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.

(Some Chick Fil A)   "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views" - William F Buckley   (dennyburk.com) divider line 594
    More: Obvious, Baptist Press, policy debate, rights movement, liberals  
•       •       •

2305 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 12:00:47 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: I wonder if everyone on Fark would be as outraged if a company wanted to build its business on the principles of Islam.


Yeah, muslims hate teh ghey just as much as christians. It's hate - you can find that in all religion.
 
2012-07-23 12:00:56 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: I wonder if everyone on Fark would be as outraged if a company wanted to build its business on the principles of Islam.


Wonder if anyone would be outraged if Chick Fil A built their business on Christian principles.

/the seem to be trying
//and failing terribly
 
2012-07-23 12:01:52 PM  
and who wants a shiatty piece of chicken with a sad pickle on a sad bun anyway?
 
2012-07-23 12:02:21 PM  

exick: Just because I'm willing to hear your other viewpoint and respect your right to have one, doesn't mean I think your viewpoint is valid or worth respecting. Go cry somewhere else.


More like: just because you have X viewpoint doesn't mean I have to buy your product and support it. Seriously, Dan wants to spend money that way, great. I just won't spend money there so there'll be less of it to support that. Smells like, the market!

Funny how "conservatives" can ban things, boycott places, et al., but when "liberals" do it it's being mean and it's wrong.
 
2012-07-23 12:02:27 PM  
Welcome to the Free Market and Free Speech, may we take your order? Those protesting are within their rights.
 
2012-07-23 12:03:40 PM  
I have a sneaking feeling that if we put that Buckley quote back into context, it's meaning would be different.

Besides conservatives, you gave up your right to use Buckley's corpse when you ostracized his own son from the paper Buckley himself founded.
 
2012-07-23 12:03:44 PM  

Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: FTFA Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies.

I have no problem with this...except that Chick Fil A has stated quite clearly that they don't discriminate. They may be bigots, but they have a right to be bigots. So long as they don't let their bigotry affect the service they give to any and all customers, the city needs to back off.

The outrage over the boycotts is amusing, however. It's always great when idiot conservatives get all up in arms because they think that they have some sort of right to not only say whatever they want, but also to be immune from the public relations fallout from having said it.

Again, I will asked, do they give the same sex spouse of their employees the same benefits they give the hetero spouses? Do they recognize ALL marriages that are legal in Massachusetts or just some?

You tell me.

You were the one repeating their claim that they don't discriminate.

And you're the one asking other people to do your research for you. If you don't like the uncontested assertion in the article, try taking a page out of Theaetetus' book and find your own information.


Oh do forgive me for asking for facts That was a horrible thing for me to do. I must learn to blindly accept corporate PR. Thank you for your instructive example in that matter.
 
2012-07-23 12:04:35 PM  

hugram: Death_Poot: vernonFL: Chik Fil a is entitled to their views and opinions and that is fine, if they want to give money to anti-gay groups, go ahead.

And I won't eat there.

I'll eat there anyway because I like their food and I don't care what political/religious beliefs they have.

What if one of their views affected you directly? Would you still eat there?


yes, I would.................as I said, I don't care.
 
2012-07-23 12:04:44 PM  
Anyway, if they're building where I've hear they're building (where the McDonalds across the street from Faneuil Hall used to be), you'd be an idiot to go there instead of the Belgian fries-and-waffles place on the same block. That place is fantastic and has beer.
 
2012-07-23 12:04:57 PM  
The mayor has no legal right to ban businesses based on the opinions of the owners/managers.

However, I'm all for jumping in with both feet should said business violate anti-discrimination laws in hiring or service. If Chick-a-fil wants to paint a bright red target on their corporate heads, fine.
 
2012-07-23 12:05:22 PM  

slayer199: JK47: However, Menino does have a civic duty to represent the people of Boston and allowing a business to operate in the city, which they uses money from its corporate coffers to fund advocacy efforts to encourage and legally codify discriminatory practices, would run counter to his mandate. Allowing such a company to operate freely would have a negative impact on the civic health of the city and its polity.

Oh, so you're for the government deciding the fate of a business that does not violate laws on discrimination, simply because the owner expresses a viewpoint based on a religious belief? You know what other regime restricted businesses based on religious viewpoints of their owners?

I don't agree with the owner, but I'll will defend his right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and to operate a business (I won't eat there) as his business does NOT discriminate (therefore does not violate any state or federal laws).

I'm all for the free market deciding the fate of Chik-Fil-A in Boston...NOT the government. Citizens are free to march, boycott or whatever...it's NOT the government's domain to determine the consequence of freedom of speech...THAT is up to the people.


Yeah, Chik-Fil-A is on the verge of bankruptcy - they're completely done unless they open this one store in Boston.

How is this in any way a freedom of speech issue? No one is trying to silence Chik-Fil-A. A city is saying - and they are completely within their rights to do so - that they are not interested in having this business in their city. Many major cities don't allow Wal-Marts. My parents live in a town that doesn't allow chain stores. This sort of thing happens all the time.

And, if the assertions in the Forbes article are accurate, Chik-Fil-A does indeed violate Massachusetts state law.
 
2012-07-23 12:05:42 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: odinsposse: Freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism. I'm sorry that being a bigot has repercussions for you but you'll get over it.

absolutely. However, Mennino suggesting that he will use the power of government to punish that speech is probably not kosher. Boycotts are the way to go, not denying them licenses because of comments by their President.

It's no different than the city of Seattle refusing to allow Walmart to open any stores within city limits.


it is if their issue with Walmart is not based on protected speech
 
2012-07-23 12:06:34 PM  
the intolerance of intolerance is hypocritical
 
2012-07-23 12:06:46 PM  
By the author's reasoning, a doctor that wants to heal you and a crook that wants to throw you through a wood chipper both have valid arguments and you should consider them without bias.
 
2012-07-23 12:07:25 PM  

theknuckler_33: colon_pow: they weren't discriminating, just spoke of their traditional values.

the moronic hatred and intolerance that generated is expected and humorous.

oh, and boston is famous for banning things.

Traditional values... denying equality to people because 'ewww'. What a great value to be proud of.


i don't believe they were denying anybody anything...
but carry on
 
2012-07-23 12:07:37 PM  

keithgabryelski: the intolerance of intolerance is hypocritical


I hate you because you hate things.
 
2012-07-23 12:07:43 PM  

natazha: The mayor has no legal right to ban businesses based on the opinions of the owners/managers.


He absolutely does. There are plenty of places that do not allow Wal-Marts to open for much flimsier reasons.
 
2012-07-23 12:07:49 PM  

Rincewind53: I'm 100% okay with boycotting Chick-fil-A

But I'm horrified to agree with Buckley about what Mayor Menino said. It's actually not okay for the mayor of Boston to say that (essentially) any business that publically opposes gay marriage will not be allowed to open in the city.

To recap: private opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = great, public opposition to private corporation's political use of funds = censorship.


...so we can put strip clubs next to elementary schools, then?
 
2012-07-23 12:08:25 PM  

slayer199: a business that does not violate laws on discrimination



Already proven wrong further up this page. But keep farking that chicken
 
2012-07-23 12:08:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: odinsposse: Freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism. I'm sorry that being a bigot has repercussions for you but you'll get over it.

absolutely. However, Mennino suggesting that he will use the power of government to punish that speech is probably not kosher. Boycotts are the way to go, not denying them licenses because of comments by their President.

It's no different than the city of Seattle refusing to allow Walmart to open any stores within city limits.

it is if their issue with Walmart is not based on protected speech


"Protected" speech? Corporate PR is in no way "protected".
 
2012-07-23 12:08:44 PM  

zarberg: So, I challenge any Christian to point out where in the Bible Jesus himself specifically spoke out against homosexuality. Not one of his apostles, not the Old Testament, not a vague reference. Jesus himself.


Aldon: //try reading the Constitution of the USA.


It's sort of amusing that as much as modern conservatives deify the Bible and the Constitution, not only have none of them read them, but they all seem to be hard set on doing the literal opposite of every last paragraph. Both God and the Founding Fathers would be farking pissed if they could be.
 
2012-07-23 12:08:55 PM  
Your conservative viewpoints from 1950 made in 1950 - Interesting.

Your conservative viewpoints from 1950 made in 2012 - Retarded, worthless, 0/10, f*ck off, bridge-dweller.

FLCJC - It's not our fault you live in the f*cking past, dude.™
 
2012-07-23 12:09:08 PM  
So the political party that tried to prevent a house of worship from opening in NYC is upset because a chik-fil-a may not open in Boston. Kind of speaks volumes about their priorities.
 
2012-07-23 12:09:45 PM  
Translation - whaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a rich white man and I'm so oppressed by liberals. Whaaaaaaaaa.
 
2012-07-23 12:10:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: FTFA Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies.

I have no problem with this...except that Chick Fil A has stated quite clearly that they don't discriminate. They may be bigots, but they have a right to be bigots. So long as they don't let their bigotry affect the service they give to any and all customers, the city needs to back off.

The outrage over the boycotts is amusing, however. It's always great when idiot conservatives get all up in arms because they think that they have some sort of right to not only say whatever they want, but also to be immune from the public relations fallout from having said it.

Again, I will asked, do they give the same sex spouse of their employees the same benefits they give the hetero spouses? Do they recognize ALL marriages that are legal in Massachusetts or just some?

You tell me.

You were the one repeating their claim that they don't discriminate.

And you're the one asking other people to do your research for you. If you don't like the uncontested assertion in the article, try taking a page out of Theaetetus' book and find your own information.

Oh do forgive me for asking for facts That was a horrible thing for me to do. I must learn to blindly accept corporate PR. Thank you for your instructive example in that matter.


You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but I'm not doing your research for you. Get over it.
 
2012-07-23 12:11:29 PM  

Poopspasm: So the political party that tried to prevent a house of worship from opening in NYC is upset because a chik-fil-a may not open in Boston. Kind of speaks volumes about their priorities.


Chik-Fil-A is a house of worship for many who are tastebud-challenged. God damn co-workers love that shiat, it's pretty damn Meh to me.
 
2012-07-23 12:12:36 PM  
Also, conservatives are just incredibly pissed that people can hear their dog whistles now, aren't they?
 
2012-07-23 12:12:41 PM  

colon_pow: theknuckler_33: colon_pow: they weren't discriminating, just spoke of their traditional values.

the moronic hatred and intolerance that generated is expected and humorous.

oh, and boston is famous for banning things.

Traditional values... denying equality to people because 'ewww'. What a great value to be proud of.

i don't believe they were denying anybody anything...
but carry on


Now you are just being obtuse.
 
2012-07-23 12:12:51 PM  

Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: FTFA Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies.

I have no problem with this...except that Chick Fil A has stated quite clearly that they don't discriminate. They may be bigots, but they have a right to be bigots. So long as they don't let their bigotry affect the service they give to any and all customers, the city needs to back off.

The outrage over the boycotts is amusing, however. It's always great when idiot conservatives get all up in arms because they think that they have some sort of right to not only say whatever they want, but also to be immune from the public relations fallout from having said it.

Again, I will asked, do they give the same sex spouse of their employees the same benefits they give the hetero spouses? Do they recognize ALL marriages that are legal in Massachusetts or just some?

You tell me.

You were the one repeating their claim that they don't discriminate.

And you're the one asking other people to do your research for you. If you don't like the uncontested assertion in the article, try taking a page out of Theaetetus' book and find your own information.

Oh do forgive me for asking for facts That was a horrible thing for me to do. I must learn to blindly accept corporate PR. Thank you for your instructive example in that matter.

You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but I'm not doing your research for you. Get over it.


Or any research beyond what Chik-Fil-A's PR department says, apparently.
 
2012-07-23 12:13:11 PM  

cefm: Having an opinion or a belief is not the problem.

The problem is setting up laws/rules/business practices that allow you to inflict your personal opinion/belief on others who do not share that opinion/belief.

In this case Chick-Fil-A treats employees who are in male-female married relationships differently than it treats gay couples (legally married or not). This means that all employees are doing the same work, but some benefit more from that work than others. By definition unfair. And it should be illegal. But since it's not, it can just be pointed out as a douchebag practice and they can be held accountable by the market for it.


now you're just making stuff up.
 
2012-07-23 12:13:30 PM  

Epoch_Zero: 1. State homophobic views
2. See backlash from statement
3. Cry oppression over backlash

Classic conservative strategy.


1. Preach tolerance.
2. Listen to views of others rooted in their philosophical convictions and personal beliefs.
3. Express intolerance over other views because, hey, "THEY'RE WRONG."

Classic liberal doctrine.

God Bless Chick-fil-A.
 
2012-07-23 12:13:32 PM  

Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: Philip Francis Queeg: Emposter: FTFA Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies.

I have no problem with this...except that Chick Fil A has stated quite clearly that they don't discriminate. They may be bigots, but they have a right to be bigots. So long as they don't let their bigotry affect the service they give to any and all customers, the city needs to back off.

The outrage over the boycotts is amusing, however. It's always great when idiot conservatives get all up in arms because they think that they have some sort of right to not only say whatever they want, but also to be immune from the public relations fallout from having said it.

Again, I will asked, do they give the same sex spouse of their employees the same benefits they give the hetero spouses? Do they recognize ALL marriages that are legal in Massachusetts or just some?

You tell me.

You were the one repeating their claim that they don't discriminate.

And you're the one asking other people to do your research for you. If you don't like the uncontested assertion in the article, try taking a page out of Theaetetus' book and find your own information.

Oh do forgive me for asking for facts That was a horrible thing for me to do. I must learn to blindly accept corporate PR. Thank you for your instructive example in that matter.

You can accept or not accept whatever you want, but I'm not doing your research for you. Get over it.


Emposter, Phillip, you should both move on. I already did the research and showed above that there's evidence that they do discriminate, as well as several pending and settled lawsuits. Stop discussing whose responsibility the research is, and discuss what steps should be taken in view of established facts.
 
2012-07-23 12:13:45 PM  

coeyagi: Poopspasm: So the political party that tried to prevent a house of worship from opening in NYC is upset because a chik-fil-a may not open in Boston. Kind of speaks volumes about their priorities.

Chik-Fil-A is a house of worship for many who are tastebud-challenged. God damn co-workers love that shiat, it's pretty damn Meh to me.


I have to admit my affection for the chicken club sandwich. Other than that, I agree.
 
2012-07-23 12:15:00 PM  

tomWright: That is a violation of the First Amendment, (at the least), to say that you will keep a private business out of your city based on that business views. It is one thing to not give taxpayer money to discriminatory businesses, it is another to ban them when they are abiding by the law.


...except it's been a tradition to make the law harder for those whom you agree with to abide to. As I said, strip clubs are but one of the many businesses who not only can't just open up anywhere, but would also be barred from Boston's Freedom Trail. To think that this never has been done in our nation's history, or that it isn't actively going on right now with certain businesses, is naive and hypocritical.
 
2012-07-23 12:15:02 PM  

tomWright: WFB was one of the few, and probably one of the last, truly class acts in U.S. political discourse on any side of the spectrum, agree or disagree with him.

Chik-fil-a and its owner have the right to espouse any ideas they want.

We have a right to ridicule and criticize them for it, boycott and generally lambast them for it. Or agree with them as the case may be.

From what I have seen, they do not discriminate regarding their customers. I do not see, in that article, whether there is any discrimination in who run their franchises or stores. (Are they franchises or company owned?)

Personally, I will not purchase from them, but that is my choice.

However, this, from a government official, is wrong:
" Mayor Thomas Menino in his own words:

Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion. That's the Freedom Trail. That's where it all started right here. And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail... If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult - unless they open up their policies."

So they are an open city, except for those they disagree with.

That is a violation of the First Amendment, (at the least), to say that you will keep a private business out of your city based on that business views. It is one thing to not give taxpayer money to discriminatory businesses, it is another to ban them when they are abiding by the law.

Not funding the Boy Scouts with tax dollars, because they claim to be a religious group that denies entry to gays and atheists is OK. You should not be giving money from taxpayers to a group that discriminates against those same taxpayers. If Boston want to not give city contracts to Chick-fil-a that would be probably be justified as well, depending on the companies actual policies.

But banning them from the city would b ...


Freedom of speech does is not a blank check for slander and fraud.
Chick Fil-A's executives lied about themselves, God, Christ, themselves and the United States.
Go have an opinion; nobody is trying to force anyone's opinion about white meat or dark meat (I'm talking about chicken; try to stay focused), or fried vs. roasted chicken. It's stating as fact that which every responsible adult knows is false, and then making it policy.
Nobody gets to do that.
 
2012-07-23 12:15:08 PM  

qorkfiend: And, if the assertions in the Forbes article are accurate, Chik-Fil-A does indeed violate Massachusetts state law.


If that is the case then it should be handled in the courts, fined, etc.

The point I was making is two-fold. First, the owner is entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those protections are from the government restricting those freedoms. That doesn't mean they're free from criticism from the People. Citizens are free to criticize as an exercise of their freedom of speech.

For the mayor to state that they're not free to do business in the city is the government restricting business based on the comments of the owner (the mayor said nothing about violations of state law in his comments).

I'm not defending the owner's beliefs (as I disagree with them)....just their freedom to have them without government restriction. Ultimately, the people will decide the success/failure of the business the the repercussions of those beliefs.
 
2012-07-23 12:16:02 PM  

colon_pow: they weren't discriminating, just spoke of their traditional values.

the moronic hatred and intolerance that generated is expected and humorous.

oh, and boston is famous for banning things.


Amusingly, the things Boston is most famous for banning are what might be termed "liberal" books: Ulysses, Lady Chatterly's Lover, Naked Lunch, etc.
 
2012-07-23 12:17:58 PM  

qorkfiend: "Protected" speech? Corporate PR is in no way "protected".


Hey they're people too!
 
2012-07-23 12:18:00 PM  

Jodeo: 1. Preach tolerance.
2. Listen to views of others rooted in their philosophical convictions and personal beliefs.
3. Express intolerance over other views because, hey, "THEY'RE WRONG."


...look up the definition of "tolerance" sometime. It doesn't mean "bend over for every little backwards ideology that comes along".
 
2012-07-23 12:18:23 PM  

Jodeo: 3. Express intolerance over other views because, hey, "THEY'RE WRONG."


I think you mean

Express intolerance of groups who spend money blocking people from having basic rights

But keep farking that made up strawman instead
 
2012-07-23 12:18:38 PM  

slayer199: qorkfiend: And, if the assertions in the Forbes article are accurate, Chik-Fil-A does indeed violate Massachusetts state law.

If that is the case then it should be handled in the courts, fined, etc.

The point I was making is two-fold. First, the owner is entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those protections are from the government restricting those freedoms. That doesn't mean they're free from criticism from the People. Citizens are free to criticize as an exercise of their freedom of speech.

For the mayor to state that they're not free to do business in the city is the government restricting business based on the comments of the owner (the mayor said nothing about violations of state law in his comments).

I'm not defending the owner's beliefs (as I disagree with them)....just their freedom to have them without government restriction. Ultimately, the people will decide the success/failure of the business the the repercussions of those beliefs.


How is Massachusetts in general, and the city of Boston in particular, restricting the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion of the owners of Chik-Fil-A? They're still free to say whatever they want and practice whatever religion they want.
 
2012-07-23 12:18:58 PM  
I'm perfectly willing to listen to other views, then tell them why they're wrong. I expect though, that if someone wants me to listen to them in the name of "open-mindedness", that they will be willing to my critique in return.
 
2012-07-23 12:19:18 PM  
How hypocritical of them. Everyone knows that truly traditional marriage was an agreement between two men.
 
2012-07-23 12:19:36 PM  
i149.photobucket.com
Nnnyyyess - I was led to believe I was stumping for Long John Silvers - not this poultry purveyor?
Have my attorney call my agent.
 
2012-07-23 12:19:38 PM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: odinsposse: Freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism. I'm sorry that being a bigot has repercussions for you but you'll get over it.

absolutely. However, Mennino suggesting that he will use the power of government to punish that speech is probably not kosher. Boycotts are the way to go, not denying them licenses because of comments by their President.

It's no different than the city of Seattle refusing to allow Walmart to open any stores within city limits.

it is if their issue with Walmart is not based on protected speech

"Protected" speech? Corporate PR is in no way "protected".


A) it probably is... being people and all that
B) Mennino responded to the President of C-F-A's comments
 
2012-07-23 12:19:41 PM  

slayer199: For the mayor to state that they're not free to do business in the city is the government restricting business based on the comments of the owner (the mayor said nothing about violations of state law in his comments).


And? "Freedom to do business" is not a constitutionally protected right.
 
2012-07-23 12:20:10 PM  

tomWright: Let the customers decide.



The city is a customer, and it decided

The end
 
2012-07-23 12:20:27 PM  
If you want to see Buckley getting his ass kicked the YouTube video of his debate with a young Chomsky is a good example. Chomsky doesn't even seem to be exerting the slightest effort. He almost seems bored. Buckley was a really stupid man. He was basically an idiot right wing talk show host with a slightly better vocabulary than the Neanderthals that conservatives listen to today. Buckleys words were different but the logic is exactly the same as the current losers on old fart radio.
 
2012-07-23 12:23:43 PM  

IlGreven: ...look up the definition of "tolerance" sometime. It doesn't mean "bend over for every little backwards ideology that comes along".


They're just following the example set by the current group of Republicans in the Senate and House - "compromise" means you get 99% of your way and you'll be open to maybe possibly discussing someday about the other side's 1%.
 
2012-07-23 12:23:59 PM  

Aldon: The Government does not have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Private citizens can protest and block construction of the Chic-fil-A all they want.

If the Government stopped the construction of a Chic-fil-A simply because of someone's beliefs, that is wrong.

The head of Chic-fil-A has a right to express his beliefs without consequences from the government.

/there could be other issues at play though.


Religious beliefs don't play into this. Chick Fil-A's executives made false statements about Gays, God, Christ and the United States. The fact that also lied about Christian values and traditional families doesn't make this a religious issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | 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