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.

(Washington Post)   Special Ops were told not to respond to Benghazi attacks. It might actually be a scandal now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 681
    More: Interesting, Benghazi, U.S., Benghazi attacks, Jason Chaffetz, diplomats  
•       •       •

6502 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2013 at 7:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-06 08:01:06 PM  

deffuse: One could argue that this has occurred, but I'm just splitting hairs. Ho hum.


Pricipal . Caught sayof fighter jets that has stoped scrambling " See, told ya so" Is Benghazi scandal or not. Gregory Hicks Says yes. Washington Post Looking for stand down -OR- "hello, I am write single to testify and wait for chickensex again"
 
2013-05-06 08:01:22 PM  
the real scandal is that bush, cheney, and rumsfeld aren't on trial in the hague
 
2013-05-06 08:01:47 PM  
A lot of farkers have 8 months of egg on their face.  Its actually past the point of 'I told you so' and into just sad territory.  I just feel pitiful for you guys.  Under a delusion for 8 months.
 
2013-05-06 08:02:02 PM  

Sgt Otter: CheapEngineer: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Citation needed. Again.

Or the fact that it doesn't make any sense.

"I was going to vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the attack in Libya was motivated by an anti-Islamic video, but since it was actually motivated by just good ol' fashioned anti-Americanism, I'm not."

Who the fark thinks like that?


www.troycitydesign.com
 
2013-05-06 08:02:09 PM  
75,000% more people died on the real 9-11.
 
2013-05-06 08:02:57 PM  

vygramul: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lionel Mandrake: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?

Apparently cheesey missed the bajillion times you've expressed your dislike of Hillary over the past decade.

I don't swim in this this cesspool on a regular basis, so maybe you got me there.

So you commit ad hominems out of ignorance? Doesn't sound like you're doing your side any favors, son.


Yea well, it's not like Weaver didn't deserve it anyway.
 
2013-05-06 08:03:39 PM  
How do we know this is not a scandal? Because all the right wing roaches on this site are crawling out to insist it is.
 
2013-05-06 08:03:40 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

http://wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue- pl an-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

The ambassador was killed 30 minutes after the President was briefed. How the hell is he supposed to prep a team and get them there and engaged in 30 minutes?


This proves Obama is histories greatest monster. We all KNOW he has access to time travel technology. How else did he did he plant his birth announcement in that Hawaii newspaper.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:07 PM  

pacified: 75,000% more people died on the real 9-11.


Math has a well-known liberal bias, commie.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:28 PM  

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?


A little sweet talk and Bill can join in?
 
2013-05-06 08:04:29 PM  
The only way this could possibly be a scandal is if they can prove that Obama, personally, had troops stand down for the express purpose of getting these folks killed, or that he somehow thought that these people being killed would have some sort of political benefit.

In other words, there's no scandal.  Were mistakes made?  Hell, having diplomats in that shiathole country was their first one.  But the simple, sad fact of the matter was that we can't control everything and we can't win every single battle.

The only way Benghazi is a "scandal" is because people with Obama Derangement Syndrome desperately want this to be true.  Maybe then people will stop calling them racist teatards.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:39 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I want him doing lines of coke off Beyonce's ass in the Lincoln bedroom, or at the very least tweeting pictures of his balls on cherished American historical artifacts.


Wait until he pardons Leonard Peltier on the way out the door. Holy shiat you'll see Fox crapping fire and saving matches.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:42 PM  
SCANDAL: they weren't deployed when the ambassador was already dead and it was hours past when it mattered. Maybe they could have saved two more American lives, maybe. Department of State gave the green light, but their own military commanders put the breaks on. The ARB (Accountability Review Board) was to find who in the state department was responsible... several people resigned, including the congressionally appointed guy who was in charge of security. Congress isn't looking for responsibility at this point, they're just trying to find some way to hang this farking albatross around Obama, but they still haven't got one.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:54 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 08:06:25 PM  

MyRandomName: He was told at 630pm on Sept 11th. Then went to bed to make sure he'd be up in time for his two fundraisers the next day. He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.


He was told at around the time that the two fatalities at the consulate were killed?  And those 4 extra troops would have been able to arrive when?  The additional two fatalities occurred at 5:15am.  Could they have traveled 600 miles before that?

Please explain to me how this is a scandal.  The only thing that seems remotely scandalous is how the information was relayed to the public, and as it was an active investigation, that doesn't bother me.  I'm ok with the temporary withholding of information if there's a chance it could make it harder to find those accountable.  Point out where, exactly, your concern is.
 
2013-05-06 08:06:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.


How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.
 
2013-05-06 08:07:28 PM  
Who cares? That was a long time ago.
 
2013-05-06 08:08:22 PM  

Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.


Be patient.
 
2013-05-06 08:09:10 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?


Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob.  Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com
 
2013-05-06 08:09:24 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.



He saw a movie once. He's a military expert. You should defer to his judgement.
 
2013-05-06 08:11:07 PM  

Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi


Well the new allegation is that they could have responded hours after the Ambassador and one other guy were killed, and maybe, just maybe, it would have magically been less of a scandal that way.
 
2013-05-06 08:11:25 PM  

firefly212: The ARB (Accountability Review Board) was to find who in the state department was responsible... several people resigned, including the congressionally appointed guy who was in charge of security. Congress isn't looking for responsibility at this point, they're just trying to find some way to hang this farking albatross around Obama, but they still haven't got one.


I think they're still pissed that Hillary biatchslapped them over a full day's testimony. Its really about Clinton, not Obama. Its another attempt to poison the well for the future.
 
2013-05-06 08:12:36 PM  

Sgt Otter: Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com


Sigh...

The quote from that movie, though I hear it's unclear if Plato actually said it...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato

These are the people whom forget history and want us to repeat it. The rest of us are sitting in the passenger seat screaming at them.

You don't just dump guys into a conflict without adequate preparation and sufficient support in place. That takes way longer than the window allowed here. I wish they would just shut the f*ck up already.

Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.
 
2013-05-06 08:13:14 PM  

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then.


No, it wasn't.

Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

No. Was that a requirement for not considering it a scandal?

/thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-06 08:13:17 PM  
the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:09 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.


The Obama administration also gave the spin up order... that's the part that these knuckleheads don't want to acknowledge.... they gave the spin up order (State gave it from all indications), then DoD told them to stand down when it was obvious that even before departure, the four guys would not be able to save a guy who was already dead and a facility that was already lost hours before.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.


OK we got 12 to 20 atackers with small arms and motars and RPGs. Surrounding the compound and firing. OK let's deploy a seal team for standard counter manuevers.....Oh wait, you say the attackers are motivated by thier hatred of our freedoms.....Scrap that, let's parachute in Andy Dick, 2000 liters of hot sauce and a cactus.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:51 PM  
obummer COULD have called out the Iron Patriot but no. no, he did not. because this scandal is a false flag to distract from real scandals that we know nothing about yet. but we will. oh yes we will

i0.wp.com
 
2013-05-06 08:15:12 PM  
Is that youtube guy still in jail? He sure is keeping a low profile.
 
2013-05-06 08:16:23 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Be patient.


i.imgur.com

In other words, you've got nothing and you know it so you're just threadshiatting.
 
2013-05-06 08:17:40 PM  

NewportBarGuy: jjorsett: You know how I know it's a scandal? Because I devoured lead paint chips as a kid.

^This!


I loled.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Sgt Otter: Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com

Sigh...

The quote from that movie, though I hear it's unclear if Plato actually said it...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato

These are the people whom forget history and want us to repeat it. The rest of us are sitting in the passenger seat screaming at them.

You don't just dump guys into a conflict without adequate preparation and sufficient support in place. That takes way longer than the window allowed here. I wish they would just shut the f*ck up already.

Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.


4 dudes by themselves in a farking mob isn't a solution, it's a sequel to blackhawk down. Never put guys in without a plan to get them back out. Good on whatever c/o said fark no to sending four guys in to claim dead bodies and a destroyed office building, not worth four more dead servicemen.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:34 PM  

badhatharry: Who cares? That was a long time ago.


It is still not a scandal, despite your highest hopes. I know your butt hurts, but for the sake of the rest of the world, stop lying.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:41 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.


No, but I suspect Paul Ryan might sleep with you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
2013-05-06 08:18:46 PM  
For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.
 
2013-05-06 08:19:08 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.


Are you asking whether there is a difference between Hillary's protest theory and her guys-out-walking theory, or are you asking if there is a difference between those two theories and what really happened?
 
2013-05-06 08:20:29 PM  

Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.


Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.



Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.
 
2013-05-06 08:22:18 PM  
Honest Questions:

-Were we otherwise short of response forces? (aside from the original short-handedness)
-What support did we rally?
-What was the actual marginal utility of the "fresh reinforcements" in question?
-If there were many such embassy attacks (possibly 12) under Bush that got little if any attention, why should I view the Benghazi affair as anything but run-of-the-mill? Granted, the GOP would want to hype it before the election and the Dems would want to brush it away. If not for political gamesmanship, would we even be having this conversation?
 
2013-05-06 08:22:21 PM  

Gyrfalcon: In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation...In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.


i.imgur.com

Again, that's at least how I read TFA too. The only reason this is a "scandal" now unlike the Reagan Beirut Bombings and other attacks is because President Obama failed to use his most potent weapon in the arsenal.
 
2013-05-06 08:23:32 PM  

Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.


Apparently we're supposed to be patient and eventually something will eventually, maybe, possibly, come to light. It's real to them, damn it!
 
2013-05-06 08:24:01 PM  

firefly212: 4 dudes by themselves in a farking mob isn't a solution, it's a sequel to blackhawk down. Never put guys in without a plan to get them back out. Good on whatever c/o said fark no to sending four guys in to claim dead bodies and a destroyed office building, not worth four more dead servicemen.


There is something to be said for this.
 
2013-05-06 08:28:13 PM  

SkinnyHead: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.

Are you asking whether there is a difference between Hillary's protest theory and her guys-out-walking theory, or are you asking if there is a difference between those two theories and what really happened?


We are talking about reality. We both know that it was not just someone walking around and just decided to attack. I know Hillary said it, but she was not saying that it was exactly what happened. To say otherwise, is just wrong.
 
2013-05-06 08:29:31 PM  
Gosh, you guys are really onto something now.  You've got Obama right where you want him.  Call your representatives today and demand that they bring articles of impeachment against Obama, right now.  Don't wait.  Hurry!

Good luck, Repubs, this will surely not blow up in your faces.
 
2013-05-06 08:31:45 PM  

RyogaM: Gosh, you guys are really onto something now.  You've got Obama right where you want him.  Call your representatives today and demand that they bring articles of impeachment against Obama, right now.  Don't wait.  Hurry!

Good luck, Repubs, this will surely not blow up in your faces.


Frankly, they should demand articles of impeachment, and if they don't get them, they should vote the bastards out.
 
2013-05-06 08:33:25 PM  

Sgt Otter: NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob.  Hmm, that sounds familiar.

[www.badassoftheweek.com image 480x325]


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 08:33:46 PM  

Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.


Yes.  As a person who doesn't reflexively despise Obama and blame him for everything bad that happens, I too would like to know exactly what the "scandal" is.

If it's all about someone saying it happened because of a movie when they knew it wasn't, or because Hillary Clinton's name appears on a letterhead, then "conservatives" are even more retarded than I ever imagined.

Yet, those are the only two things people put forth as being a "scandal."
 
2013-05-06 08:33:49 PM  
Americans need a new holiday to bring them together. I propose we create something similar to Guy Fawkes day and have people celebrate by creating effigies of Darrell Issa and Lindsey Graham and repeatedly kick them in the shin.
 
2013-05-06 08:34:14 PM  
I smell chicken.  Oily, sweaty chicken.
 
2013-05-06 08:34:34 PM  
How else do you think the Syrian "rebels" got those chems? Smuggled out if Libya during the embassy attack.

Duh
 
2013-05-06 08:37:06 PM  

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


I just can't see how this position makes any sense at all. Benghazi was such a small casualty list compared to what the enemies of the US suffer every day, through direct military actions, sanctions, and good old economic competition. Benghazi should be taken as evidence that the USA is still secure, happy, and nearly impossible to hurt in any significant way, from the outside.
 
Displayed 50 of 681 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | 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