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.

(Fox News)   New report shows that the Obama administration has created a "chilling effect" on the free press unseen since...well, you already know who else had a chilling effect on the free press, so I'll just stop there   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Obama, Committee to Protect Journalists, Bush administration, open government, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

1811 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:44 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-11 01:14:06 PM  

LasersHurt: jakomo002: So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?

So you think it's okay to just make shiat up? I didn't say anything was a lie, I'm talking about the CONCLUSIONS you're drawing. Surely you must understand that.

If you can reply without hyperbole and accusation, feel free.


So the report is factual, we can agree.  You object to my use of 'aggressively'?

???  That's the CONCLUSION of the whole freaking thing.  That the Obama Administration is the most aggressive when it comes to prosecuting leakers.
 
2013-10-11 01:14:08 PM  

Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....


Wait until Jon Stewart tells you how to respond.

Is this why you were gone for all of the scandal threads this summer?
 
2013-10-11 01:14:43 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.


It is. Look it up.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:15 PM  

busy chillin': I read a bunch of the comments from the link. WTF is my problem?

Obama is Hitler? Hyperbole is the most awesome thing ever in the entire universe.


What you did there. I see it.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:20 PM  

lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.


Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."


That seems like a really weird way to define that.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: lennavan: I think you've taken this a fine direction. Part of what you seem to be saying is it's fully possible to have a "free press" but that doesn't mean 100% unfettered access and so on. But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

I think the fact that our news media just doesn't give a shiat anymore and doesn't attempt to give us actual information is significantly more harmful to our nation than Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.


That's for sure.
 
2013-10-11 01:16:08 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: jakomo002: So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?

So you think it's okay to just make shiat up? I didn't say anything was a lie, I'm talking about the CONCLUSIONS you're drawing. Surely you must understand that.

If you can reply without hyperbole and accusation, feel free.

So the report is factual, we can agree.  You object to my use of 'aggressively'?

???  That's the CONCLUSION of the whole freaking thing.  That the Obama Administration is the most aggressive when it comes to prosecuting leakers.


Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.
 
2013-10-11 01:17:54 PM  
Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

"This is the most closed, control freak administration I've ever covered." - David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.

"It's turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press." - Margaret Sullivan, New York Times public editor

"The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention. There's a mind-set and approach that holds journalists at a greater distance." - Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of The Associated Press

"He's the least transparent of the seven presidents I've covered in terms of how he does his daily business." - ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton

"Covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of substance to report on in what should be a much more open system. If the U.S. starts backsliding, it is not only a bad example for more closed states, but also for other democracies that have been influenced by the U.S." to make their governments more transparent." - Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor

"The Obama administration is far worse than the Bush administration" in trying to thwart accountability reporting about government agencies. - Ellen Weiss, Washington bureau chief for E.W. Scripps newspapers and stations.
 
2013-10-11 01:18:00 PM  

LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."

That seems like a really weird way to define that.


So? That doesn't change the fact that Obama is taking this more seriously than any president before him.
 
2013-10-11 01:18:32 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....

Wait until Jon Stewart tells you how to respond.

Is this why you were gone for all of the scandal threads this summer?


Let me guess, O'Reilly's on about Stewart again?
 
2013-10-11 01:19:15 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.


Protections for actual whistleblowers have, in fact, been expanded under Obama - by executive order too, so this is something that came from the administration of its own volition.
 
2013-10-11 01:19:33 PM  

Granny_Panties: Fact: The press overwhelmly favors Republicans

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!

This isn't a new problem. The press has always favored the money and Republicans control most of the money.


Lol wut?
 
2013-10-11 01:19:53 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."

That seems like a really weird way to define that.

So? That doesn't change the fact that Obama is taking this more seriously than any president before him.


Because every president had exactly the same type of scenarios presented to them. (no they did not)
 
2013-10-11 01:20:30 PM  
Really, in a day and age of open reporting from the field that can reach millions of people instantly, one administration has had a "chilling effect" on the free press.

I'd say the pursuit of ad dollars and shareholder value has had the more effect on the press than 1,000 Adolf Hussien Fartbamas
 
2013-10-11 01:20:43 PM  

LasersHurt: Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.


SILLY ME.  I thought we were talking about THIS specific study not every study ever penned in the history of humanity.  You moved the goalposts to farkin Jupiter.

Stay in school.
 
2013-10-11 01:21:13 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.

SILLY ME.  I thought we were talking about THIS specific study not every study ever penned in the history of humanity.  You moved the goalposts to farkin Jupiter.

Stay in school.


Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.
 
2013-10-11 01:22:18 PM  
In other words, he's vigorously and effectively enforcing the law.  People CAN legally whistleblow, but it takes EFFORT and is oftentimes not as effective or satisfying as turning traitor.  As far as the press is concerned, fark them.  Their job is to investigate, not to simply collect quotes from people who hate their jobs.
 
2013-10-11 01:23:47 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.


This is Fark politics. Any criticism of anyone with a D after their name means you are 100% tea party redneck racist conservative who hates the poor.

Expect some mouth breather Democrat fanboy to retort with "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
 
2013-10-11 01:24:54 PM  

Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.


I would suggest you're trying to feed a nutritious meal to people who are used to theirs being cut into tiny bite-sized pieces and spoonfed to them all day every day.
 
2013-10-11 01:25:59 PM  

Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.


It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.
 
2013-10-11 01:26:53 PM  

Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.


6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.
 
2013-10-11 01:28:20 PM  

Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.


On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.


The entire premise of the report is to prove the unprecedented aggressiveness of the OA.  Interviews, quotes, factual references, etc.  If you don't agree with the conclusion, you have to doubt the proof.

My butt you read it.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:32 PM  

Biological Ali: Mike Chewbacca: Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.

Protections for actual whistleblowers have, in fact, been expanded under Obama - by executive order too, so this is something that came from the administration of its own volition.


I probably shouldn't have used the term whistleblower. I have no doubt Obama is less open with the press than his predecessors. Part of that is because our press is completely retarded and useless these days. Part of that is because of the rightwing propaganda machine. Part of that is because [REDACTED].

I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:35 PM  
funnyshare.org
 
2013-10-11 01:30:30 PM  

meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.


Consider how shiat-tastic our modern "news" media is, I'm sure that right on the money.
 
2013-10-11 01:30:54 PM  

meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.


Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.
 
2013-10-11 01:31:52 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.

The entire premise of the report is to prove the unprecedented aggressiveness of the OA.  Interviews, quotes, factual references, etc.  If you don't agree with the conclusion, you have to doubt the proof.

My butt you read it.


"Agree with me or you are wrong."

Well, okay.
 
2013-10-11 01:34:46 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.



Same here.  I was VERY hopeful when he won, now I realize he's more of a third and fourth Dubya term than anything resembling Hope & Change.  But he's miles ahead of the other potential options.
 
2013-10-11 01:35:17 PM  

LasersHurt: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.


Who to believe, actual journalists dealing with the administration or Fark Politics tab's Democrat fanboy club?
 
2013-10-11 01:36:01 PM  

machoprogrammer: LasersHurt: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.

Who to believe, actual journalists dealing with the administration or Fark Politics tab's Democrat fanboy club?


Do you seriously think you can't find a handful of journalists to pull negative quotes from about ANY administration?

/not a Democrat btw
 
2013-10-11 01:36:25 PM  
By other options I mean (shudder) the GOP.
 
2013-10-11 01:37:26 PM  

LasersHurt: meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.

Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.


These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.
 
2013-10-11 01:37:44 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: I have no doubt Obama is less open with the press than his predecessors.


...

I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.

I don't think anybody's asking you to "support everything Obama does". It would, however be helpful if things like "less open with the press" could be defined in a more specific manner. What, precisely, are some of the things that Obama's predecessors did that he hasn't done? And, in forming your opinion about Obama's overall openness to the press, have you taken into account the ways in which he improved upon his predecessors - for example, his directive that all agencies process FOIA requests more quickly and efficiently?
 
2013-10-11 01:37:52 PM  

COMALite J: Yes, it's shooped.
img.fark.net
The "O"riginal


That has to be shopped too. I clearly see Tina Fey there as "Palin"..
 
2013-10-11 01:39:04 PM  

Cletus C.: These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.


I am shocked that there are people who liked Bush more than Obama.
 
2013-10-11 01:39:21 PM  

LasersHurt: I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.


you're just refuting the report with your opinion that it isn't valid presumably because it doesn't agree with what you already believe. We're all just giving our as informed as we can get them divided by our past experiences and political bias opinions in pretty much every thread. Mine is the admin is over the top on some of these issues, these journalists and the ACLU agree.
 
2013-10-11 01:39:35 PM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.


http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?
 
2013-10-11 01:40:27 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.

Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.

These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.


So you're saying Obama's Administration actually sent a guy to jail for leaking a CIA agent's name to the press and didn't pardon the person that took the fall?
 
2013-10-11 01:40:52 PM  
I love the assumption that anyone who leaks information is a heroic whistleblower and that journalists they pass the information onto are just disinterested parties.

Like that Fox reporter who straight-up encouraged his source to leak him information so that he could, in his own words, influence US foreign policy. Totally not spy like behavior there. Oh wait, we're not even to allowed to question motives are we? His job title is "journalist", he's automatically trustworthy!

Snowden is establishing the trend for 21st century epsionage - leak some damaging information to claim the mantle of HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWER before fleeing with mountains of other documents to foreign adversaries.

I can't wait for history to catch up and exonerate Aldrich Ames for blowing the whistle on America's illegal activities overseas. I blame Obama for not pardoning him.
 
2013-10-11 01:41:49 PM  

Headso: LasersHurt: I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.

you're just refuting the report with your opinion that it isn't valid presumably because it doesn't agree with what you already believe. We're all just giving our as informed as we can get them divided by our past experiences and political bias opinions in pretty much every thread. Mine is the admin is over the top on some of these issues, these journalists and the ACLU agree.


I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?


So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.
 
2013-10-11 01:42:02 PM  

LasersHurt: "Agree with me or you are wrong."



You are wrong.  That you can't or won't see or admit it doesn't bother me at all.  I'm not tasked with scouring the internet to promote rational discourse with pigheaded goalpost repositioners.
 
2013-10-11 01:43:10 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: "Agree with me or you are wrong."


You are wrong.  That you can't or won't see or admit it doesn't bother me at all.  I'm not tasked with scouring the internet to promote rational discourse with pigheaded goalpost repositioners.


Man so you just cannot handle being disagreed with.
 
2013-10-11 01:46:27 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?


Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?
 
2013-10-11 01:47:31 PM  

LasersHurt: Man so you just cannot handle being disagreed with.


You saw right through my flippant dismissal of you.

Thanks for the exercise you gave to my eyes.  Must have rolled them a dozen times.

Cheers.
 
2013-10-11 01:49:44 PM  
Mitch Albom?
 
2013-10-11 01:52:14 PM  
Biological Ali:
Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?

It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.
 
2013-10-11 01:54:56 PM  

LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.


You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.
 
2013-10-11 01:56:15 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.


Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.
 
2013-10-11 01:56:18 PM  

Aexia: It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.


Excuse me?
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | 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