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.

(Defence Talk)   DoD considers canceling F-35 say leaked documents. DoD will buy F-35 and like it says Congressman from Lockheed Martin   (defencetalk.com) divider line 188
    More: Sad, Lockheed Martin, F-35, congressman, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, documents, Global Hawks  
•       •       •

3804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Aug 2013 at 5:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-03 11:31:14 AM  
It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.
 
2013-08-03 11:32:32 AM  

ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.


That and PBS and we're good to go
 
2013-08-03 11:33:51 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go


Perfect.
 
2013-08-03 11:37:28 AM  

ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.


And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig
 
2013-08-03 11:42:41 AM  
I agree that we need to find a way to reduce the defense budget, but I don't think canceling plans to build and develop our next generation hardware is the way to go about it.  With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.

Instead of letting us fall behind, how about the Pentagon just includes provisions in their development contracts that stipulate cost over-runs become the problem of the manufacturer, and failure to produce the planes for the original cost negotiated will result in incredibly heavy fines.  Add in performance and quality benchmarks, with more fines to be levied if they're not achieved.

Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.
 
2013-08-03 11:43:49 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig


I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus
 
2013-08-03 11:46:26 AM  

clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus


That also creates jerbs. So win-win!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-03 12:05:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.


Good luck with that.  This isn't a new problem.  As long as congressmen need campaign donation and as long as defense contractors are allowed to hire lobbyists the problem is going to continue.
 
2013-08-03 12:11:11 PM  

vpb: TuteTibiImperes: Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.

Good luck with that.  This isn't a new problem.  As long as congressmen need campaign donation and as long as defense contractors are allowed to hire lobbyists the problem is going to continue.


Plus no one likes to lose jobs in their districts. The military budget may need to be cut but Congress sure likes that money when it comes to their area.
 
2013-08-03 12:31:05 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I agree that we need to find a way to reduce the defense budget, but I don't think canceling plans to build and develop our next generation hardware is the way to go about it.  With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.


But given the problems its experienced I don't think the F-35 is the way to go. If we want to think outside the box then drone fighter jets seems more promising. Building a flying death machine is a lot easier when you don't have to keep on figuring out ways to protect the gooey, fleshy piece inside.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-03 12:43:18 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: But given the problems its experienced I don't think the F-35 is the way to go. If we want to think outside the box then drone fighter jets seems more promising. Building a flying death machine is a lot easier when you don't have to keep on figuring out ways to protect the gooey, fleshy piece inside.


Especially for the air to ground role.  I think UCAVs will take over that role soon anyway.
 
2013-08-03 01:12:44 PM  
Having been inside the acquisition process (and am glad I will never have to deal with that again), I can tell you that the vast majority of the administrative costs is trying to make sure it works and that we need it. And it's 100% farked. The vast majority is way beyond any point of reasonable returns in either anti-corruption or anti-MIC-paranoia.
 
2013-08-03 01:17:00 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.


Okay, but how many companies can make these things? You mentioned two - there is no competition because there is no competition.
 
2013-08-03 01:19:09 PM  

vartian: TuteTibiImperes: why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.

Okay, but how many companies can make these things? You mentioned two - there is no competition because there is no competition.


There are three major companies with Boeing, McDonnel-Douglas, and Lockheed-Martin.  Other industries get along fine with two or three major players.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-03 01:56:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: There are three major companies with Boeing, McDonnel-Douglas, and Lockheed-Martin.  Other industries get along fine with two or three major players.


MDD sold their fighter division to Boeing, so their are two.  Still two is all it takes.  We have competition, we don't have politicians who are more concerned with national interest than industrial or local interests.

Companies spend money influencing politicians and congressmen from districts where products are made will fight to to keep the jobs in their district.
 
2013-08-03 02:34:42 PM  
Meh. We need to cut it.

Japan is developing these monsters.

www.sakura-hostel.co.jp

As you can see here, it's already under going field testing.

The United States MUST not allow a Mobile Suit gap.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-03 03:12:51 PM  

vartian: Okay, but how many companies can make these things? You mentioned two - there is no competition because there is no competition.


Part of the reason there's no competition is because of acquisitions. Another reason is how rare new planes have become. When the Navy and Air Force were adding planes regularly it could support a fairly good number of manufacturers, but when that went away it got tough. Then factor in all the acquisitions, and you have what you have now.
 
2013-08-03 03:20:57 PM  

vpb: As long as congressmen need campaign donation and as long as defense contractors are allowed to hire lobbyists the problem is going to continue.


Also it's not like there's not a long history of generals and admirals testifying to Congress about stuff they don't want and still getting it. The whole angle of ignoring the testimony of the people who actually have to deal with weapons systems is another problem. Like when the undersecretary of the Navy testified the design of USS America was not suitable to its role as an amphibious ship because it has no well deck. Congress went and completely ignored him so now the Navy has a shiny new amphibious assault ship, that has almost no real amphibious capability. And there are two more one on the way. So three ships, $3.4 billion each, that can't do what their role says they can. Though at least after the first three any new ships will have a well deck so they can launch amphibious landings directly from the ship.
 
2013-08-03 03:23:24 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I agree that we need to find a way to reduce the defense budget, but I don't think canceling plans to build and develop our next generation hardware is the way to go about it.  With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.

Instead of letting us fall behind, how about the Pentagon just includes provisions in their development contracts that stipulate cost over-runs become the problem of the manufacturer, and failure to produce the planes for the original cost negotiated will result in incredibly heavy fines.  Add in performance and quality benchmarks, with more fines to be levied if they're not achieved.

Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
IP
2013-08-03 03:34:18 PM  
TuteTibiImperes: Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.

You realize that McDonnell Douglas ceased to exist about 15 years ago I hope.  Merged with Boeing.  If Lockheed gets driven out of business there will be NO competition for defense contracts.
 
2013-08-03 03:43:28 PM  
Back in the cold war, there used to be competition for this sort of things. The endless string of mergers has resulted in a pair of companies owning everything. As I recall, now when one company doesn't get a contract, they get "compensated" for their not winning. Jeez. This is corporate welfare.

Canada cancelled the F35 contract when the price magically got to ten times -- TEN TIMES -- the original purchase cost. So much for the idea that the export market would help bring the cost of this device down. I suspect that in the end, the only ones who'll be saddled with this product will be the US.
 
2013-08-03 03:51:35 PM  

gaslight: Back in the cold war, there used to be competition for this sort of things. The endless string of mergers has resulted in a pair of companies owning everything. As I recall, now when one company doesn't get a contract, they get "compensated" for their not winning. Jeez. This is corporate welfare.

Canada cancelled the F35 contract when the price magically got to ten times -- TEN TIMES -- the original purchase cost. So much for the idea that the export market would help bring the cost of this device down. I suspect that in the end, the only ones who'll be saddled with this product will be the US.


When did the F-35 ever cost between $7-11 million?
 
2013-08-03 05:13:58 PM  
So is the guy who leaked these documents going to have to live in an airport terminal, or do we only do that for leaks that make the administration look bad?
 
2013-08-03 05:16:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.


Do you really think China is going to start a war with us? To what end?
 
2013-08-03 05:34:26 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Instead of letting us fall behind, how about the Pentagon just includes provisions in their development contracts that stipulate cost over-runs become the problem of the manufacturer, and failure to produce the planes for the original cost negotiated will result in incredibly heavy fines.


You might as well ask the sun to rise in the west.
 
2013-08-03 05:38:03 PM  
The F-35 program is the Pentagon's most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion, which is up 68 percent from the projected costs measured in 2001.

Pretty sure LM has been milking this thing for years with no end in sight.

Also pretty sure some LM insider is responsible for this leak.

Axe it.
 
2013-08-03 05:39:41 PM  
Heh. The big defense contractors don't need to worry about congressmen anymore. Now they have one of them nominated as the new Secretary of the Air Force.

And you know the Republicans won't block that nomination.
 
2013-08-03 05:39:44 PM  
Good. The F-35 program is a boondoggle.
 
2013-08-03 05:41:02 PM  
IMHO, the big mistake with this program was not letting Boeing's design go further towards a working prototype. Once Lockheed's design was chosen, the pressure on Lockheed was off. Now that Lockheed has dropped the ball (again) on building a fighter for the US Air Force, there's no fallback design.
 
2013-08-03 05:41:50 PM  
Boeing was in competition for the JSF, the proposed the X-32. It lost to what became the F-35.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-03 05:43:06 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: We shouldn't be spending any more money on developing future generations of manned aircraft. Put all the effort into unmanned vehicles.


Also, judging by the most recent military actions, the current crop of US airpower seems more than adequate to get and maintain air superiority vs. third world nations.  I guess you could make an argument that it might... might... be a fair fight if the US and NATO has to go against China or Russia, but I would suggest that if there's open warfare between the US and either of those two nations we're looking at a much bigger problem than the US Air Force being somewhat out of date.

The expenditures simply don't bring enough of a benefit to be warranted.  Especially when the social safety net of the US is already in such a woeful state.
 
2013-08-03 05:56:48 PM  

b2theory: gaslight: Back in the cold war, there used to be competition for this sort of things. The endless string of mergers has resulted in a pair of companies owning everything. As I recall, now when one company doesn't get a contract, they get "compensated" for their not winning. Jeez. This is corporate welfare.

Canada cancelled the F35 contract when the price magically got to ten times -- TEN TIMES -- the original purchase cost. So much for the idea that the export market would help bring the cost of this device down. I suspect that in the end, the only ones who'll be saddled with this product will be the US.

When did the F-35 ever cost between $7-11 million?


Try $207.6 million each Link.
 
2013-08-03 05:57:18 PM  

clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus


And .... close down the departments of Labor, Education and Housing and Urban Development.
 
2013-08-03 05:57:37 PM  

Mercutio74: Also, judging by the most recent military actions, the current crop of US airpower seems more than adequate to get and maintain air superiority vs. third world nations.  I guess you could make an argument that it might... might... be a fair fight if the US and NATO has to go against China or Russia, but I would suggest that if there's open warfare between the US and either of those two nations we're looking at a much bigger problem than the US Air Force being somewhat out of date.


This! Our military just needs to be better than any non-nuclear power. Open warfare between two nuclear powers is very unlikely because of the aforementioned nuclear weapons.
 
2013-08-03 05:57:46 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Remember when we were LITERALLY sending C130 cargo planes full of $100 bills to Iraq early on in that clusterfark of a war?

I have no doubt we could easily have the same level of national defense and force projection capabilities at half or less the current budget if it was only possible to get rid of all the waste and fraud.

Overall, I just try not to think about it. I just get mad and my blood pressure goes up -- especially when I also think back on the filthy, run down disgraces that were the buildings where I taught public school.  Half the light tubes were burnt out, the place was riddled with asbestos and mold, there was no toner to print worksheets or make copies for part of the year.... the list just goes on and on.

Meanwhile, my brother who works at Tinker AFB has described to me the yearly orgy of needless spending known as "Use it or lose it" towards the end of each fiscal year. Perfectly good and barely used equipment gets thrown out or destroyed to make room for all the new crap they gotta buy to use up their budget money.

Sadly, the drastic measures we would have to take to fix this deeply entrenched problem would be politically impossible to do-- I'm talking things like nationalizing Lockheed-Martin, rounding up their board of directors and CEO, and having every one of those farkers lined up against the wall and shot for treason-- all on live TV.

And that would just be a tiny start.


===========================================

hardinparamedic: Meh. We need to cut it.

Japan is developing these monsters.

[www.sakura-hostel.co.jp image 400x300]

As you can see here, it's already under going field testing.

The United States MUST not allow a Mobile Suit gap.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 177x185]



I never understood the hard-on so many have for giant robots as a weapons platform.  From a tactical fighting point of view those things would be very little more than colossal, lumbering targets.

With good preparation and skilled leadership tanks, missile launchers, AFVs, etc. can hide pretty damn well in the trees, rocks and hills of the surrounding countryside. Meanwhile a towering robot would stand out like a fly on a wedding cake and could be easily targeted from miles away.

Come to think of it, I'm now surprised we don't have hundreds of the things stockpiled already.
 
2013-08-03 06:00:34 PM  
Because it was hacked, there's no way to be sure it hasn't been compromised.
 
2013-08-03 06:00:48 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: b2theory: gaslight: Back in the cold war, there used to be competition for this sort of things. The endless string of mergers has resulted in a pair of companies owning everything. As I recall, now when one company doesn't get a contract, they get "compensated" for their not winning. Jeez. This is corporate welfare.

Canada cancelled the F35 contract when the price magically got to ten times -- TEN TIMES -- the original purchase cost. So much for the idea that the export market would help bring the cost of this device down. I suspect that in the end, the only ones who'll be saddled with this product will be the US.

When did the F-35 ever cost between $7-11 million?

Try $207.6 million each Link.


First, LRIP costs more than FRP. The projected flyaway costs will be in the neighborhood of $80 to $100 million depending on the variant.

Second, do you know what it means to multiply something by 10?
 
2013-08-03 06:04:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I agree that we need to find a way to reduce the defense budget, but I don't think canceling plans to build and develop our next generation hardware is the way to go about it.  With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.

Instead of letting us fall behind, how about the Pentagon just includes provisions in their development contracts that stipulate cost over-runs become the problem of the manufacturer, and failure to produce the planes for the original cost negotiated will result in incredibly heavy fines.  Add in performance and quality benchmarks, with more fines to be levied if they're not achieved.

Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.


Those are all great points but maybe the costs are just to great at this point and not worth the superiority of the F-35.  Maybe it's not as much of a leap that they wanted and there are other proposals out that they'd like to use that money for.  There's a very good chance there's next gen planes being developed that we're not aware of (and more importantly China isn't aware of), and the Pentagon wants to siphon money off of these more well known albatross projects towards those.
 
2013-08-03 06:07:04 PM  

dehehn: TuteTibiImperes: I agree that we need to find a way to reduce the defense budget, but I don't think canceling plans to build and develop our next generation hardware is the way to go about it.  With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.

Instead of letting us fall behind, how about the Pentagon just includes provisions in their development contracts that stipulate cost over-runs become the problem of the manufacturer, and failure to produce the planes for the original cost negotiated will result in incredibly heavy fines.  Add in performance and quality benchmarks, with more fines to be levied if they're not achieved.

Defense contractors are making billions of dollars by squeezing the government by the balls - why not leverage the government's buying power to get them to compete against each other and take the risk and costs of developing these programs onto themselves.  If that means that a failed design drives Lockheed out of business, then that's what should happen.  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass will take note and make sure that they do a better job with their next design.

Those are all great points but maybe the costs are just to great at this point and not worth the superiority of the F-35.  Maybe it's not as much of a leap that they wanted and there are other proposals out that they'd like to use that money for.  There's a very good chance there's next gen planes being developed that we're not aware of (and more importantly China isn't aware of), and the Pentagon wants to siphon money off of these more well known albatross projects towards those.


Stuxnet was effective, cheap, and no Americans died deploying it.
 
2013-08-03 06:08:28 PM  
I say just vote to defund Obummercare and use that money to pay for the jet. That way we will be able to give out great jobs that have healthcare.

Two birds, one stone.
 
2013-08-03 06:20:15 PM  
The F-35 is 1 part too many people watching voltron, 1 part budget cuts leading to projects being conglomerated, and 3 parts corruption and graft by the military-industrial complex.

It's supposed to do everything, so it can't do anything.
 
2013-08-03 06:24:31 PM  

Mugato: TuteTibiImperes: With China on the rise and starting to modernize their military this is the time more than ever that we need to ensure that we have technological superiority.

Do you really think China is going to start a war with us? To what end?


They won't, and it's for the same reason that our government won't put any real pressure on them to stop dicking over their citizens. The American and Chinese economies rely too much on each other.
 
2013-08-03 06:25:49 PM  

Riche: never understood the hard-on so many have for giant robots as a weapons platform.


i.imgur.com

Because Godzilla.

History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men.
 
2013-08-03 06:28:50 PM  
I was never impressed by the F-35, EXCEPT for the F-35B, the vertical landing version. C'mon! We NEED to have a STOVL supersonic fighter. Just too cool to give up. Ax the other versions...
 
2013-08-03 06:29:09 PM  

ginandbacon: clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus

That also creates jerbs. So win-win!


Ummm, people, your math is a little off, and you're avoiding the tough necessary tough decisions.

Tax cuts for job creators will be necessary to pay for this program.
 
2013-08-03 06:31:12 PM  

TheBigJerk: The F-35 is 1 part too many people watching voltron, 1 part budget cuts leading to projects being conglomerated, and 3 parts corruption and graft by the military-industrial complex.

It's supposed to do everything, so it can't do anything.


It has convinced me that if the Internet was around in the 60s we would never have had the f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18, or A-10.

The fact that almost no one understands that the most expensive component on the aircraft is the software (which will be a worsening problem on every future aircraft due to certification and inspection processes) leads me to be very pessimistic about our country building anything complex.
 
2013-08-03 06:33:49 PM  

rubi_con_man: clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus

And .... close down the departments of Labor, Education and Housing and Urban Development.


And one other one... uh... oops.


Popcorn Johnny: We shouldn't be spending any more money on developing future generations of manned aircraft. Put all the effort into unmanned vehicles.


www.hitechweb.genezis.eu

Spoiler alert: Ray Charles gets killed
 
2013-08-03 06:34:37 PM  

ginandbacon: clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus

That also creates jerbs. So win-win!


1.bp.blogspot.com
/the debasement of Republican talking points that is :)
 
2013-08-03 06:36:49 PM  

jaytkay: ginandbacon: clancifer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: It's okay. We'll just cut SNAP. No worries.

That and PBS and we're good to go

Perfect.

And, of course, all funding for ACORN

/oblig

I thought restricting abortion access paid for all this.

/laser-like focus

That also creates jerbs. So win-win!

Ummm, people, your math is a little off, and you're avoiding the tough necessary tough decisions.

Tax cuts for job creators will be necessary to pay for this program.


DAMMIT! I knew I forgot something!
 
2013-08-03 06:39:54 PM  

Somacandra: Riche: never understood the hard-on so many have for giant robots as a weapons platform.

[i.imgur.com image 415x302]

Because Godzilla.

History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men.



But...Godzilla was the original reason why we developed the F-35 in the first place.

I think we've come full circle here.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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