46:06 PM  
Ihre Papiere, bitte

3.bp.blogspot.com

Well alright then as long we're just fascists and not nazis I guess it's okay.
 
2012-06-25 12:46:16 PM  

RobertBruce: rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.


So the word "person" in the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses implies a requirement of citizenship even though the drafters used the word "citizen" in the Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities clauses?
 
2012-06-25 12:47:19 PM  

Dante87336: Apparently, everybody won.That is the interpretation that I keep hearing about it


It's a pretty bad interpretation, but that's our media for you, the good old false balance/equivalence. Heaven forbid they actually report the reality: nearly all of the law was struck down, and they indicated that if the part that wasn't struck down is applied as everyone seems to think it will be, that part will be struck down as well.

Or as a libertarian friend of mine said, It's flipping the double bird to Sheriff Joe.
 
2012-06-25 12:47:30 PM  
Here's the problem with "Papers Please." It means that illegals can never call the cops. They are free game to be raped, stolen from, exploited by employers, just about everything short of being murdered. And in a society where everyone is a criminal just by being there, where's the line? Might as well rob from people, run drugs, turn tricks, because, fark these people.

They think they are arguing for law and order while in reality they are unleashing the lord of the flies only with Mexicans instead of white boys.
 
2012-06-25 12:47:33 PM  

jigger: So were the parts they struck down simply clashing with federal law? Is that the reason they gave? Or did they say they were unconstitutional for some reason?


I haven't read the ruling, just seen news reports. I believe they are things that are the responsibilty of the federal government. Procedures relating the detention and deportation of illegal aliens. The federal law pre-empts the state law so the state law was thrown out.
 
2012-06-25 12:48:08 PM  

RobertBruce: what_now: RobertBruce: rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.

You don't know what the word "jurisdiction" means, do you?

They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.


Oh wow! The US doesn't have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants! Great news, everyone, illegal immigrants can just break any law they want because the courts have no jurisdiction over them! That's so cool!

/not only do you not know what the 14th Amendment means, you definitely don't know what jurisdiction means.
 
2012-06-25 12:48:10 PM  

RobertBruce: They didn't enter legally, there is no jurisdiction.


What?
 
2012-06-25 12:48:12 PM  

RobertBruce: rufus-t-firefly: simon_bar_sinister: Want to know what's reasonable here? STOP illegal immigration ... period. Let anyone in that their home govt doesn't recognize as a criminal, turn away those that are. If you come here to work fine get a visa. No visa no work. Be a criminal here - out you go never to return. Also no legitimate entry and a visa = no rights.

Yeah, see, here's your problem: the Constitution refers to rights of "people," not just "citizens."

The government can't deny you due process or equal protection under the law just because of your citizenship status.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's not the constitution of the world. It only applies to the people it represents.


No. It applies to the US government. Neither the states nor the feds are permitted to deny any person life, liberty, or property without due process.
 
2012-06-25 12:48:28 PM  

RexTalionis: Remember when the legal commentators were remarking, during oral arguments, that the Supreme Court appears to be favoring Arizona and poised to deal another defeat to Solicitor General Verilli?


Yeah I found that really strange. I kept reading headlines and discussions about how badly the SG blew it and how the SC was obviously not on his side, so I went and grabbed the oral arguments, and my impression was exactly the opposite, and based on what I heard I more or less predicted this exact outcome. At the time I figured it was me that wasn't very good at interpreting what I heard because how could so many veteran court observers be wrong, and I be right?

As it turns out I get to feel smart for a day or two.
 
2012-06-25 12:48:31 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Dusk-You-n-Me: Fox Nation

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 428x313]

vs

Fox News Latino

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 450x340]


Faux News knows the rednecks don't read their Latino edition, so they can pander to the Latinos on one site, and laugh at them over on their usual redneck edition.


It's like how Fox News can cater to the ultra-religious conservative while the Fox Network shows some of the raunchiest and most controversial programming on over-the-air television.

Although Fox has tamed itself in recent years. I think we're past the days of reality shows involving plastic surgery as the prize.
 
2012-06-25 12:48:36 PM  

fustanella: You know who else required papers?

/boo yah


Every state in the union if you are driving a car and get pulled over? Or open a bank account? or buy beer? or apply for a loan? get a drivers license? ect...
 
2012-06-25 12:49:36 PM  
LOL: "CNN National Political Correspondent Jim Acosta reports that Mitt Romney's campaign is not saying anything and is being cautious," - CNN'S SCOTUS live-blog
 
Displayed 50 of 392 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report