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.

(NPR)   If he had simply told a bartender "thank you," Romney may not have had to face the whole '47 %' issue at all   (npr.org) divider line 408
    More: Interesting, Lord, David Corn  
•       •       •

7433 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Mar 2013 at 7:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 08:54:29 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: eraser8: A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.

There goes the progressive tax system.


Not really. In the progressive tax system, if you make more money, you always take home more money.
 
2013-03-14 08:56:36 PM  
BarkingUnicorn: There goes the progressive tax system. I don't understand progressive taxes.

FTFY
 
2013-03-14 08:56:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: http://aysps.gsu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Rpt%20258FIN.pdf

The opposition to it was just some libby lib saying "NUH UH!"


So reading some of that study, it's just saying that in Georgia welfare benefits declines faster than wages rises, meaning you get less than the value of your dollar that you worked, especially for wages much lower for what's even plausible for minimum wage. I'm not too sure what your point is, other than the state of Georgia is cheap, as I would expect a Republican state to be.
 
2013-03-14 08:57:18 PM  
dickfreckle:
Guys like Romney never learned that lesson. For him, the world exists to serve him and he needs not show gratitude. People like that always got on my nerves (and they were invariably horrible tippers, no matter their personal fortune).

He should have gotten his drink stirred with a dick, eh?  :)
 
2013-03-14 08:57:29 PM  

eraser8: Silly Jesus: The opposition to it was just some libby lib saying "NUH UH!"

Thanks for the link...but, I found the study on my own.  And, reading through it, I have to agree with the people who find the abstract unconvincing.

If there's an important claim in the study, it's this:  In some cases, the cost of earning an additional $100 of income is a loss of benefits double that amount (Figure 3a, section E).

That claim seems undeniably true.  But, it doesn't actually support your argument that people who use government assistance are "worthless" or "parasites."

Instead, the study seems to show that government assistance programs are poorly designed.  And, quite frankly, a lot of that poor design has to do with right wingnut interference.

A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.  That is, every extra dollar earned should be worth more than relying on government to provide a service.  But, under systems heavily influenced by Republican thinking, the opposite happens.  In fact, the Republican ransom for keeping people out of poverty seems to be a system in which people are condemned to poverty.

The problem isn't government assistance.  The problem is that government assistance has had to accommodate Republican "thinking."  The disaster has been "conservative" ideology.

Take Medicaid for example.  A poor mother is going to avoid making more money if an increase in income means that her child will lack medical care because her wages are too high to qualify for government assistance and too low to pay for the doctors and medications needed to keep her child alive.  The liberal position is to give the mother support for much longer.  The conservative position is to let the kid die.

That's tragic and stupid.


It's amazing that you actually read the study and got it so wrong.

Money incentives behavior.

We'll pay you more money if you have a baby...and another...and another.

We'll pay you more money if you're not married.

Etc.

Liberals think that throwing more money at them and for longer will discourage the behavior that is being rewarded.  That goes against all instinct and logic.

Tax something (take money away / implement penalties) and you have less of it.
Subsidize something, and you get more of it.

Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.  Every step should be taken to discourage it's use...not to encourage it.
 
2013-03-14 08:57:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: Basically, work got a little bit harder to find, and 5% of folks decided that it wasn't worth the effort.


This is so true, and liberals don't understand it. There weren't less jobs at the end of 2009, employers were just hiding them better.
 
2013-03-14 08:59:07 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
What, exactly, do you get out of fellating parasites?  Just their votes?  Or does it make your heart bleed a little whenever you can force society to buy groceries / beer / lottery tickets etc. for the lazy and worthless?  I mean, do you actually feel a sacred connection to these people?  Or is it purely vote farming?

Oh this isnt' about me.  this is about the GOP.  well, the evangelical Christians too, I suppose.  not that I actually WANT you to have a clear understanding of how/why the Republicans (and by default the rich elite) are going to continue to lose...it would be counter productive.  nope.  shine on you crazy diamond!

Libertarian, btw.

objectivist?


I voted for FartBongo...I like sciency things, so I don't really ever want the current incarnation of Republicans to win.  FartBongo was the shiniest of two immense turds.

Somewhat objectivist.
 
2013-03-14 08:59:34 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
What, exactly, do you get out of fellating parasites?  Just their votes?  Or does it make your heart bleed a little whenever you can force society to buy groceries / beer / lottery tickets etc. for the lazy and worthless?  I mean, do you actually feel a sacred connection to these people?  Or is it purely vote farming?

Oh this isnt' about me.  this is about the GOP.  well, the evangelical Christians too, I suppose.  not that I actually WANT you to have a clear understanding of how/why the Republicans (and by default the rich elite) are going to continue to lose...it would be counter productive.  nope.  shine on you crazy diamond!

Libertarian, btw.

objectivist?


Nah, SJ strikes me as a "libertarian," as in "someone who got tired of being laughed at when he told people he voted for Bush twice."

A lot of those started popping up around '06.
 
2013-03-14 09:00:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.  Every step should be taken to discourage it's use...not to encourage it.


yeah!  f*ck the poor!  obviously they WANTED their jobs outsourced!  sneaky gits!
 
2013-03-14 09:00:07 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: Turbo Cojones: Silly Jesus: NotARocketScientist: Well, he wasn't wrong.  A large percentage of the population is worthless...and that number is only growing.

A new Georgia State University study just confirmed what liberals love to deny...the welfare state is a democratic slave plantation.  Keep the checks a comin' and the votes a rollin in!

47% of US adults get a government hand out, but the unemployment rate is only 10-20%, so that means 27-37% of the country IS WORKING FULL TIME AND IS STILL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Does it bother me that so many people have no skills?  Yes.  Very much so.  I pay for their laziness.

Here comes the derp...

It's just the natural outcome of capitalism.  Wealth flows into a few hands, leaving the source of wealth in poverty.  The game is in danger.  Government redistributes wealth to keep the game going.

LOL

Capitalism works just like the  water cycle.


Welfare states aren't capitalistic.
 
2013-03-14 09:00:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.


You'll be glad to hear that's exactly what we have.
 
2013-03-14 09:00:44 PM  
Silly Jesus:
Somewhat objectivist.

no, I think you're somewhat more than that.
 
2013-03-14 09:01:04 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: eraser8: A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.

There goes the progressive tax system.


Nope.

In a progressive tax system, you will NEVER have less in take-home pay because your gross income increases.  Not by virtue of the tax structure, at least.  NEVER.

I have quite a few friends who are physicians and who are super smart people...but, they don't seem to understand the first thing about tax policy.  I've had to disabuse more than a few of them that they will not suffer a financial penalty by breaking into a new tax bracket.

For some reason, these highly educated and highly intelligent people have been fooled into thinking that ALL of their income will be taxed at a higher rate if their income exceeds a given amount.  It's almost fun watching their faces contort into masks of disbelief when the realities of the marginal tax rate system are explained to them.
 
2013-03-14 09:02:51 PM  

impaler: Silly Jesus: Basically, work got a little bit harder to find, and 5% of folks decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

This is so true, and liberals don't understand it. There weren't less jobs at the end of 2009, employers were just hiding them better.


Those "now hiring" signs that never came down were just mirages, as were the Hispanics!
 
2013-03-14 09:02:55 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: thismomentinblackhistory: stoli n coke:

15% is standard, 25% is classy, and 30% guarantees your drink is waiting for you before you get to the bar.

Plus, it's just a good idea not to piss off the people handling your food and drinks.

This, especially if you are a regular at a small mom and pop place.

I love how servers have turned into the Mafia.  "Nice immune system you have there... be a shame if anything happened to it.  Now fark you, pay me."

Ah, well, it doesn't matter to me anymore.  When I became a genuine egalitarian, I stopped letting people be my servants.


You honestly don't think it's always been this way? I'd wager that many a plantation owner got some "special seasoning" in the gravy.

Bottom line, you treat the people that serve you like shiat, expect shiat in return.
 
2013-03-14 09:04:02 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.  Every step should be taken to discourage it's use...not to encourage it.

yeah!  f*ck the poor!  obviously they WANTED their jobs outsourced!  sneaky gits!


So I should pay for you to keep a journal?

The Waffle House is outsourcing hobs?
 
2013-03-14 09:04:12 PM  

impaler: BarkingUnicorn: eraser8: A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.

There goes the progressive tax system.

Not really. In the progressive tax system, if you make more money, you always take home more money.


The penalty is a higher marginal tax rate.

OTOH, I read recently an argument that the poor's marginal tax rate is on the order of 80% to 90% in the $12K to $18K income range.  That's taking into account reductions in total spendable cash and non-cash government assistance as income rises in that range.  A person who works for an extra dollar gets a net 12 cent gain in resources.

So yeah, the slope one has to climb to get out of poverty and off the dole is very steep and it's no surprise that many can't or won't climb it.
 
2013-03-14 09:04:46 PM  

mgshamster: NotARocketScientist: Well, he wasn't wrong.  A large percentage of the population is worthless...and that number is only growing.

A new Georgia State University study just confirmed what liberals love to deny...the welfare state is a democratic slave plantation.  Keep the checks a comin' and the votes a rollin in!

47% of US adults get a government hand out, but the unemployment rate is only 10-20%, so that means 27-37% of the country IS WORKING FULL TIME AND IS STILL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. Doesn't that bother you at all?

I wonder how much of it has nothing to do with the poverty line. Probably only a small amount. When I was in the army, I didn't pay taxes on the income I earned while deployed.  Nearly half of my military stint was in a war zone of some sort. So all deployed military aren't paying those taxes. They are a part of that 47%. Then I went to college, and the federal grants and scholarships weren't taxed.  The GI Bill wasn't taxed.  So all students who live off of grants, scholarships, or military education benefits aren't paying taxes. They are a part of that 47%. I just found out I was accepted into a PhD program (I start next fall, yay!), and with that comes a stipend for living expenses. I wonder if that will be taxed, or if grad students are all a part of that 47 percent.


Don't forget the elderly, who worked all their lives and now live off savings and/or social security. They're in that 47%. Hell, a family of five making 50 grand a year could avoid paying income tax with the right deductions. Basically, whether or not someone pays income tax is in no way an indication of how much work they do.
 
2013-03-14 09:04:50 PM  

impaler: Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.

You'll be glad to hear that's exactly what we have.


I know.  Obama says that keeping a journal qualifies as looking for work and you need to pay me for it.  Check please!
 
2013-03-14 09:06:08 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
Somewhat objectivist.

no, I think you're somewhat more than that.


Well, you do know everything.  You've already determined my political party (wrong), voting history (wrong), and complete philosophical beliefs (wrong).  Anything else interesting that you know about me that I wasn't even aware of?
 
2013-03-14 09:06:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.  Every step should be taken to discourage it's use...not to encourage it.

yeah!  f*ck the poor!  obviously they WANTED their jobs outsourced!  sneaky gits!

So I should pay for you to keep a journal?

The Waffle House is outsourcing hobs?


now there are some VERY interesting assumptions and implications buried in those comments.  again, you are completely and in all ways totally wrong about pretty much everything...but that's ok.  I'm counting on that, remember?
 
2013-03-14 09:06:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: Turbo Cojones: Silly Jesus: NotARocketScientist: Well, he wasn't wrong.  A large percentage of the population is worthless...and that number is only growing.

A new Georgia State University study just confirmed what liberals love to deny...the welfare state is a democratic slave plantation.  Keep the checks a comin' and the votes a rollin in!

47% of US adults get a government hand out, but the unemployment rate is only 10-20%, so that means 27-37% of the country IS WORKING FULL TIME AND IS STILL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Does it bother me that so many people have no skills?  Yes.  Very much so.  I pay for their laziness.

Here comes the derp...

It's just the natural outcome of capitalism.  Wealth flows into a few hands, leaving the source of wealth in poverty.  The game is in danger.  Government redistributes wealth to keep the game going.

LOL

Capitalism works just like the  water cycle.

Welfare states aren't capitalistic.


Clouds aren't rivers, but both carry water and complement each other.  Welfare is the cloud, capitalism the river, money is water.
 
2013-03-14 09:07:22 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The penalty is a higher marginal tax rate.


And the reward is more income that far exceeds the penalty.
 
2013-03-14 09:07:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
Somewhat objectivist.

no, I think you're somewhat more than that.

Well, you do know everything.  You've already determined my political party (wrong), voting history (wrong), and complete philosophical beliefs (wrong).  Anything else interesting that you know about me that I wasn't even aware of?


nope, I think you're perfect just the way you are.  don't change a thing!
 
2013-03-14 09:08:32 PM  

eraser8: BarkingUnicorn: eraser8: A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.

There goes the progressive tax system.

Nope.

In a progressive tax system, you will NEVER have less in take-home pay because your gross income increases.  Not by virtue of the tax structure, at least.  NEVER.

I have quite a few friends who are physicians and who are super smart people...but, they don't seem to understand the first thing about tax policy.  I've had to disabuse more than a few of them that they will not suffer a financial penalty by breaking into a new tax bracket.

For some reason, these highly educated and highly intelligent people have been fooled into thinking that ALL of their income will be taxed at a higher rate if their income exceeds a given amount.  It's almost fun watching their faces contort into masks of disbelief when the realities of the marginal tax rate system are explained to them.


Progressive tax rates are asinine.
 
2013-03-14 09:09:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: Finding a job, wedding and stopping having kids are all discouraged..


And which party is working hard to prevent people from getting married?
 
2013-03-14 09:10:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: Progressive tax rates are asinine.


Unless you understand basic economics.
 
2013-03-14 09:10:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: It's amazing that you actually read the study and got it so wrong.


I don't believe for a moment that you actually read the study.   You couldn't possibly have and come to the conclusions that you did.

Silly Jesus: Money incentives behavior.


That's true.  Without question.  The problem is that you're missing the reason for the failure of these programs.  It IS NOT that the recipients of assistance are worthless; it's not that they're parasites; it's that "conservative" thinking has made dependence a better choice than independence.  These people are being absolutely rational.

And, the point that "conservatives" miss is that elimination of government assistance would not solve the problem.  It would turn the poor into wage slaves or starve them to death (which, honestly, might be the goal).

The best solution is the liberal one: give assistance...but, make sure that independence holds real benefits for people at the lowest end of the income scale.
 
2013-03-14 09:10:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: Turbo Cojones: Silly Jesus: NotARocketScientist: Well, he wasn't wrong.  A large percentage of the population is worthless...and that number is only growing.

A new Georgia State University study just confirmed what liberals love to deny...the welfare state is a democratic slave plantation.  Keep the checks a comin' and the votes a rollin in!

47% of US adults get a government hand out, but the unemployment rate is only 10-20%, so that means 27-37% of the country IS WORKING FULL TIME AND IS STILL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Does it bother me that so many people have no skills?  Yes.  Very much so.  I pay for their laziness.

Here comes the derp...

It's just the natural outcome of capitalism.  Wealth flows into a few hands, leaving the source of wealth in poverty.  The game is in danger.  Government redistributes wealth to keep the game going.

LOL

Capitalism works just like the  water cycle.

Welfare states aren't capitalistic.

Clouds aren't rivers, but both carry water and complement each other.  Welfare is the cloud, capitalism the river, money is water.


You are high.
 
2013-03-14 09:11:09 PM  

eraser8: BarkingUnicorn: eraser8: A person should NEVER be penalized for earning more money.

There goes the progressive tax system.

Nope.

In a progressive tax system, you will NEVER have less in take-home pay because your gross income increases. Not by virtue of the tax structure, at least. NEVER.


Keeping less of every additional dollar you earn is the penalty.  Every unit of value you provide pays you less, just because you provide more value.
 
2013-03-14 09:11:24 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus: Welfare should be severely time restricted, there should be work requirements a bit more stringent than Obama's "journal keeping" and "meditation" requirements.  Every step should be taken to discourage it's use...not to encourage it.

yeah!  f*ck the poor!  obviously they WANTED their jobs outsourced!  sneaky gits!

So I should pay for you to keep a journal?

The Waffle House is outsourcing hobs?

now there are some VERY interesting assumptions and implications buried in those comments.  again, you are completely and in all ways totally wrong about pretty much everything...but that's ok.  I'm counting on that, remember?


I think you were trying to sound intellectual, but it just came out as derp.  Try again.
 
2013-03-14 09:11:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Progressive tax rates are asinine.


Now if you just mention Fair Tax or "skin in the game", I'll have a Fark IndependentTM bingo.
 
2013-03-14 09:11:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: Basically, work got a little bit harder to find, and 5% of folks decided that it wasn't worth the effort.


LOL
 
2013-03-14 09:12:05 PM  

impaler: BarkingUnicorn: The penalty is a higher marginal tax rate.

And the reward is more income that far exceeds the penalty.


That reward comes from my labor; the penalty comes from the progressive tax system.
 
2013-03-14 09:12:13 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Silly Jesus: Finding a job, wedding and stopping having kids are all discouraged..

And which party is working hard to prevent people from getting married?


The party that pays you to not get married?
 
2013-03-14 09:12:15 PM  
Silly Jesus:

I think you were trying to sound intellectual, but it just came out as derp.  Try again.

nah.  I think it's awesome.  I'm just hoping a lot of Republicans believe the same things you do.
 
2013-03-14 09:12:53 PM  

eraser8: I don't believe for a moment that you actually read the study. You couldn't possibly have and come to the conclusions that you did.


This.
 
2013-03-14 09:13:03 PM  

impaler: Silly Jesus: Progressive tax rates are asinine.

Unless you understand basic economics.


Basic librul economics.

A tiny percentage of people should pay all of the taxes.  Yay progress!
 
2013-03-14 09:13:46 PM  
BarkingUnicorn:
That reward comes from my labor;

um...no.  real wages for most of this country have been flat for 30 odd years.  it literally doesn't matter how hard you work...most of the wealth in this country goes to the elite 1% that run the show.
 
2013-03-14 09:14:38 PM  
Gee, didn't we start out talking about mittens and his clueless behavior?  Anyway, my two cents: during the campagn, the Romneys went on talking about how they were just scraping by whilst in college. Is there a rule at BYU forbidding students from taking part-time jobs?  Any alums out there?  If not, why didn't they get jobs working in a restaurant, stocking and bagging at a grocery store, or any of the other things that students to to earn a little extra cash?  If they made a conscious decision not to, isn't that a tell-tale about their attitudes about blue collar labor?  Just a thought.
 
2013-03-14 09:14:54 PM  
Silly Jesus:

A tiny percentage of people should pay all of the taxes.  Yay progress!

well, they DO have 40% of all the money ever made...stands to reason that they should pay taxes proportional to that vast reserve of wealth.
 
2013-03-14 09:15:15 PM  

eraser8: Silly Jesus: It's amazing that you actually read the study and got it so wrong.

I don't believe for a moment that you actually read the study.   You couldn't possibly have and come to the conclusions that you did.


Ditto

Silly Jesus: Money incentives behavior.

That's true.  Without question.  The problem is that you're missing the reason for the failure of these programs.  It IS NOT that the recipients of assistance are worthless; it's not that they're parasites; it's that "conservative" thinking has made dependence a better choice than independence.  These people are being absolutely rational.

And, the point that "conservatives" miss is that elimination of government assistance would not solve the problem.  It would turn the poor into wage slaves or starve them to death (which, honestly, might be the goal).

The best solution is the liberal one: give assistance...but, make sure that independence holds real benefits for people at the lowest end of the income scale.


Liberals don't try to push people away from the teat though...they make it easier to saddle up to it and to stay there for generation after generation.  I don't see how you can possibly be accusing conservatives of encouraging a welfare state.
 
2013-03-14 09:15:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: impaler: BarkingUnicorn: The penalty is a higher marginal tax rate.

And the reward is more income that far exceeds the penalty.

That reward comes from my labor; the penalty comes from the progressive tax system.


And yet, you still make more money than a person in the lower tax bracket. So what penalty is there?
 
2013-03-14 09:16:34 PM  

illogic: Romney left the impression that he would do or say anything that it took to get elected, except of course, release more tax returns.  I don't even think Romney was able to remember what his own true positions on the issues were by the time November rolled around.


What the hell are you talking about? Core principles are for the weak.
 
2013-03-14 09:16:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Basic librul economics.

A tiny percentage of people should pay all of the taxes


Which specific liberal economic theory is this? Certainly not any Democratic one that I'm aware of.
 
2013-03-14 09:16:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: the Hispanic folks were still in front of Home Depot starting at 5am and routinely jumping into the backs of pick-ups.


Soooo  you get some strange from Jose?
 
2013-03-14 09:17:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: Liberals don't try to push people away from the teat though...they make it easier to saddle up to it


[citation needed]

Are you even aware of what the current welfare system looks like?
 
2013-03-14 09:17:47 PM  

Weaver95: "I handed him a diet Coke with lemon on it," Prouty told Huffington Post, "because I was told that that's what he drank. ... He took it and turned and didn't say anything. ... I presented him the exact right drink that he wanted ... Had it there, sitting there on a napkin. He took it out of my hand and turned his back without a 'thank you' or anything else. ... You can tell a lot about someone the way they take a drink from you. ... [Romney] took it and just turned his back."

yup.  it's the little things that tell you a lot about someone's character.


But he didn't go there with a grudge against Romney.  He said so.

/Romney, thoughtless, maybe distracted, who knows but it was rude either way.
//Prouty = pouty
 
2013-03-14 09:17:53 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:

A tiny percentage of people should pay all of the taxes.  Yay progress!

well, they DO have 40% of all the money ever made...stands to reason that they should pay taxes proportional to that vast reserve of wealth.


Why's that?  Does Bill Gates disproportionately use the roads and the fire department?  Taxes should have some relationship to what you get back out of them.
 
2013-03-14 09:18:33 PM  
Really? We're still on Romney articles?
 
Displayed 50 of 408 comments

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