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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, IRS, inspector generals, scandals  
•       •       •

4537 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 11:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
MFK
2013-05-15 01:09:58 PM  
None of the overtly political Tea Party groups were rejected for tax exempt status?

This seems like the real scandal.

I would like to see how these guys are justifying that their primary activity is not political.
 
2013-05-15 01:10:58 PM  
well, i can only conclude that the Tea Party is full of socialist!
 
2013-05-15 01:21:46 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.


If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.
 
2013-05-15 01:22:52 PM  

mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.


If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.
 
2013-05-15 01:23:05 PM  

mistrmind: Obamite


Hahaha, you could not be more wrong.
 
2013-05-15 01:24:23 PM  

FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.


Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.
 
2013-05-15 01:25:40 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.

Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.


Hahaha.... Dear Leader, Sam Webb of CPUSA seems to think so.  Farker constantly endorses democrats. it's sickening.
 
2013-05-15 01:26:38 PM  

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.

Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.

Hahaha.... Dear Leader, Sam Webb of CPUSA seems to think so.  Farker constantly endorses democrats. it's sickening.


Yeah, but the CPUSA is kind of a joke anyway. At least they're not the RCP, at least the CPUSA is just feckless instead of a kind of weird worrisome cult.
 
2013-05-15 01:33:46 PM  

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-15 01:54:57 PM  
Maud Dib:
Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government....
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 552x375]


Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?
 
2013-05-15 02:05:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: total number of jobs


Obama has already created more private-sector jobs than Bush did.
 
2013-05-15 02:06:13 PM  

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


The people you are referring to are the ones who are reminding you that admitting the IRS farked up does not mean admitting Obama directed the IRS to make partisan attacks on the TEA Party.
 
2013-05-15 02:09:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?


Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508
 
2013-05-15 02:19:14 PM  

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508


I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.
 
2013-05-15 02:24:52 PM  
Actually learn about an event before rushing to judgement on it?!?!

AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!!
 
2013-05-15 02:30:37 PM  

lennavan: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

The people you are referring to are the ones who are reminding you that admitting the IRS farked up does not mean admitting Obama directed the IRS to make partisan attacks on the TEA Party.


Did I say such?
 
2013-05-15 02:33:08 PM  

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508


I believe congresses have quite a bit to do with these numbers as well as various funded, unfunded, and underfunded programs.

Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia.


As would I.
 
2013-05-15 02:45:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.


thepoliticalcarnival.net

This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.
 
2013-05-15 02:46:50 PM  
Am I the only one who thinks screening any "charity" that shares the name of a political party is a good idea?
 
2013-05-15 02:49:36 PM  

RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.


I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.
 
2013-05-15 02:50:30 PM  
How can a primarily non-political social welfare organization be targeted for political reasons in the approval of their 501(c)3 application?
 
2013-05-15 02:52:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508

I believe congresses have quite a bit to do with these numbers as well as various funded, unfunded, and underfunded programs.



HOLY CRAP DUDE HOLY CRAP.  COME BACK HERE WITH THOSE GOALPOSTS.

He posted a graph comparing presidents with government jobs.  You asked for a similar graph that shows the same comparison with total jobs.  The same comparison being comparing presidents with jobs.  So I give you the numbers and you come back with a comment about Congress?

HOLY CRAP DUDE.  I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.
 
2013-05-15 02:55:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.

I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.


You always wonder, after all of the times you have seen that graph, and yet you have never googled it?  Yeah right dude, troll on.

You're just asking questions, not actually searching for answers.
 
2013-05-15 02:58:53 PM  
Really, what we should be concerned about sheeple.
 
2013-05-15 03:00:22 PM  

RminusQ: Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.

[thepoliticalcarnival.net image 600x313]

This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.


So now we have a single data point for the larger effort.
 
2013-05-15 03:03:14 PM  

mistrmind: Really, what we should be concerned about sheeple.


But if he starts getting involved he will persecute us all!!!!
 
2013-05-15 03:13:32 PM  
or you could read "The Boy who Cried Wolf"
 
2013-05-15 03:16:17 PM  

Maud Dib: mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 552x375]


Crikey. Who in the hell makes a graph where each curve should start at 1.o0, and then (1) leaves out that point on every curve, and (2) makes the tick marks 0.97, 0.99, 1.01, 1.03, when they should be 0.96, 0.98, 1.00,1.02, 1.04? It seems like it's intentionally designed to annoy engineers with OCD.
 
2013-05-15 03:29:27 PM  

lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE. I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.


You seem to be very excitable.

Also, I'm not sure you understand the proper use of the "goalpost" trope. See, I haven't stated a position or a counter-position, so there are no "goalposts" in the first place.

Perhaps before you decide that you need to go all CAP screamy, you should first confirm that there is an argument. But then again, I suspect you don't really need a reason.
 
2013-05-15 03:30:51 PM  

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.

I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.

You always wonder, after all of the times you have seen that graph, and yet you have never googled it?  Yeah right dude, troll on.

You're just asking questions, not actually searching for answers.


Can I chime in on BojanglesPaladin's point?

I think the comparative jobs growth chart as shown is becoming increasingly unfair, as presented. Two years, three years ago, it did make a clear visual and impactful reference to the recession starting, very clearly, under Bush's watch. That's fine. It's true.

But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.
 
2013-05-15 03:33:07 PM  

lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE.  I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.


I have him farkied as "stage 2 lolbertarian". Forget it, Jake.
 
2013-05-15 04:04:32 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.


Pretty much. It is the clearly intentional decision to start the graph after the economic disaster was in full swing that makes it slightly suspect.

It's also a somewhat pointless graph, because after you have hit bottom, there's really nowhere else to go but up.

As a comparison, this graph, while not perfect, shows a broader view:
jerrykhachoyan.com

When you dont cherry pick your starting point, it becomes more clear that both Presidents had periods of job growth and both Presidents had part of a catastrophic drop in employment.

Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.

But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

And when I look at this graph, it makes me wonder what happened in 200-2003...
 
2013-05-15 04:27:05 PM  

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


you may have missed a couple of talking points, I'm not sure.
 
2013-05-15 05:01:17 PM  

odinsposse: Except their policies did target conservative groups. There weren't any equivalent flags for terms like "progressive" or "environmental" Literally everyone agrees that the IRS screwed up, including this report, and trying to hand wave away an obvious problem makes liberals look worse and conservative conspiracy theorists look more credible. So stop doing that.


If you actually read the report you'd see the inference that applications are regularly grouped into bundles so they can be further scrutinized.

I don't really see anything nefarious in this case, although it does seem pretty sloppy and like an awful lot of bureaucracy.
 
2013-05-15 05:01:53 PM  
Grungehamster:

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.

I like how he's asking who's going to go to jail.  He's already had the trial handed down the verdict and passed sentence - now if he could just find a damned defendant to apply it to, he'd be golden!

/To be fair, unlike many of his colleagues in Congress, he does not appear to have a law degree
 
2013-05-15 05:06:07 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Eh, it's bullshiat that the baggers were singled out and it sounds like the IRS will rightfully pay for it and get their act together. That said, the tea party members and supporters can still go suck shiat from a giraffe's dick for being the destructive, ignorant assholes that they are.


I'm pretty sure that's not how Giraffes work.

/Let me check Conservapedia
 
2013-05-15 05:11:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: PartTimeBuddha: But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.

Pretty much. It is the clearly intentional decision to start the graph after the economic disaster was in full swing that makes it slightly suspect.

It's also a somewhat pointless graph, because after you have hit bottom, there's really nowhere else to go but up.

As a comparison, this graph, while not perfect, shows a broader view:
[jerrykhachoyan.com image 800x480]

When you dont cherry pick your starting point, it becomes more clear that both Presidents had periods of job growth and both Presidents had part of a catastrophic drop in employment.

Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.

But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

And when I look at this graph, it makes me wonder what happened in 200-2003...


After-effects of the tech bubble bursting.
 
2013-05-15 05:14:57 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

Wonder why everyone hates politicians.
 
2013-05-15 05:38:32 PM  

RevMercutio: After-effects of the tech bubble bursting.


True. I remember THAT boom and bust particularly well...
 
2013-05-15 05:39:13 PM  
Democrats in congress will have to vote to impeach Obama on the IRS stuff or else they are telling the next Republican administration that it's fine to target all Democrats. Since Democrats' most trusted money handler, Tim Geithner, was a tax cheating criminal, it will be like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun once Republicans get a hold of the treasury again. Unless you can keep Republicans out of the White House forever.
 
2013-05-15 05:49:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE. I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.

You seem to be very excitable.


HOLY CRAP DUDE YOU ASKED FOR A CITATION ABOUT PRESIDENTS AND THEN BIATCHED ABOUT CONGRESS.

HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP.

Epoch_Zero: I have him farkied as "stage 2 lolbertarian". Forget it, Jake.


I know, I'm just screwin around with him.  This IRS stuff has got him in a tizzy.  Yesterday the lulz were when he said he was just agreeing with Obama's admission of wrongdoing.  So I asked him to quote Obama.

By the way, I'm still waiting on that quote Bojangles.
 
2013-05-15 05:50:16 PM  
wow, it's almost like unemployment doubled under Bush.
i blame fartboingo
 
2013-05-15 05:53:58 PM  

Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.


If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.
 
2013-05-15 05:54:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.


Um...  That's actually exactly what your graph shows:

jerrykhachoyan.com
 
2013-05-15 05:55:02 PM  

PsiChick: Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.

If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.


I'm naming my new non-profit TEA Party Patriot Al Qaedas for Animal Rights.
 
2013-05-15 06:02:19 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: PsiChick: Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.

If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.

I'm naming my new non-profit TEA Party Patriot Al Qaedas for Animal Rights.


DOOO EEEET.

/For clarification: The IRS was in the wrong here and deserve to get their asses kicked. But if you name yourself the Tea Party and try to claim you have tax-exempt status as a charity...
 
2013-05-15 06:23:27 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:
But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.


It shows they declined in the last year of the Bush administrations and during Obama's first year.
Or am I misreading it?
 
2013-05-15 06:44:48 PM  

lennavan: Um... That's actually exactly what your graph shows:


The fact that you seem to believe that is illustrative.

It is a single data point graph, absent actual proof of casuality. One could as easily point to the election of democrats and the instalation of Nancy Pelosi in 2007 as the cause. Or perhaps one could argue that it was really the staggered increase in the minimum wage begining in 2007....

And that would be equally unsupported by this graph. The graph shows only a data set, it does not provide a proof of causation.
 
2013-05-15 06:49:15 PM  

Dansker: BojanglesPaladin:
But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

It shows they declined in the last year of the Bush administrations and during Obama's first year.
Or am I misreading it?


That's an excellent clarification. The downward trend did not continue past Obama's first year. As I said earlier, once you have hit bottom, there's no where to go but up, and the job rate hit bottom during his first year, following a trend established before he took office.

I would revise my statement:
"It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down, and did not return to net positive growthin the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far."
 
2013-05-15 06:50:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: A liberal group took 9 months to get approved. I'm still not seeing the problem here.


-One liberal group that you made up took 9 months to approve for an unknown reason
-hundreds of conservative groups had their applications unfairly scrutinized just because they were conservative groups.

The fact that you think there is at all some equivalence removes all doubt over how big of a moron you are

Witty_Retort: Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0


This isn't about being rejected.  This is about the IRS demanding absurd amounts of nonsensical information before processing an application.  A tireless group which spends 2-3 years giving the IRS everything it wants is still discriminated against even if it isn't rejected in the end.

A Dark Evil Omen: Now, the question is, who is dumber, him for saying it or you for defending it?


You're trying to deny the actions of an office which has already admitted wrongdoing in regards to said actions, so If anyone rode the short bus to the thread, i'd say it was you.

Car_Ramrod: Is it because they were conservative, or is it because they were blatantly using political names for what is supposed to be a non-political entity? What non-TEA Party conservative groups were being targeted?


I dont have information on every single group, along with their name and purpose.  Rest assured, if a true political advocacy group applied for tax-exempt 501 C4 and got a fair review and was denied, I'd be fine with it.  If there's a conservative Christian or Jewish outreach group that had to submit the names of everyone in the group along with their family members and what books they all ready and that other groups dont endure the same scrutiny then I have a problem with that.

Not only were the applications delayed or given more scrutiny but there are reports that non profit application information was leaked to left-wing rags from the IRS

The latest startling claim came Tuesday from an unexpected source -- ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning progressive journalism group -- which said the same Cincinnati IRS branch accused of targeting conservative groups released nine confidential applications of conservative groups to them last year.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/new-irs-scandal-echoes-age n cy-problems-past/#ixzz2TP8iPDIO
 
Displayed 50 of 172 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