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.

(Bloomberg)   "Gerrymandering didn't cause the shutdown", say the three Republican representatives of five districts where 60% of the people voted for Obama   (bloomberg.com) divider line 106
    More: Unlikely, Republican, Obama, Senator Ted Cruz, reapportionment, free market capitalism, Chip Cravaack, House of Representatives  
•       •       •

2656 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2013 at 8:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-10 06:59:19 PM  
It certainly didn't help.
 
2013-10-10 07:53:34 PM  
. (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.
 
2013-10-10 08:02:31 PM  

So...50% of the people voted for the republican representative and then turned around and voted for Obama?



This sounds more like schizophrenia than gerrymandering!
 
2013-10-10 08:18:20 PM  

baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.


Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.
 
2013-10-10 08:22:06 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.


By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.
 
2013-10-10 08:23:25 PM  

baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.


Some Democrats are starting to reject the free-market neoliberal consensus that arose in the late Clinton years, that in part led to increasing income inequality and the financial crisis.  Some might call this polarization; I call it learning from experience.
 
2013-10-10 08:23:57 PM  
welcome to wisconsin...  where we've tried to re-district elected officials out of office...
 
2013-10-10 08:25:22 PM  
There's no mainstream left-wing in America.  Regular Dems are basically yesterday's moderate Republicans.

Seriously, other than maybe Bernie Sanders, none are even close to "left leaning".
 
2013-10-10 08:26:01 PM  

Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.


By any objective measure, I can count the number of "liberal" Democrats in Congress without taking off my shoes...and that's being incredibly generous to most of them.  As for the White House... how many fingers does it take to count to zero?
 
2013-10-10 08:26:17 PM  

cynicalminion: welcome to wisconsin...  where we've tried to re-district elected officials out of office...


oh, you don't live in the district you've been elected to represent?  *boom* fired!
 
2013-10-10 08:27:12 PM  

Emposter: Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.

By any objective measure, I can count the number of "liberal" Democrats in Congress without taking off my shoes...and that's being incredibly generous to most of them.  As for the White House... how many fingers does it take to count to zero?


Not necessarily inconsistent with my position.
 
2013-10-10 08:28:44 PM  
Emposter:
As for the White House... how many fingers does it take to count to zero?

if you want to take over the white house, learn how to be a janitor.  the people counting to potato are on the other end of the mall.
 
2013-10-10 08:31:34 PM  

jakomo002: There's no mainstream left-wing in America.  Regular Dems are basically yesterday's moderate Republicans.

Seriously, other than maybe Bernie Sanders, none are even close to "left leaning".


Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.
 
2013-10-10 08:31:41 PM  
It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
www.newrepublic.com

libtards
 
2013-10-10 08:34:13 PM  

Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps

perps.

FTFY
 
2013-10-10 08:34:44 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards


It's like a strawman-NO U hybrid
 
2013-10-10 08:35:44 PM  

cynicalminion: if you want to take over the white house, learn how to be a janitor.  the people counting to potato are on the other end of the mall.


The other end of the mall? At the Jefferson Memorial? No one's there. It's closed.
 
2013-10-10 08:36:12 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.



Oh, damn, he's an Independent, right?  I revise my list to zero, or maybe a fraction.  .6
 
2013-10-10 08:39:07 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards


Has someone suggested that's not gerrymandering? One might wonder about the vote breakdown, as well; did this district vote overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney, but somehow ended up with a Democratic congressman? Seems like you wouldn't find anything wrong with that.
 
2013-10-10 08:39:08 PM  
The right wing of the Republican Party has embraced a fundamentalist version of free-market capitalism and succeeded in winning elections.

Um... the second half of that is like 90% due to gerrymandering, man.  In non-gerrymandered districts where the D:R ratio is something like 40:45 or the other way around at worst (and that's a  huge gap for a fair district, truly representative districts are usually within a couple percent), a candidate with a radical agenda that made it through the primary would alter voter turnout enough in the general election that  he would not win.

It's only because of districts gerrymandered into ridiculous shiat like 15-point gaps in states that are 50/50 dead-on overall that the seats are "safe" enough to successfully win it for the party even though you're running a farking nutball without enough mental capacity to work out his shoelaces.
 
2013-10-10 08:40:26 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards


Unlike you, I don't like it when ANYBODY does it.  And this current situation is abominable; Democrats won the popular vote by a full percentage point, over a million more votes, yet the Republicans took 33 MORE seats than the Democrats.  The Democrats have to win something like 55% of the vote to get a simple majority of the seats, meanwhile the Republicans only have to get something like 46%.
 
2013-10-10 08:43:46 PM  

jakomo002: HeartBurnKid: Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.


Oh, damn, he's an Independent, right?  I revise my list to zero, or maybe a fraction.  .6


Right. He caucuses with the Democrats, but he's an independent.

I'm not sure you're giving Elizabeth Warren enough credit, though.
 
2013-10-10 08:45:54 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]



.... said nobody in this thread.

Dirty pool is dirty pool - doesn't matter which horse you bet on.

/metaphor smoothie
 
2013-10-10 08:48:20 PM  

qorkfiend: SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards

Has someone suggested that's not gerrymandering? One might wonder about the vote breakdown, as well; did this district vote overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney, but somehow ended up with a Democratic congressman? Seems like you wouldn't find anything wrong with that.


IIRC there was a state-by-state breakdown of redistricting tactics in the 2012 election, and it basically found that Dems picked up 2 or 3 districts that they wouldn't have won otherwise through redistricting (IL and MD were the worst offenders), whereas Republicans picked up dozens.
 
2013-10-10 08:49:07 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards


Here. Some reading for you.We call this 'reaching a conclusion from data'. It's surprisingly effective. Not as emotionally comforting as shoving the data into the shape you want it to be in, but more effective.

/ yes, both sides do it
// but the current D:R ratio is about 10:90
 
2013-10-10 08:49:22 PM  

Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.


You let me know how many of these Democrats will do the following:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment to end consensual crimes in this country.

2. At least try to legalize one of the major ones: drug use, prostitution, euthanasia.

3. Or at a minimum try to legalize marijuana.  And I don't mean this half-hearted attempt at saying that "I once smoked a joint in college", but actually writing a bill and putting it on the floor for a vote.

4.Actively seek to end Corporate Personhood once and for all.

5.Actively fight for criminal prosecutions of billion dollar crimes, or demand civil penalties that equates to more than just 5% of their profits for a year.
 
2013-10-10 08:55:03 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.


That's why Obama is governing further to the right than Richard Nixon, mostly because he's forced to.
It doesn't help that most Americans couldn't politically or economically self-identify themselves out of a paper bag. A "liberal" American would probably be considered a right-winger in Canada or Australia. Way too many Americans consider themselves middle class, too, which is strictly aspirational magical thinking on most of their parts, especially now.
 
2013-10-10 08:56:54 PM  

Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.


Which objective measures were you thinking of?

Name a few, please.
 
2013-10-10 08:58:26 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Right. He caucuses with the Democrats, but he's an independent.

I'm not sure you're giving Elizabeth Warren enough credit, though.


Right again, though the farther left she goes the more they'll marginalize her.
 
2013-10-10 08:59:36 PM  

blue_2501: Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.

You let me know how many of these Democrats will do the following:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment to end consensual crimes in this country.

2. At least try to legalize one of the major ones: drug use, prostitution, euthanasia.

3. Or at a minimum try to legalize marijuana.  And I don't mean this half-hearted attempt at saying that "I once smoked a joint in college", but actually writing a bill and putting it on the floor for a vote.

4.Actively seek to end Corporate Personhood once and for all.

5.Actively fight for criminal prosecutions of billion dollar crimes, or demand civil penalties that equates to more than just 5% of their profits for a year.



And let me know when one of these dangerous "socialists" or "communists" proposes a bill for one of the following:

1. Federal censorship/approval of news media
2. Nationalization of oil and energy companies
3. Nationalization of food production/distribution
4. Equal pay for all jobs - wanting CEOs and neurosurgeons to receive the same pay as burger flippers and toilet scrubbers
5. Limits upon the number of natural children that can be born to parents

Hell, I'd settle for someone suggesting a bill to eliminate the FICA cap. Or even mandating that college tuition and health insurance premiums be counted when inflation is measured.
 
2013-10-10 08:59:44 PM  

blue_2501: Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.

You let me know how many of these Democrats will do the following:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment to end consensual crimes in this country.

2. At least try to legalize one of the major ones: drug use, prostitution, euthanasia.

3. Or at a minimum try to legalize marijuana.  And I don't mean this half-hearted attempt at saying that "I once smoked a joint in college", but actually writing a bill and putting it on the floor for a vote.

4.Actively seek to end Corporate Personhood once and for all.

5.Actively fight for criminal prosecutions of billion dollar crimes, or demand civil penalties that equates to more than just 5% of their profits for a year.


Someone can be "move to the left" while still being significantly right of center on a more general scale.  Their fairly recent support for gay marriage for example constitutes a shift to the left.


To put it another way, if I go from making 5k a year to making 10k a year, I will be "richer" even if I am still very poor by any objective measure.  Likewise someone who makes a billion dollars in one year and 500 million the next has become "poorer" despite still being disgustingly rich.
 
2013-10-10 09:00:17 PM  

LasersHurt: SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards

It's like a strawman-NO U hybrid


At least he's put away the stupid "57 states" bullshiat that he spit constantly for the last year.
 
2013-10-10 09:00:32 PM  

baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.


That does appear to be what Nate Silver is saying:

(Most of the evidence suggests the trend is asymmetric: Republicans in Congress have become much more conservative, while Democrats have become only somewhat more liberal.)
 
2013-10-10 09:02:48 PM  

blue_2501: Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.

You let me know how many of these Democrats will do the following:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment to end consensual crimes in this country.

2. At least try to legalize one of the major ones: drug use, prostitution, euthanasia.

3. Or at a minimum try to legalize marijuana.  And I don't mean this half-hearted attempt at saying that "I once smoked a joint in college", but actually writing a bill and putting it on the floor for a vote.

4.Actively seek to end Corporate Personhood once and for all.

5.Actively fight for criminal prosecutions of billion dollar crimes, or demand civil penalties that equates to more than just 5% of their profits for a year.


I think you could get a half dozen Senators together for #4... Sanders, Warren, Boxer, Murray, at least. And a couple dozen more in the house.

The rest of that? If only the Dems were that liberal!
 
2013-10-10 09:03:48 PM  

technoblogical: cynicalminion: if you want to take over the white house, learn how to be a janitor.  the people counting to potato are on the other end of the mall.

The other end of the mall? At the Jefferson Memorial? No one's there. It's closed.


well, it's not like the white house and the capitol are neighbors...

and were there people at the jefferson memorial ever?
 
2013-10-10 09:04:32 PM  
SauronWasFramed: So...50% of the people voted for the republican representative and then turned around and voted for Obama?

This sounds more like schizophrenia than gerrymandering!


Or they was happy with the jorb thier GOP rep did at bringing home the pork barrel spending but wanted to vote for Barak because they don't want to be considered racist.
 
2013-10-10 09:06:34 PM  

clkeagle: SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]


.... said nobody in this thread.

Dirty pool is dirty pool - doesn't matter which horse you bet on.

/metaphor smoothie


so, we've decided to re-district...  oh, you don't live in your district anymore?  we have a candidate!!
 
2013-10-10 09:06:54 PM  
If dems are at their most left, why are they dismissive of the fourth amendment and bend over backward to appear hawkish on terror?

So bashful about supporting the mildest of tax increases?

Using a republican healthcare plan?

I could go on.

I do want to know by which objective measure they've taken a hard left over my lifetime though.
 
2013-10-10 09:07:24 PM  

jakomo002: Right again, though the farther left she goes the more they'll marginalize her.


In the USA, left is center, right is moderate, and far right is fascist/evangelical dominionist.

There are very few true liberals left in the USA.
This is why I crack up when the derpers here go on about "libs," which is nothing but a generic term for anyone who disagrees with their pinheaded assclownish nonsensical yammerings.
 
2013-10-10 09:09:06 PM  

cynicalminion: clkeagle: SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]


.... said nobody in this thread.

Dirty pool is dirty pool - doesn't matter which horse you bet on.

/metaphor smoothie

so, we've decided to re-district...  oh, you don't live in your district anymore?  we have a candidate!!


See also: Dennis Kucinich
 
2013-10-10 09:09:17 PM  
The GOP being the moderate center and the Democratic party being left wing crazies was the centerpiece of Rush's scripted callers today. Not surprised it's being repeated ad-nauseum.
 
2013-10-10 09:10:10 PM  

blue_2501: Lost Thought 00: AliceBToklasLives: baka-san: . (The Democrats have moved to the left, but less so.)

WHAT THE HOLY fark!?!

You, my non friends, are dumber than a bag of really dumb hammers, being pummeled with a bag of really dumb rocks.

Agreed.  The Dems have been steadily moving to the right for the last 40 years.

By any objective measure, Current democrats in Congress are more liberal than they have been in 20 years. Mostly because the more conservative ones lost to Tea Party peeps.

You let me know how many of these Democrats will do the following:

1. Propose a constitutional amendment to end consensual crimes in this country.

2. At least try to legalize one of the major ones: drug use, prostitution, euthanasia.

3. Or at a minimum try to legalize marijuana.  And I don't mean this half-hearted attempt at saying that "I once smoked a joint in college", but actually writing a bill and putting it on the floor for a vote.

4.Actively seek to end Corporate Personhood once and for all.

5.Actively fight for criminal prosecutions of billion dollar crimes, or demand civil penalties that equates to more than just 5% of their profits for a year.


Can't. Our best and brightest were shot in the head before they could do anything. We've been bumfarked since before my grandmother went to school.
 
2013-10-10 09:10:45 PM  
Um.  How does the amount they voted for Obama matter?  Did 60% vote for dems, and it still failed, or what?  What if 60% voted for Obama as president and 60% voted for the repubs for the house?

/dnrtfa
 
2013-10-10 09:11:55 PM  

Oldiron_79: Or they was happy with the jorb thier GOP rep did at bringing home the pork barrel spending but wanted to vote for Barak because they don't want to be considered racist.


"Didn't want to be concidered racist" is the cry of a closeted bigot outing their own thought process and projecting it onto others, I've found.

/repeat some teatard talking points back to these people and the N-bombs are inevitable.
 
2013-10-10 09:14:57 PM  
toomuchwhargarbl: Oldiron_79: Or they was happy with the jorb thier GOP rep did at bringing home the pork barrel spending but wanted to vote for Barak because they don't want to be considered racist.

"Didn't want to be concidered racist" is the cry of a closeted bigot outing their own thought process and projecting it onto others, I've found.

/repeat some teatard talking points back to these people and the N-bombs are inevitable.


Eh if you say so. I wasn't gonna vote Dem in '08 whether it was Obama, Hillary, or Edwards that won the primary.
 
2013-10-10 09:20:12 PM  
No, gerrymandering didn't cause it, at least not alone.  It was helped by an unaddressed need for campaign finance reform, a crappy primary system, and a lack of term limits.  But it sure didn't hurt.
 
2013-10-10 09:20:31 PM  
No, it didn't "cause" the shutdown. That is 100% because the GOP has become the Party of Crazy, and anyone who tries to cooperate with anyone that is not a Right Wing Loon is politically crucified.

It didn't cause the shutdown, but anything that adds more of the current batch of Republican assholes isn't doing us any favors. Eventually, the Right will either implode, or will balance itself out, then the unbalance won't matter so much, but for now, every extra one of those shiatstains is just destroying our country a little more...
 
2013-10-10 09:25:19 PM  
Oldiron_79:
Eh if you say so. I wasn't gonna vote Dem in '08 whether it was Obama, Hillary, or Edwards that won the primary.

Which says absolutely nothing.
 
2013-10-10 09:28:10 PM  

Mikey1969: No, it didn't "cause" the shutdown. That is 100% because the GOP has become the Party of Crazy, and anyone who tries to cooperate with anyone that is not a Right Wing Loon is politically crucified.

It didn't cause the shutdown, but anything that adds more of the current batch of Republican assholes isn't doing us any favors. Eventually, the Right will either implode, or will balance itself out, then the unbalance won't matter so much, but for now, every extra one of those shiatstains is just destroying our country a little more...


Interesting way of looking at it. Gerrymandering has accomplished one thing - it has completely polarized the American people between blue and red. In ideal districts, I'd think just about every single D/R election would resemble the national popular presidential vote - ending up somewhere around 51/49 every time, and potentially changing sides every election.
 
2013-10-10 09:30:01 PM  

SevenizGud: It's not gerrymandering when WE do it
[www.newrepublic.com image 500x500]

libtards


You know why Maryland is a terrible example?

Because in Maryland, the Democrats got 1,481,895 votes in House races.  The Republicans got 832,322.  The Democrats got 7 of the 8 seats, which is to be expected when you get 64% of the statewide vote.  Do you see Democrats biatching about Republicans getting 6 of Alabama's 7 seats?  No.
(For the record, AL's results were 60% R with 1,719,507 to 40% D with 688,410.  If anything, you should be grateful that the way Maryland is districted allows even ONE Republican seat.)

The ones we're pissed off about are as follows:
NC - 9 Rs with 49.2% (2,143,148) / 4 Ds with 50.8% (2,219,165)
MI - 9 Rs with 47.3% (2,083,613) / 5 Ds with 52.7% (2,324,884)
WI - 5 Rs with 49.2% (1,398,916) / 3 Ds with 50.8% (1,442,491)
FL - 17 Rs with 53.0% (3,825,723) / 10 Ds with 47.0% (3,391,037).
OH - 12 Rs with 52.6% (2,288,250) / 4 Ds with 47.4% (2,065,814)
VA - 8 Rs with 51.4% (1,833,934) / 3 Ds with 48.6% (1,736,164)

Do you see the difference?

/Vote percentages calculated excluding minor-party candidates.
//FL and OH each had multiple unopposed seats, which leads to the numbers being untrustworthy.  No votes are taken in unopposed seats, but it's safe to say that they are highly partisan districts that would fark up the math a bit.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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