If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Jim Carrey talking out of his ass again   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 160
    More: Interesting, Jim Carrey, assault rifles, Bob Costas, liberal elite  
•       •       •

11362 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 02:23:35 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens. Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.



Can you even name a non "military style" gun?


A magnum pi
 
2013-02-07 02:24:12 PM  

vernonFL: Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.


In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.
 
2013-02-07 02:25:25 PM  
People wouldn't know what guns are if it wasn't for school shootings.
 
2013-02-07 02:27:30 PM  

vudukungfu: Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

basemetal: Meh, most gun owners don't give a ratz azz what Jim Carry thinks.

What if I don't give a Rat's Ass about Newtown, and just wanted to buy the best available varmint rifle with the cheapest accessories because I raise sheep and don't' like coyotes and need something with night vision? What if the whole Newtown thing is an issue of NOT LETTING YOUR MENTALLY DISTURBED CROTCHDROPPINGS ACCESS YOUR STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED WEAPONS, YOU FREAKING PREPPER PSYCHO, SHUT UP YOU FARKING JERSEY TURD.
Really. What if?
I'm not pumping out farking ankle biters with issues and keeping guns out where they can get to them.
I'm breeding nice wool and mutton.
I don't need rabid or hungry predators in my stock.
I don't care about your suburban problems.
You fix your farked up people and leave us people who aren't harming anyone alone.
Nothing should change for us.
Your crisis is YOUR crisis.
You made it or made it up. I don't care.
I don't want my sheep gettin' et up.
That doesn't make me an asshole.
Trying to keep me from letting my sheep get et up makes you and asshole.


So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.
 
2013-02-07 02:30:26 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.


How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?
 
2013-02-07 02:30:44 PM  
Dead kids and gun profits go together like AR-15s and mental illness.
 
2013-02-07 02:32:28 PM  

vudukungfu: JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.

How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?


Well, if you don't care about my suburban problems why should I care about your hillbilly problems?
 
2013-02-07 02:34:12 PM  

funmonger: vernonFL: Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.

In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.


From the US perspective, I'd call it more of a stalemate. ( we were lucky that the British Empire had bigger fish to fry in Europe, otherwise, they would send officers like Wellington to stomp us into the ground...)
 
2013-02-07 02:34:13 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I agree with Carrey 1000%.

Of course, I am about as anti-gun as possible, so I would agree with him, wouldn't I?

Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.  Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.


This.  One difference.  You can have a shotgun.  That's all the home defense you need.
 
2013-02-07 02:34:14 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Well, if you don't care about my suburban problems why should I care about your hillbilly problems?


Cause you buy my wool at your retail outlets.
 
2013-02-07 02:34:58 PM  
Sssssssmokin'!!!

Barrels
 
2013-02-07 02:36:25 PM  
Whatever happened to our God given right of Freedom of Tweet?
 
2013-02-07 02:36:28 PM  

vudukungfu: JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.

How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?


Tree-fiddy....and it would be reimbursed on your taxes.
 
2013-02-07 02:37:06 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Don't worry, guns.  Someone will be here to rescue you from the bad nasty man that talks out of his ass for laughs.




You know, I can't look at a car without thinking of all the lives of people I cared for that lost their lives due to horrific auto "accidents."

It really is better to blame the instrument.

/Ban cars!
//Reasonable voting licensing.
 
2013-02-07 02:37:51 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: funmonger: vernonFL: Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.

In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.

From the US perspective, I'd call it more of a stalemate. ( we were lucky that the British Empire had bigger fish to fry in Europe, otherwise, they would send officers like Wellington to stomp us into the ground...)


Ironically enough - 2/3rd's of the population of Upper Canada was 'merikun-born at the time of the 1812 invasion. It was sibling-rivalry run amok.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:08 PM  

PsyLord: Buying an AR-15 for home defense is just a silly idea.  In fact, I was looking into one of these... for home defense:

[www.gunpundit.com image 282x104]


Jams on cheap ammo and is a pain to clean, but shoot like a .22 and actually is a reasonable choice with the 5.5" barrel compared to an AR-15 or any other rifle.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:10 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.


So you're pissed that people want to own guns that *LOOK*, but don't *FUNCTION*, the same as military guns?

It's all about style, right?  The Firearms Fashion Police, or FFP.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:38 PM  
Hey look, its another thread for the idiots to get irrational in... no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago, New York or Australia, we can't have logic get used on the irrational sheeple...
 
2013-02-07 02:42:10 PM  
It seems like a disproportionate number of 2nd amendment supporters have a problem with people exercising their 1st amendment rights.
 
2013-02-07 02:42:29 PM  

dewright_ca: no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago,


lolwut?
 
2013-02-07 02:45:28 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

So you're pissed that people want to own guns that *LOOK*, but don't *FUNCTION*, the same as military guns?

It's all about style, right?  The Firearms Fashion Police, or FFP.


More deliberate ignorance.

style http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab# version=6,0,0,0" width="13" height="21" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; margin: 1px;"> (st
n.1.The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed:  a style of speech and writing.2.The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.3.Sort; type:  a style of furniture.4.A quality of imagination and individuality expressed in one's actions and tastes:  does things with style.5.a.A comfortable and elegant mode of existence:  living in style.b.A mode of living:  the style of the very rich.6.a.The fashion of the moment, especially of dress; vogue.b.A particular fashion:  the style of the 1920s. See Synonyms at7.A customary manner of presenting printed material, including usage, punctuation, spelling, typography, and arrangement.8.A form of address; a title.9.a.An implement used for etching or engraving.b.A slender pointed writing instrument used by the ancients on wax tablets.10.The needle of a phonograph.11.The gnomon of a sundial.12.Botany The usually slender part of a pistil, situated between the ovary and the stigma.13.Zoology A slender, tubular, or bristlelike process:  a cartilaginous style.14.Medicine A surgical probing instrument; a stylet.15.Obsolete A pen.I think in this tense I think he was referring to definition 2. He was saying that people shouldn't have access to the same weapons that soldiers have.I would disagree that "people" shouldn't have access -however I would submit that YOU shouldn't. No Freeper should ever have a gun. Look what happened in Alabama.
 
2013-02-07 02:45:38 PM  
Mangoose

I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

I don't know of a single person who went out to buy a gun because of Newton.

I do know of some who made purchases in reaction to idiots pushing for bans of inanimate objects.

But hey re-frame the debate so you can score points facts don't matter.
 
2013-02-07 02:46:11 PM  

jake_lex: OK, if it's not Jim Carrey's place to comment because he's "just an entertainer", it's also not Ted Nugent's place to fill the air with herp-a-derp about how Obama's coming from your guns.

/filling the air like the stench from the pants he intentionally shiat to dodge the draft in Vietnam


I dont remember Nugent ever entertaining anyone
 
2013-02-07 02:46:13 PM  

Kome: One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"


Aside from the fact Jim Carrey is using HIS OWN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM to speak his mind, which is the entire f*cking point of social media, it's amusing in a general sense how some people really don't like celebrities doing anything other than whatever made them celebrities in the first place.

They're not your little monkey you can command to dance at your will and also to shut up. If you "paid" your "hard earned money" to watch them, listen to them, or whatever it is one would do to enjoy their craft, that is your own goddamn decision as a consumer. I hear athletes, musicians, actors, etc say crap I don't agree with all the time. Amazingly, I can disagree with the message without taking this giant offense that they had the audacity to say something I disagree with.
 
2013-02-07 02:47:43 PM  

Kome: One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"

This strikes me as an odd position for anyone to have. He's an American citizen. He has just as much right to voice his opinions regarding American culture as anyone else, celebrity or not. I understand wanting to hear primarily from experts on a subject - I'd much rather hear from law enforcement officers on this, for instance (a la a recent episode of The Daily Show when Stewart interviewed a police chief on the subject) - but I don't begrudge any other citizen from having his or her opinion and voicing it. I do find certain views to be based in ignorance (some of it willful, some of it innocently genuine), and I don't like to hear those, but that is different from feeling that a fellow American shouldn't weigh on an issue; it just means I weight their views differently than people who have credibility or expertise in the relevant area.


I would say he is free to speak his mind, but considering he is also an anti-vaccer, he is a total dumbass and should not be taken seriously.
 
2013-02-07 02:48:47 PM  

vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.


1) Canada had no gun controls whatsoever until the 1890s.
2) The war of 1812 saw considerably more American defeats during Canadian invasions than the Canadian colonials faced during American invasions (especially with the burning of the White House).
3) Jim Carry is a dual citizen of the US and Canada

I want to think you have a point but this is just kind of sad.
 
2013-02-07 02:48:58 PM  

moothemagiccow: I dont remember Nugent ever entertaining anyone


I thought he did a public service in raising awareness of certain itching fevers
 
2013-02-07 02:49:01 PM  
AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

Agreed. Lets also ban racing stripes from Mustangs.
 
2013-02-07 02:50:38 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Tree-fiddy....and it would be reimbursed on your taxes.


sounds good. At least them city boys won't be up here trying to use them.
Last year a bunch of them got out of their car and asked if they could hunt on my land.
They had MACs and Ingrams.
I charged them $50 each and heard some shooting and went over and they said what'd we kill?
I said a $500 sheep.
They paid me.
I went back in the barn, heard more shooting and went out.
There was a dead racoon on the ground.
"Whadd'we shoot?"
"I'm not telling you boys", I said," but it 's something white people been calling you all for a long time".
The one guy said, "we done shot us a motherfarker"
 
2013-02-07 02:53:00 PM  

Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.


It's a sophomoric straw man whether it comes from you or Carey.

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.
 
2013-02-07 02:57:12 PM  
And still no talk about door control.
 
2013-02-07 02:57:38 PM  

SpectroBoy: Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

It's a sophomoric straw man whether it comes from you or Carey.

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


Right, which also leads to the question of: After seeing such a atrocity why would you need or want to own such a weapon? It's not as good for home defense as a shot gun, and not as good for hunting as more specialized rifles.

I'm not saying those who are buying such are monsters or whatever, but the question of morals and motivations seems more than fair given the situation and better, more specialized firepower being available for the professed purposes.
 
2013-02-07 03:03:43 PM  

SpectroBoy: This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


So..... Obama really is going to take our guns?
 
2013-02-07 03:03:49 PM  

vudukungfu: Cause you buy my wool at your retail outlets.


Mmm.... probably not.

Maybe you could try getting better fencing? I don't know. Just seems like you're really lazy and bad at your job and looking for excuses.
 
2013-02-07 03:03:49 PM  

dewright_ca: Hey look, its another thread for the idiots to get irrational in... no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago, New York or Australia, we can't have logic get used on the irrational sheeple...



Except it isn't working in Chicago.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:02 PM  

dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

Actually, it's rational economic behavior, if you expect some sort of a ban.  Here is why:

First, if you assume that any sort of a ban will have a "grandfather clause", exempting weapons that were owned at the time the ban was enacted, that will only make those guns with those certain cosmetic features more valuable after the ban:  The cost of "pre-ban" assault weapons rose steadily after the start of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and dropped after the ban sunset.

Second, if you assume that the ban will also include some sort of mandatory turn-in, the government would be required to compensate you for your guns.  If you produce a receipt saying you purchased that gun for $1,200 a few months ago, the government would be constitutionally required to cut you a check for that amount.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.


You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:14 PM  
SpectroBoy:

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


THIS.

In other news, DHS just added another 240k rounds to their 1.6 billion round order of ammunition (for the over 7000 assau..err, "personal defense weapons"  they purchased in the last 10 months).  I wonder what DHS needs this kind of firepower for that you can't have.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:34 PM  

fisker: People wouldn't know what guns are if it wasn't for school shootings.


For some reason I can't read that unless it is in Morrisey's singing voice.
 
2013-02-07 03:08:39 PM  
Knee Jerk Reaction - like when people starting buying Twinkies in bulk when they thought they were going away forever....people who normally do not eat Twinkies.
 
2013-02-07 03:11:58 PM  

OnlyM3: I don't know of a single person who went out to buy a gun because of Newton.


I didn't think you and your friends could afford them with what they pay you at Easter Seals.
 
2013-02-07 03:15:23 PM  

DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

Actually, it's rational economic behavior, if you expect some sort of a ban.  Here is why:

First, if you assume that any sort of a ban will have a "grandfather clause", exempting weapons that were owned at the time the ban was enacted, that will only make those guns with those certain cosmetic features more valuable after the ban:  The cost of "pre-ban" assault weapons rose steadily after the start of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and dropped after the ban sunset.

Second, if you assume that the ban will also include some sort of mandatory turn-in, the government would be required to compensate you for your guns.  If you produce a receipt saying you purchased that gun for $1,200 a few months ago, the government would be constitutionally required to cut you a check for that amount.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.


Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.
 
2013-02-07 03:18:56 PM  

wildcardjack: And still no talk about door control.


You must not live in PG County...
 
2013-02-07 03:28:11 PM  

Dimensio: DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

Actually, it's rational economic behavior, if you expect some sort of a ban.  Here is why:

First, if you assume that any sort of a ban will have a "grandfather clause", exempting weapons that were owned at the time the ban was enacted, that will only make those guns with those certain cosmetic features more valuable after the ban:  The cost of "pre-ban" assault weapons rose steadily after the start of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and dropped after the ban sunset.

Second, if you assume that the ban will also include some sort of mandatory turn-in, the government would be required to compensate you for your guns.  If you produce a receipt saying you purchased that gun for $1,200 a few months ago, the government would be constitutionally required to cut you a check for that amount.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.

Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.


No, it's the fact that all he ever posts in gun threads is pedantic arguments that don't even remotely address the fact that there is a major problem with gun violence in this country.

You want a fact to deal with :

We are 10th in the world in gun related deaths.  More than South Africa.  More than Serbia.

So, yeah, real rational.  heh.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:57 PM  

DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

Actually, it's rational economic behavior, if you expect some sort of a ban.  Here is why:

First, if you assume that any sort of a ban will have a "grandfather clause", exempting weapons that were owned at the time the ban was enacted, that will only make those guns with those certain cosmetic features more valuable after the ban:  The cost of "pre-ban" assault weapons rose steadily after the start of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and dropped after the ban sunset.

Second, if you assume that the ban will also include some sort of mandatory turn-in, the government would be required to compensate you for your guns.  If you produce a receipt saying you purchased that gun for $1,200 a few months ago, the government would be constitutionally required to cut you a check for that amount.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.

Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.

No, it's the fact that all he ever posts in gun threads is pedantic arguments that don't even remotely address the fact that there is a major problem with gun violence in this country.

You want a fact to deal with :

We are 1 ...


I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.
 
2013-02-07 03:31:49 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

So you're pissed that people want to own guns that *LOOK*, but don't *FUNCTION*, the same as military guns?

It's all about style, right?  The Firearms Fashion Police, or FFP.


Yes, that's right.  It's a point that deserves looking at.  Nearly all of the mass killings perpetrators are found to have photos of themselves in military type outfits/poses that you might see in movies or video games.  So the image has a LOT to do with these types of killings.  They envision themselves as a "badass" or "avenger".

And you should talk - you post pictures of your guns and other weapons every farking chance you get.
 
2013-02-07 03:33:11 PM  

Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.


No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.
 
2013-02-07 03:34:02 PM  

DirkValentine: Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.

No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.


So are you saying that you have no actual rebuttal to the posting to which you replied?
 
2013-02-07 03:38:37 PM  
oldfarthenry:
Ironically enough - 2/3rd's of the population of Upper Canada was 'merikun-born at the time of the 1812 invasion. It was sibling-rivalry run amok.

EEwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
 
2013-02-07 03:39:56 PM  

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.

No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.

So are you saying that you have no actual rebuttal to the posting to which you replied?


My rebuttal is quite clear - stop making excuses for gun control.  " rational economic behavior " is a farking bullshiat excuse.  Sorry if your hobby costs more to save lives.

My marimba was only 3500 to build b/c Padouk b/c rosewood is endangered and is outrageously expensive.   That's ok, b/c sometimes laws need to be made to stop us from farking things up so hard.
 
2013-02-07 03:41:00 PM  
wtf happened to my text?
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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