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.

(WTOP)   The city of Alexandria, VA is considering the repeal of an old law that forces it to name all North-South streets after racist traitors   (wtop.com) divider line 234
    More: Hero, Virginia City, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Dred Scott, Robert E. Lee, repeal  
•       •       •

7366 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 9:51 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-15 03:39:14 PM  

htomc: o instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...),


Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.
 
2014-01-15 03:54:17 PM  

impaler: htomc: o instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...),

Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.


I'm included to agree with you here, but at least that State government is a wee bit closer and a c-hair more accountable than the distant Federal government.  There's some wisdom to keeping power no further from those affected by it, than absolutely necessary.
 
2014-01-15 03:55:24 PM  

htomc: impaler: htomc: o instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...),

Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.

I'm included to agree with you here, but at least that State government is a wee bit closer and a c-hair more accountable than the distant Federal government.  There's some wisdom to keeping power no further from those affected by it, than absolutely necessary.


s/included/inclined/

/stupid autocomplete
//stupid button
 
2014-01-15 04:20:39 PM  

impaler: Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.


Legalized pot.

Of course, most of the "states rights" Repubes can't stand that, so they want the feds to step on Colorado and Washington.
 
2014-01-15 04:24:58 PM  

htomc: Traitors?  What did they do to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?  They just wanted their own separate country- just like the colonists did to the British less than a century before.  Granted, their reasons might not have been quite as honorable, but they did essentially the same thing.

How were they any more "traitors" than any person who leaves the US and becomes a citizen of another country?  Does this mean that Tina Turner should now be subject to the death penalty?


Tina Turner isn't trying to prevent Midwest farmers from sending crops down the Mississippi, or attacking US military installations.
 
2014-01-15 04:48:53 PM  

maddogdelta: impaler: Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.

Legalized pot.

Of course, most of the "states rights" Repubes can't stand that, so they want the feds to step on Colorado and Washington.


Good point.

Naming a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right isn't hard.

Naming a "State's right" that self-professed "States' rights advocates" support, that isn't the State taking away an individual's right is impossible.
 
2014-01-15 04:51:04 PM  

Baron Harkonnen: [upload.wikimedia.org image 409x557]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of racial equality]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.  -Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America.


He needed a better tailor; those are some ill-fitting clothes.
 
2014-01-15 04:52:48 PM  

maddogdelta: impaler: Name a "State's right" that isn't the State taking away an individual's right.

Legalized pot.

Of course, most of the "states rights" Repubes can't stand that, so they want the feds to step on Colorado and Washington.


When proggies were using the "tenther" epithet (as if wanting to uphold a constitutional amendment is some kind of mental derangement) I would ask them if they were tenthers when it comes to medical marijuana. You know when they hear "states' rights" they accuse the proponent of wanting to bring back slavery and Jim Crow, but when it's about something they like, well that's different.
 
2014-01-15 04:58:35 PM  
Another type of state right that could be used to enforce individual rights would be a state refusing to enforce certain federal laws or even blocking federal actions. There is a movement afoot in Utah to get the state to deny water rights to the NSA datacenter being built there. If they don't have water to cool their computers they can't do what the NSA does, at least not there.
 
2014-01-15 05:03:26 PM  
Let those poor, pathetic, Southerners have their Civil War generals' names on signs.  If that makes them feel better about their lame little lives, why should we begrudge them?

/living in Alexandria on one of those north-south streets,  and getting a kick out of this.
//and this doesn't explain why one of the best neighborhoods in the city is on a north-south street named Union Street...
 
2014-01-15 05:03:49 PM  

Chummer45: Lucky LaRue: You would think, subby, that if the Confederates were traitors, then at least their leaders would have been judged guilty of the crime.  Maybe, though, the Federalist were just too stupid or too timid to take that kind of action, though.


Isn't fighting an armed insurrection against your own government kind of the definition of traitor?

I guess maybe you wouldn't see it that way, if you deluded yourself into thinking that the confederates were on the right side of history.

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberTies of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-Joseph Story, 1833
Or just maybe they were exercising the rights granted them in the 2nd amendment because they felt the government was becoming oppressive. Personally don't care either way but as a history major both of the main ideas of why the war was fought are wrong on some lvl.
 
2014-01-15 05:15:43 PM  

htomc: rwdavis:
If they wanted to form their own separate country without being traitors then they should have either 1) won the war to actually form a separate country or 2) actually secede from the nation. The Constitution has no provisions by which a state may secede, so currently no state may secede. In order to do so an Amendment to the Constitution would need to be made that either said a) "South Carolina et al are no longer a states of the United States of America" or b) define a process by which a state may leave. The South did not do this so the Confederate States of America never actually left the nation. Hence traitors

It is true that the Constitution had no procedure in place for secession, but isn't that and a host of other rights and privileges directly implied by the 10th Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...), the general political philosophy of the time was that the States or the People could do pretty much anything that wasn't explicitly reserved to the Federal government.  At the time, there was no law or decision that gave the Feds the power to keep a State from seceding; the Supreme Court case that ruled unilateral secession as unconstitutional wasn't decided, conveniently, until 1869.   Even Pres. James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln, argued that the Federal government didn't have the constitutional power to stop them.   So, it's rather problematic to say that what the Confeds did was "illegal" since at the time, there was nothing but a mass of different opinions and no settled, clear law.

Although it isn't explicit law, the Declaration of Independence gives philosophical support, that "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive t ...


I would argue against.

The Constitution is very explicit in its procedure for admitting a state to the union.  And generally speaking, laws or powers that weren't specified relied upon English common law.

But there was no precedent for a part of a nation seceding, except, perhaps, the Declaration of Independence - which isn't exactly law.  Yet even if it established a precedent of taking up arms when grieved, it's important to note that that was within the context of an English system whereby the colonies, without representation, did not have rights.  That's vastly different than saying you have a vote, but in a democracy, you can be outvoted.

Assuming that states could, nontheless, leave the union on whatever terms they felt like would be counterintuitive to the stronger federal government the Constitution established.

In which case, no right to secede.
 
2014-01-15 05:40:42 PM  

htomc: rwdavis:
If they wanted to form their own separate country without being traitors then they should have either 1) won the war to actually form a separate country or 2) actually secede from the nation. The Constitution has no provisions by which a state may secede, so currently no state may secede. In order to do so an Amendment to the Constitution would need to be made that either said a) "South Carolina et al are no longer a states of the United States of America" or b) define a process by which a state may leave. The South did not do this so the Confederate States of America never actually left the nation. Hence traitors

It is true that the Constitution had no procedure in place for secession, but isn't that and a host of other rights and privileges directly implied by the 10th Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...), the general political philosophy of the time was that the States or the People could do pretty much anything that wasn't explicitly reserved to the Federal government.  At the time, there was no law or decision that gave the Feds the power to keep a State from seceding; the Supreme Court case that ruled unilateral secession as unconstitutional wasn't decided, conveniently, until 1869.   Even Pres. James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln, argued that the Federal government didn't have the constitutional power to stop them.   So, it's rather problematic to say that what the Confeds did was "illegal" since at the time, there was nothing but a mass of different opinions and no settled, clear law.

Although it isn't explicit law, the Declaration of Independence gives philosophical support, that "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive t ...


Except there was a lot of stuff in the Constitution about who was a member of the Union and how one might join so it stands to reason that membership in the Union is a Federal matter. Even then, a "Screw you guys, we're going home!" tactic is certainly the wrong way to do it. The Federal government had assets in all of the Southern states that needed to be either returned or paid for (military assets like Fort Sumter and guns and Federal lands like post-roads). Citizenship and a thousand other matters of state needed to be resolved.
 
2014-01-15 05:58:20 PM  

maddogdelta: NavyBlues: Right.  Because the Civil War happened because Virginia invaded Maryland waging war on the U.S. (or that only happened in '62 after ''Murrica invaded Virginia 30-40 times.)


[www.learnnc.org image 850x501]
Um... the state of South Carolina proudly admits to starting the war by bombarding Ft. Sumter.

...and the rest of the story...

The fort in which a Federal garrison had occupied for months after SC declared secession, despite repeated calls for it to be evacuated by the government of SC.   It is true that cadets from the Citadel fired the first shots, but in response to what?   Attempts by the Feds to reinforce it with troops and supplies.  They were clearly provoking a fight, and SC took the bait.

Which was a fort owned by the Government of the United States, manned by soldiers of the United States Army.

...
a Federal installation for which SC offered to compensate the Fed government, in the same way that the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for all such Federal installations in the south.  These offers were ignored.

As for those soldiers, they were fired upon for 34 hours before agreeing to surrender and leave- the only death occurred from a misfiring cannon during a 100-gun salute.  The Confeds allowed them to leave peacefully, then managed to hold the fort throughout the entire length of the war despite prolonged attacks.  What will you find at Ft. Sumter today?  A big marble monument to the Union soldiers who held the fort for all of 34 hours.  What do you find in recognition of the rebel soldiers who held it to the very end?  Nothing, nada, zip.
 
2014-01-15 06:20:14 PM  
rwdavis:
Except there was a lot of stuff in the Constitution about who was a member of the Union and how one might join so it stands to reason that membership in the Union is a Federal matter. Even then, a "Screw you guys, we're going home!" tactic is certainly the wrong way to do it. The Federal government had assets in all of the Southern states that needed to be either returned or paid for (military assets like Fort Sumter and guns and Federal lands like post-roads). Citizenship and a thousand other matters of state needed to be resolved.

But the Constitution was lacking clear language on secession, other than the 10th Amendment- which does function as the universal otherwise() clause.  It seems odd that the Constitutional Convention in Boston didn't at least consider issues of secession, given the many compromises they had to make (mainly over slavery, kicking that can down the road...) to even form the union in the first place.

As for the assets- the Confederacy did in fact offer to make restitution for all Federal property.   They offered to set up payments to cover their share of the national debt at the time.  They offered free access to the Mississippi for Northern States.  One of Jefferson Davis' first acts in office was to send a delegation to Washington to establish peaceful relations.   They were ignored; Lincoln wanted his little war, and he got it.  What might this country be like today if this had been handled diplomatically?   Might the map look the same way it does today?  Maybe.

Slavery was the big, #1 issue for the South.  But it wasn't so much for the North- their main rallying cry was "to preserve the Union".   But how, and at what price?   Having been to many of the VA battlefields, I can't help but wonder, "why did it have to happen this way?"   Maybe neither side was right in what they did, and as usual, the average little-guy ended up paying for it in blood.
 
2014-01-15 06:46:01 PM  

htomc: What do you find in recognition of the rebel soldiers who held it to the very end?  Nothing, nada, zip.


Good. Scum.

Not really a feat to hold a fort when you're surrounded by your confederates.
 
2014-01-15 06:46:13 PM  

htomc: What might this country be like today if this had been handled diplomatically? Might the map look the same way it does today? Maybe.


Maybe not. Maybe the CSA expanded into Mexico and Central America, maybe Cuba.
 
2014-01-15 07:22:52 PM  

impaler: htomc: What do you find in recognition of the rebel soldiers who held it to the very end?  Nothing, nada, zip.

Good. Scum.

Not really a feat to hold a fort when you're surrounded by your confederates.


Actually, not exactly true.  The Union naval blockade of the South was quite successful and a major factor in their inability to sustain the war.  Ships in Charleston Harbor had to be very careful in how they slipped in and out.   The fort was exposed to frequent and sustained bombardment from Union gunboats throughout the war, and even repelled one large amphibious assault.   Toward the end, Union soldiers captured smaller forts around it and used them to fire into it from those land positions.  Despite all that, they held.  Whatever your opinion of Southern soldiers, weaklings they weren't.
 
2014-01-15 07:26:56 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: htomc: rwdavis:
If they wanted to form their own separate country without being traitors then they should have either 1) won the war to actually form a separate country or 2) actually secede from the nation. The Constitution has no provisions by which a state may secede, so currently no state may secede. In order to do so an Amendment to the Constitution would need to be made that either said a) "South Carolina et al are no longer a states of the United States of America" or b) define a process by which a state may leave. The South did not do this so the Confederate States of America never actually left the nation. Hence traitors

It is true that the Constitution had no procedure in place for secession, but isn't that and a host of other rights and privileges directly implied by the 10th Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So instead of thinking that the States couldn't do anything unless they had permission from the Feds (which is rather modern thinking, one unfortunate outcome of that war...), the general political philosophy of the time was that the States or the People could do pretty much anything that wasn't explicitly reserved to the Federal government.  At the time, there was no law or decision that gave the Feds the power to keep a State from seceding; the Supreme Court case that ruled unilateral secession as unconstitutional wasn't decided, conveniently, until 1869.   Even Pres. James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln, argued that the Federal government didn't have the constitutional power to stop them.   So, it's rather problematic to say that what the Confeds did was "illegal" since at the time, there was nothing but a mass of different opinions and no settled, clear law.

Although it isn't explicit law, the Declaration of Independence gives philosophical support, that "...whenever any form of government becomes destru ...


static3.wikia.nocookie.net
"No backsies"
 
2014-01-15 07:39:15 PM  

htomc: ; Lincoln wanted his little war, and he got it.


I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here; you went to a Southern high school, right?

You can try to convince yourself that Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant and Jefferson Davis was a reasonable, war-averse diplomat if you want, but the facts do not bear that out. Seven states declared they were seceding before Lincoln even took office, for god's sake. Rather than attempt a diplomatic solution to the Fort Sumpter crisis, Jefferson Davis gave orders to the army that the fort be captured. The various declarations of secession aren't exactly the most peace-loving documents ever written.
 
2014-01-15 08:00:26 PM  

maddogdelta: TheSheriffIsNear: LOL SHUT UP GORDON

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x269]
Wut?


While we're at it, we should rename all of our Army posts after American heroes instead of racist traitors, or if we're going to keep naming them after those that fought and killed Americans, at least we could update them with more modern names.

Fort Lee could become Fort Osama bin Laden
Fort Bragg could be Fort Adolph Hitler
Fort Gordon could be Fort Ho Chi Minh
Fort Benning could be Fort Kaiser Wilhelm
Fort Hood could be Fort Saddam Hussein
Fort A.P. Hill could be Fort Kim Il Sung

Makes just as much sense as naming them after 19th century enemies that killed Americans.
 
2014-01-15 08:34:38 PM  

Gunther: htomc: ; Lincoln wanted his little war, and he got it.

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here; you went to a Southern high school, right?


Irrelevant to the facts.

You can try to convince yourself that Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant and Jefferson Davis was a reasonable, war-averse diplomat if you want, but the facts do not bear that out. Seven states declared they were seceding before Lincoln even took office, for god's sake. Rather than attempt a diplomatic solution to the Fort Sumpter crisis, Jefferson Davis gave orders to the army that the fort be captured. The various declarations of secession aren't exactly the most peace-loving documents ever written.

Lincoln's hands certainly weren't clean, and the way he suspended habeas corpus, jailed dissenters, shut down newspapers, confiscated property and even threw elected officials into prison simply for disagreeing with him, is pretty good evidence that something foul was afoot.

The South at least made attempts to play nice, but their raison d'être was equally poisonous; they made it quite clear that the institution of slavery, ingrained into Southern society as it was, was -the- reason for secession.  Even the hypocritical "states rights" arguments they made ultimately boiled down to "because slavery".  I have no more respect for that petty, corrupt theocracy than I do for the corrupt tyranny brewing in the North.  However, whether secession as it happened was legal at the time is certainly a matter of debate.  I would agree that it was done for entirely the wrong reason.  Northern abolitionists were quite right to point out the hypocrisy of fighting for a "freedom" in order to inflict tyranny.

But get the facts straight.  It is true that those States seceded before Lincoln took office.  But it happened after he was elected.  They knew what was coming, Lincoln made that quite plain and clear.
Despite the bluster of Calhoun and others in the south, they must have realized that a primarily agrarian South couldn't prevail against a heavily-industrialized North in outright conflict.  It's really incredible the South was able to do as well as they did militarily.

A peaceful way of resolving the Fort Sumter problem was in fact tried.  Aides from Gen. Beauregard met directly with Anderson, the Union commander at Fort Sumter; Anderson offered only conditions the aides considered "manifestly futile".  Only after that was attempted did the bombardment began in earnest. Yes- the southern govt did want the union soldiers out, and did let them out when Anderson realized his situation was untenable- something he should have known before the initial parlay, as Fort Sumter was incomplete and poorly-stocked, hence the reinforcement attempts.
 
2014-01-15 09:04:59 PM  

HeartBurnKid: htomc: Traitors?  What did they do to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?  They just wanted their own separate country- just like the colonists did to the British less than a century before.  Granted, their reasons might not have been quite as honorable, but they did essentially the same thing.

This is true, and our founders were indeed traitors to the British crown.  I feel their treason was justified by their oppression, but that doesn't make it any less so.

How were they any more "traitors" than any person who leaves the US and becomes a citizen of another country?  Does this mean that Tina Turner should now be subject to the death penalty?

I must have missed the part where Tina Turner made war against the United States.


Stop the halfwit bickering and rename your street after Tina Tuner!

/Sheesh!
 
2014-01-15 09:34:30 PM  

htomc: Lincoln's hands certainly weren't clean, and the way he suspended habeas corpus, jailed dissenters, shut down newspapers, confiscated property and even threw elected officials into prison simply for disagreeing with him, is pretty good evidence that something foul was afoot.


All stuff that happened after the war was well underway. We can argue about whether it was justified or not, but it doesn't point to him being any sort of warmonger.

htomc: The South at least made attempts to play nice, but their raison d'être was equally poisonous; they made it quite clear that the institution of slavery, ingrained into Southern society as it was, was -the- reason for secession.  Even the hypocritical "states rights" arguments they made ultimately boiled down to "because slavery".


I'm mildly impressed you're willing to admit that. The "states rights" BS is one of the more absurd rationales given for the war, considering the utter disdain the South had for the rights of Northern when it came to stuff like the Fugitive Slave Act.

htomc: Despite the bluster of Calhoun and others in the south, they must have realized that a primarily agrarian South couldn't prevail against a heavily-industrialized North in outright conflict


It was generally believed at the time by many Southerners that they wouldn't have to win the war, they'd just have to show they were willing to fight it and the North would back down. It's kinda similar to WW1 in that respect - nobody wanted a war but everyone assumed the other guy would back down first. The South thought the North lacked the resolve for a war, the North thought the South didn't have the infrastructure to fight one.
 
2014-01-15 10:22:07 PM  

htomc: Might things have been different if the Feds had embarked upon some plan to compensate the slave owners as had been done in other countries, or otherwise economically wean them away from it?  Of course, there is also the problem that racial superiority/slavery was a matter or religion in the South (maybe Hitchens was right!).  Ironically enough, the institution of slavery was likely doomed anyway; the industrial revolution at the time was rapidly replacing man-power intensive work and would have made it unprofitable, sooner or later.   And, that institution certainly did need to go away; it just seems like the way it was done turned out to be the worst, hardest possible way of doing it.


Oh, you mean something like what Lincoln tried to do in 1849?
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2014-01-16 01:07:09 AM  
I live in Alexandria on land once owned by Robert E. Lee, should I move?

It's near impossible to change anything within city limits as it is designated an "historical" city.  And that's fine with me.
 
2014-01-16 02:58:10 AM  

FNG: I live in Alexandria on land once owned by Robert E. Lee, should I move?


Land once owned by Robert E. Lee

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 10:04:28 AM  

FNG: I live in Alexandria on land once owned by Robert E. Lee, should I move?


Nah, but you probably should take down the stars & bars.
 
2014-01-16 10:21:02 AM  

GORDON: Latinwolf:
Of course the average Libertarian will claim that racism had no role in why the confederacy was formed.

That's like suggesting the US House of Representatives is based on sextings pics of your penis to women who are not your wife because Anthony Weiner was a rep.


Okay smart ass, show me a Libertarian who will admit that racism played a role, because I have yet to find one on Fark.
 
2014-01-16 11:53:21 AM  

htomc: The fort in which a Federal garrison had occupied for months after SC declared secession, despite repeated calls for it to be evacuated by the government of SC


How does that make it any less Federal Property?

  

htomc: .a Federal installation for which SC offered to compensate the Fed government,


Which the Federal government didn't agree to. If you offer your neighbor $1Million for his house, and he says he's not selling, you don;'t have the right to shoot him.


 As for those soldiers, they were fired upon for 34 hours before agreeing to surrender and leave- the only death occurred from a misfiring cannon during a 100-gun salute.

doesn't matter.  You shoot at us, we shoot back.  SC declared itself a separate country, then declared war, They sowed their wind, they reaped their whirwind.
 
2014-01-16 01:54:06 PM  

varmitydog: The politician who is pushing this, Justin Wilson, is a white guy who is a member of the NAACP.
Which begs the question: Why would a white guy be in the NAACP?


So you didn't know that the very reason that  people who try to claim that the KKK and NAACP are the same get labeled as "morons" is that because the KKK only allows white people while the NAACP allows everyone.  Guess what group you just put yourself in by saying that?
 
2014-01-16 04:24:11 PM  

Arkanaut: Mr. Holmes: I want all my streets named after racist patriots, and no one else!

You're wrong.  We need to name them after non-racist traitors.

//Who wouldn't want to live on Edward Snowden Blvd?


I'd be proud to live on a street honoring Snowden. He is a patriot and a hero.
 
2014-01-16 06:05:53 PM  

Captain Horatio Mindblower: Arkanaut: Mr. Holmes: I want all my streets named after racist patriots, and no one else!

You're wrong.  We need to name them after non-racist traitors.

//Who wouldn't want to live on Edward Snowden Blvd?

I'd be proud to live on a street honoring Snowden. He is a patriot and a hero.



Plus, you can always tell your boss, "You know, I would love to come to work, but we're Snowden."
 
2014-01-16 08:08:04 PM  

HeartBurnKid: FNG: I live in Alexandria on land once owned by Robert E. Lee, should I move?

Nah, but you probably should take down the stars & bars.


I was surprised to learn recently that the flag commonly called 'the confederate flag" was never the flag of the Confederacy. And that the CSA did have a flag called "the Stars and Bars", but that wasn't it. To put it simply, if it has any diagonal lines, it isn't the Stars and Bars.
 
Displayed 34 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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