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.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-17 04:44:26 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work.


Which means you'll watch it after work right?
 
2014-04-17 04:44:51 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.


this isn't your first experience with the Obtuseotron 4000, is it?
 
2014-04-17 04:45:29 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Pure hypotheticals don't really help your argument.
 
2014-04-17 04:46:57 PM  
I take great pride in my own personal right to punish and reward speech I find agreeable or offensive. I also take great pride in knowing that I would defend the right of those idiots I disagree with, to sound like idiots as long as said speech remains speech and does not threaten my ability to exercise my own rights. When that speech tries to remove my rights, or incite violence against me or my loved ones, I take even greater pride in knowing that I can speak or use my other rights to fight back. Fortunately, I have a capable enough brain to recognize true threats, so I don't feel the need to make them up in order to justify irrational fears.

Farkers that biatch about the idea of someone ignoring/silencing speech on a personal and individual level must never use the blocking system here on Fark. I use it, sure. But sparingly. And only on obvious, add-nothing-to-conversation trolls.
 
2014-04-17 04:47:21 PM  

lantawa: "The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades. You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it. I'll wait for your admission.


Or you could get off your ass and provide some citations.  There must be loads of them out there.  PLEASE SHARE!!
 
2014-04-17 04:47:40 PM  

lantawa: "The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades.  You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it.  I'll wait for your admission.


2/10.
 
2014-04-17 04:49:46 PM  

heap: UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.

this isn't your first experience with the Obtuseotron 4000, is it?


No. It's easy to stay smug if you remain vague and obtuse instead of actively engaging in debate. It's apparently been working well for him a long time. If it ain't broke...
 
2014-04-17 04:50:19 PM  

lantawa: I can see how what you are saying is true. The humorous way to approach that perception would be to say that yes, I'll go study it out and bring back some citations.  More seriously, I guess I have to admit that it is a thesis without background citations.  So, that admission should please the butthurt in this thread.  Okay.  In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.  I admit that just posting a couple of Baathist links by Wiki and a blog are insufficient evidence for the disbelievers.


My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

It's not insufficient evidence for the disbelievers. It's insufficient evidence to the nonbelievers. People who simply don't believe your assertion, not people who actively push against your assertion. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion, and claiming those who disagree as "disbelievers" or implying that only those directly antagonistic to your claims would not be satisfied by your lack of evidence is dishonest.

You should also recognize why the links you posted are insufficient. The Wikipedia entry for Baathism is not self-evident and offers no statement supporting your claims of American liberal politics being influenced by it or any citation to follow through on it. The blog post you linked was not a claim about American politics and liberals being influenced by Baathism. It was a post from an Iraqi American talking about Iraqi politics and how Baathism was itself influenced by Russian and German totalitarian politics.

The connection you make to liberals is not self-evident. There is no evidence of it at all. And the promise you make for the future doesn't help:

In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.

Stop. "Could be" is not "is." It certainly isn't "clearly is." It definitely isn't "can be proven to be." If you're saying all you can offer is speculation and tenuous conceptual connections with no evidence, don't bother. You won't convince anyone. Not just disbelievers, but  anyone. The only person to whome liberal Baathism is self-evident is you.
 
2014-04-17 04:51:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work.

Which means you'll watch it after work right?


Not likely, gotta go make some money playing music (my second, but much preferable job).

/check out my sweet-ass bootstraps
 
2014-04-17 04:51:40 PM  

ikanreed: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States

Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.

My god, they both led countries.  Neither one lowered the capital gains rate to 0%.  Both gave speeches to large audiences in a public square in front of their country's capital.  Both had treaties with france.  The parallels don't stop there.


Workers unions!!! BAATHIST!!!
 
2014-04-17 04:51:46 PM  
So the left being able to say their opinion on what those on the right say is "Shutting down free speech"?

According to the author not letting people criticize those on the right is "Free speech".
 
2014-04-17 04:52:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


and bonus points if you can figure out how that relates with this story.
 
2014-04-17 04:52:43 PM  

Corvus: So the left being able to say their opinion on what those on the right say is "Shutting down free speech"?

According to the author not letting people criticize those on the right is "Free speech".


Yep. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Funny how that works out, isn't it?
 
2014-04-17 04:56:10 PM  

BSABSVR: Apparently "baathist liberals" is going to take the place of "fabian socialist" and "alinskyite tactics" to make people who have never opened a book past the cover sound like they know farkall about politics.


I think it falls somewhere between "liberal fascists" and "shape-shifting reptile people control the world". All of these concepts are idiotic and wrong. It's a matter of degrees of crazy.
 
2014-04-17 04:56:40 PM  
After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.
 
2014-04-17 04:57:26 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.


That just proves that Google is in on it.
 
2014-04-17 04:57:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


Is your point that his imprisonment is an example of free speech being suppressed or an example of an arguably reactionary law in a country that just might be overly sensitive about its association with the holocaust?

Because, if something like were to happen outside of Austria or Germany, you might have a point about the former, but as it is it seems more the latter.
 
2014-04-17 04:58:49 PM  

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?


That might be slander if the truth wasn't the best defense in court, but airing out someone's personal business like that is dirty pool.
/snerk
 
2014-04-17 04:59:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Funny, that's the same excuse you posted last time, and when you finally did post it, I responded to it and you never answered.
 
2014-04-17 04:59:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.
 
2014-04-17 05:00:12 PM  
Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?
 
2014-04-17 05:01:18 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?


Like what, Reagan/Quayle slashfic?
 
2014-04-17 05:02:14 PM  

lantawa: dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views


In defense of dogmatism,

Regardless of how legitimate someone believes their view to be (or they evidence they have to back it up), dogmatic dismissal can actually be appropriate. Debates encourage a society to gradually normalize a topic and frankly there are things we shouldn't normalize. Sometimes it really is better to live a cynical/hypocritical existence rather than openly discuss toxic ideology.
 
2014-04-17 05:02:41 PM  

qorkfiend: UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.

That just proves that Google is in on it.


It's a conspiracy!  The potatocracy will hear about this!
 
2014-04-17 05:02:51 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Here, let me answer that for you. I am a liberal atheist. Richard Dawkins is a farktard who should stick to evolutionary biology.
 
2014-04-17 05:04:06 PM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


Whoa, now. Not sure I'm okay with that. DIA, for all his wry elusion of actual debate, is a fellow Texan, and I'll defend his right to be a smarmy git to the death. It's our birthright and our duty as Texans.
 
2014-04-17 05:09:26 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


But frankly, we aren't, and I don't see why you still seem to think her bigoted statements aren't without consequence.
 
2014-04-17 05:10:23 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Not likely


Imagine that.

Bloody William: You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point.


Here...let me write a full page opinion on how I believe men are endowed by their creator the inalienable right to completely unfettered free speech and give lengthy examples of where in the world the right is and has been or is in danger of being denied...and you won't bother to read it anyway so, yeah, I'll give you a link to a short speech by someone who said it better than I ever could in just the smartass tone that I would say it. With the same results.

Bloody William: You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


You are working on the flawed premise that I give a flying fark what some guy on the internet thinks of me.
 
2014-04-17 05:12:23 PM  
lantawa:
There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.
www.politablog.com
 
2014-04-17 05:12:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Not likely


Imagine that.


If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I? There are other dissenting viewpoints with which I can have real discussions beyond two or three words.
 
2014-04-17 05:12:45 PM  
guys i don't care about what you think of me

guys

listen this is important

guys

i don't care what you think of me

really guys

i don't

i have to let you know

that i don't care

it is very important
 
2014-04-17 05:13:40 PM  
After you read the first line of this article you have made up your mind on whether you agree.

This is a form of manipulation, whether you agree or disagree it is still group-think.

Best to take a step back and observe, take in facts, make your own decisions. However this is terribly boring, therefore you will most likely continue eating the pre-processed news of the major networks.

I don't offer any alternatives, just asking you to be cognizant of your bias, and question why the words are placed in a certain order.
 
2014-04-17 05:13:40 PM  
BSABSVR:

What the fark are you talking about?

[img.fark.net image 285x171]


Freedom Boner!
 
2014-04-17 05:15:09 PM  

KillaChinchilla: After you read the first line of this article you have made up your mind on whether you agree.

This is a form of manipulation, whether you agree or disagree it is still group-think.

Best to take a step back and observe, take in facts, make your own decisions. However this is terribly boring, therefore you will most likely continue eating the pre-processed news of the major networks.

I don't offer any alternatives, just asking you to be cognizant of your bias, and question why the words are placed in a certain order.


Words the are order placed certain otherwise it because hard very read to.
 
2014-04-17 05:18:09 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.


Is your google-fu really that weak?  Are you guys really that clueless?

this link is the FIRST result from the googled term "baathism":   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism

These paragraphs, below, are from that article.  How hard is it to put two and two together.  Seriously guys.  C'mon!

Aflaq deeply supported some Marxist   tenets, and he considered the Marxist concept of the to be one of modern humanity's greatest discoveries. However, he disagreed with the Marxist view that dialectical materialism was the  only truth. Aflaq believed that Marxism had forgotten human's spirituality. While believing that the concept would work for small and weak societies, the concept of dialectical materialism as the  only truth in Arab development was wrong.

For a people as spiritual as the Arabs, the working class was just a group, albeit the most important group, in a much larger movement to free the Arab nation. Aflaq agreed to Karl Marx's view that the working class was a central force, but not which role it played in history. In contrast to Marx, Aflaq believed in, and believed that in the Arab world all classes, and not just the working class, were working against. What in the west was a struggle between various classes was in the Arab world a fight for political and economic independence.

For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in which the repression of the peasant nullified the people's political liberty. Liberty meant little to nothing to the general poverty-stricken populace of Syria; Aflaq saw socialism as the solution to their plight.

According to Aflaq, the ultimate goal of socialism's not to answer the question of how much   was necessary or economic equality, but instead socialism was "a means to satisfy the animal needs of man so he can be free to pursue his duties as a human being". In other words, socialism was a system which freed the population from enslavement and created independent individuals. However, economic equality was a major tenet in Ba'athist ideology; the elimination of inequality would "eliminate all privilege, exploitation, and domination by one group over another". In short, if liberty was to succeed, the Arab people needed socialism.

Aflaq labelled this form of socialism  , to signify that it existed in harmony with, and was in some ways subordinate to,. According to Aflaq, who was a Christian, the teaching and reforms of the Prophet had given socialism an authentic Arab expression. Socialism was viewed by Aflaq as, and the reforms of the Prophet Muhammed were both just and wise. The Ba'athist would, in modern times, initiate another way of just and radical forms just as the Prophet had done in the seventh century.


So, don't tell me about how extremely diligent your academic efforts were.  And do you good folk not see how readily these views by a Baathist founder could be Westernized?  Is that REALLY so hard for you?

Some of you had a good time with the snark machine, but the ease with which I just generated both Marxist and socialist underpinnings in the Baathist movement proves, to me, the lazy, dogmatically close-minded approach that many of you are taking in this thread.

So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.  C'mon.  Let's hear it.  Eager minds await your edifying comments.
 
2014-04-17 05:22:48 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I?


I gave you a little more to chew on a couple of posts up.

Got any videos of the full band? I might just come catch a gig.
 
2014-04-17 05:23:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Here...let me write a full page opinion on how I believe men are endowed by their creator the inalienable right to completely unfettered free speech and give lengthy examples of where in the world the right is and has been or is in danger of being denied...and you won't bother to read it anyway so, yeah, I'll give you a link to a short speech by someone who said it better than I ever could in just the smartass tone that I would say it. With the same results.


Then write another page about how what he was saying is any way connected with the mozilla guy, as someone who actually bothered to listen to the video you posted that part would interest me.
 
2014-04-17 05:23:56 PM  

Rixel: Dammit.....

[img.fark.net image 226x239]
                RIP  IDIC


Yeah conservatives don't have the right to use that image. Or co-opt other things from Star Trek.
 
2014-04-17 05:24:04 PM  
lantawa: wiki

Again, I went looking for evidence of anything relative to baathists and left leaning etc.  I saw that there was a wikipedia article describing what baathism is.  Not the same thing.  There was nothing to back up the assumptions you have created from reading a wikipedia article about an Iraqi political movement.

/Still waiting for the evidence beyond "can't you see it guys, the cloud looks just like a rabbit."
 
2014-04-17 05:24:38 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.

How is that different from the Mozilla thing? Because it isn't such a hot-button issue?

(OK, maybe pizza is a bad example around here.)


Yeaaah, were you here for the last few Chicaco vs NYC pizza threads?
 
2014-04-17 05:24:47 PM  

whidbey: Jjaro: God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.

God forbid you summarize the argument so we don't have to click on that utter garbage.


So since you don't want to read something, you expect other to summarize it for you?  Sounds like we have a real intellectual heavyweight here.
 
2014-04-17 05:25:43 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?


STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!
 
2014-04-17 05:25:49 PM  

lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


What?  You claimed a connection, back it up!  There is a "possible" connection between Republicans and Nazis, but if I ever actually make that connection, please call me on my bullshiat, just as I am calling you on yours.

Yes, baathism exists (or existed), and yes, there are Americans who support leftist views.  But you have provided no actual link between American liberals and baathists, just "I can imagine a link, why can't you?"

It's utter bullshiat.

Provide evidence of the link, please.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:06 PM  
lantawa: idiotic derp

I was willing to hear your thesis, but you just failed. Horribly.

Baathism may have had its origins in a Spiritialistic Arabic form of Marxism, but that entire passage you quoted speaks only to influences on Baathism, not Baathism's influences on Western Liberal policies.

And the LATTER of the two is what is being discussed, as it is the premise of your argument.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:12 PM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


That would require him to own his opinions.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:50 PM  

lantawa: Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  ...  Be aware of it:  It is real.



lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


Funny how suddenly everyone else has to prove to you that "there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection" when you were declaring Baathist political ideology HAS reached the west. You are just using a different word to cry "socialist" and "rule for radicals"! It may be the latest cover version, but it's still the same old tune.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:06 PM  

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?

STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!


Ok. So you're trolling. Got it. Bye. Kill yourself.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:41 PM  
lantawa:For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in ...

Okay, I'll contribute one thing to your "discussion" before I start heading out to run some brief errands.

"So, some guy decided that certain ideals and tactics would help him achieve his goals for the people he wanted to support. This is evil! Evil I tell you!"

.. and, so what? You're still trying to Godwin a discussion by using this guy instead of Hitler, because he used some of the same propaganda techniques that are used today by organizations left -and- right of center? Whoop-de-hell. BFD. You're an idiot, and that's not "snark machine" talk, that's genuine "TellarHK's MFing Opinion" talking.

"Select views and techniques from a guy people don't like could be shared and used by completely different groups with goals sharing only the most vague and debatable similarities if any! Get the whole story here only on Fox 11!"

Wheeeeeeee. Such amazing conversation. I'm bored now. Time for a taco.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:47 PM  
Bloody William:
My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

I'm amazed at how much time you've spent on this guy. I for one am just hoping he goes full Glenn Beck and posts a chalkboard drawing with arrows showing the connections between the Democratic Party, Baathists, George Soros, Joseph Stalin, and Saul Alinsky.
 
2014-04-17 05:29:32 PM  

BSABSVR: Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.

That would require him to own his opinions.


One might say that he dances around the issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 743 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | 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