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 New York Times)   NY Times finds that Andrew Cuomo hobbled his own ethics commission, but at this point he could take bribes from Eliot Spitzer's hookers on the steps of the state capitol while screaming "Jeter sucks" and he'd still be re-elected   (nytimes.com) divider line 46
    More: Obvious, Andrew Cuomo, per diem, inquiries, state senate, Lower Manhattan  
•       •       •

310 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2014 at 3:40 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-23 02:47:15 PM  
I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least
 
2014-07-23 03:42:50 PM  
Did someone mention Ashley Dupree????  Don't mind if I do....


dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-23 03:54:32 PM  

somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?


he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.
 
2014-07-23 03:57:13 PM  

Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.


He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.
 
2014-07-23 03:57:17 PM  

somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least


Crooked, by definition, means you aren't a good governor.

A) It means you are not ethical, which means you do not make good decisions that will help your constituents.  Instead, you take unnecessary, irresponsible risks that puts them in jeopardy.
B) If you were a good governor, you wouldn't need to be crooked.

Guys who can have success on the up-and-up don't become crooked.  And if you are crooked, you risk being caught doing something wrong and getting in trouble and getting punished.  Your constituents will be punished indirectly for your misdeeds.  Finally, if you are doing something crooked then someone is getting bribed or paid off or whatever at the expense of someone else.  So there is a victim out there.


oh i just read what you wrote after the slashies.  you are just trolling.
 
2014-07-23 04:11:38 PM  

SlothB77: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least

Crooked, by definition, means you aren't a good governor.

A) It means you are not ethical, which means you do not make good decisions that will help your constituents.  Instead, you take unnecessary, irresponsible risks that puts them in jeopardy.
B) If you were a good governor, you wouldn't need to be crooked.

Guys who can have success on the up-and-up don't become crooked.  And if you are crooked, you risk being caught doing something wrong and getting in trouble and getting punished.  Your constituents will be punished indirectly for your misdeeds.  Finally, if you are doing something crooked then someone is getting bribed or paid off or whatever at the expense of someone else.  So there is a victim out there.


oh i just read what you wrote after the slashies.  you are just trolling.


You're phoning in the cargo cult, Sloth. I expected better of you. :(
 
2014-07-23 04:17:17 PM  

somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least


I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed. But on the whole, he's liked by the people because hey he's as bad as the last guy, the GOP likes him because on fiscal issues he sits down and talks with them, and he helped them take back the State Senate when they lost it (though that was due to the democrats being so dysfunctional that he felt stability was better than politics), and its worked out well for him. However he's pissed off most of Upstate and Long Island, and his only saving grace is, is that NYC and the lower Hudson valley likes him and is the majority of the state. Though he could lose to the right republican, like if they find another smooth talking moderate like Pataki, they can pull it off. However that is unlikely given today's upsate/downstate GOP divide that will result in another idiot like last time.
Cuomo is mediocre, but compared to Spitzer, he's amazing. But I would rather one of a dozen different democrats or republicans than him. But he's not bad given the likely opposition and alternatives
 
2014-07-23 04:18:02 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.


He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).
 
2014-07-23 04:20:49 PM  

SlothB77: Crooked, by definition, means you aren't a good governor.

A) It means you are not ethical, which means you do not make good decisions that will help your constituents.  Instead, you take unnecessary, irresponsible risks that puts them in jeopardy.
B) If you were a good governor, you wouldn't need to be crooked.

Guys who can have success on the up-and-up don't become crooked.  And if you are crooked, you risk being caught doing something wrong and getting in trouble and getting punished.  Your constituents will be punished indirectly for your misdeeds.  Finally, if you are doing something crooked then someone is getting bribed or paid off or whatever at the expense of someone else.  So there is a victim out there.


I don't think that's really an absolute. You can be ethically crooked but still do good, just the means of how you do that good is suspect. Would I want to be your political rival? Absolutely not. But does that mean that the people you serve get completely hosed by your kickbacks? Not necessarily.

/seeing the world in black and white is a terrible thing to do
//and besides the roads, the aqueduct, the hospitals, the law and order, the libraries...What have the Romans ever done for us!?!?!
 
2014-07-23 04:21:10 PM  

somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least


I asked my friend about this particular article this morning and how it would affect Cuomo if he ran for national office. He works on the hill as counsel for some congressman whose name I can't remember.

Here was a snippet of the convo:

Me: I imagine this wont end well or reflect well on cuomo if he wants to run for national office.
Him: oh, dems desperately do not want him to run. We don't like him even by politician standards. He's an egomaniac. He really wants to take one of the senate seats but schumer isn't stepping down and gillibrand is still really young.

I lost part of the conversation about how he doesn't know if it'll stick, but he definitely didn't think this boded well for Cuomo.
 
2014-07-23 04:23:06 PM  

jedihirsch: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least

I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed. But on the whole, he's liked by the people because hey he's as bad as the last guy, the GOP likes him because on fiscal issues he sits down and talks with them, and he helped them take back the State Senate when they lost it (though that was due to the democrats being so dysfunctional that he felt stability was better than politics), and its worked out well for him. However he's pissed off most of Upstate and Long Island, and his only saving grace is, is that NYC and the lower Hudson valley likes him and is the majority of the state. Though he could lose to the right republican, like if they find another smooth talking moderate like Pataki, they can pull it off. However that is unlikely given today's upsate/downstate GOP divide that will result in another idiot like last time.
Cuomo is mediocre, but compared to Spitzer, he's amazing. But I would rather one of a dozen different democrats or republicans than him. But he's not bad given the likely opposition and alternatives


as someone from your neighboring state, I find that fascinating as I have no idea what the inner politics of the NY statehouse is like. Was Pataki a bad gov? Or just your run-of-the-mill Northeast Republican (pre-derp)?
 
2014-07-23 04:23:31 PM  

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).


Mmmm... sane gun laws... I can only dream.
 
2014-07-23 04:25:40 PM  

redmid17: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least

I asked my friend about this particular article this morning and how it would affect Cuomo if he ran for national office. He works on the hill as counsel for some congressman whose name I can't remember.

Here was a snippet of the convo:

Me: I imagine this wont end well or reflect well on cuomo if he wants to run for national office.
Him: oh, dems desperately do not want him to run. We don't like him even by politician standards. He's an egomaniac. He really wants to take one of the senate seats but schumer isn't stepping down and gillibrand is still really young.

I lost part of the conversation about how he doesn't know if it'll stick, but he definitely didn't think this boded well for Cuomo.


huh, interesting. I can't say I'd be shocked if he got his ass handed to him in the election then. Any potential primary challengers?
 
2014-07-23 04:33:54 PM  

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).


I don't think a gun grabby law is going to hurt him in the democratic party primaries, extremist gun enthusiasts are always whining about something so most people would just ignore the chicken littles.
 
2014-07-23 04:35:53 PM  

Headso: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).

I don't think a gun grabby law is going to hurt him in the democratic party primaries, extremist gun enthusiasts are always whining about something so most people would just ignore the chicken littles.


It wouldn't hurt him as much as people just disliking him in general, but it definitely would set a non-insignificant bloc of voters to another candidate.
 
2014-07-23 04:39:34 PM  
I don't think you'd find so many single issue voters about gun laws in the democratic primary. Don't get me wrong I think there's people in the democratic party that support gun rights but I don't think a significant group of them supports them in an extremist fashion as  single issue voters.
 
2014-07-23 04:57:48 PM  

Headso: I don't think you'd find so many single issue voters about gun laws in the democratic primary. Don't get me wrong I think there's people in the democratic party that support gun rights but I don't think a significant group of them supports them in an extremist fashion as  single issue voters.


They wouldn't have to. If you were on the edge about Cuomo, it could easily tip the balance. I think that the issue itself would hold more sway west and south of NY.
 
2014-07-23 05:22:43 PM  
NY Times finds Everyone has known for ages that Andrew Cuomo hobbled his own ethics commission

FTFY.
 
2014-07-23 05:39:54 PM  

Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.


Compared to his predecessors though, he's a political genius. He's gotten the budget passed, pretty much gotten the Republicans to cooperate (possibly through some shady bargains), and got gay marriage legalized. The health exchange also mostly worked. I don't think he's the right man for the country, and I don't like what he means for the future of the Democratic Party (he did learn his ropes under Bill and Hillary), but he's not a bad governor.
 
2014-07-23 05:42:50 PM  

jedihirsch: I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed.


Minor quibble - the streak was with the state running without a budget passed ON TIME. It still speaks of dysfunction in the legislature but it's not like New York was turning into Greece or something.
 
2014-07-23 05:57:16 PM  

hobberwickey: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).

Mmmm... sane gun laws... I can only dream.


Yes, because a law that says you can only put 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine is sane.
 
2014-07-23 06:04:52 PM  

redmid17: Headso: I don't think you'd find so many single issue voters about gun laws in the democratic primary. Don't get me wrong I think there's people in the democratic party that support gun rights but I don't think a significant group of them supports them in an extremist fashion as  single issue voters.

They wouldn't have to. If you were on the edge about Cuomo, it could easily tip the balance. I think that the issue itself would hold more sway west and south of NY.


Yep. It won't hurt him in places like MA, MD, CT, and CA, but like I said, it'll hurt in "flyover country". And all the early primaries and caucuses are in states like that.

Only a fraction of Democrats care about the issue, but it's a larger fraction in those mostly rural and suburban states. Enough that unless the only other candidate is Michael Bloomberg, Cuomo won't get the votes he needs early on.
 
2014-07-23 06:12:22 PM  
The other thing the NRA could do is point out that even if you approve of the SAFE Act, it was passed in a very shady manner: introduced in a late night session of the legislature with an immediate vote to bypass the constitutonally requred 3 day comment period using a legal manuever normally used for passing emergency legislation during natural disasters and signed into law just 19 hours after it was introduced. And it was written in secret so no one knew what was in it until then.

The tag line writes itself:

Not very democratic for a Democrat.
 
2014-07-23 06:15:05 PM  

dittybopper: The other thing the NRA could do is point out that even if you approve of the SAFE Act, it was passed in a very shady manner: introduced in a late night session of the legislature with an immediate vote to bypass the constitutonally requred 3 day comment period using a legal manuever normally used for passing emergency legislation during natural disasters and signed into law just 19 hours after it was introduced. And it was written in secret so no one knew what was in it until then.

The tag line writes itself:

Not very democratic for a Democrat.


Sounds a lot like the Hughes Amendment.
 
2014-07-23 06:15:49 PM  

Headso: I don't think you'd find so many single issue voters about gun laws in the democratic primary. Don't get me wrong I think there's people in the democratic party that support gun rights but I don't think a significant group of them supports them in an extremist fashion as  single issue voters.


Keep in mind that in a primary, all of the candidates will agree on 90% of the issues.  It doesn't need to be the most important issue for it to rise to the top of voter preferences.  All those other issues will be points of agreement.

However, it really doesn't matter since Cuomo doesn't have a strong base of support, is hated by the party establishment, and doesn't play well with the brand of populist that turns out in primary elections. The fact that his name keeps popping up as a contender is baffling since the best anyone says about him is "at least he's better than Patterson."  If he was the governor of a different state, no one out-of-state would give a shiat about him.  The only thing he has going for him is that he's from one of the ten or so states that will always have media attention.

He's John Kerry without any of the redeeming qualities.
 
2014-07-23 06:27:35 PM  

Arkanaut: jedihirsch: I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed.

Minor quibble - the streak was with the state running without a budget passed ON TIME. It still speaks of dysfunction in the legislature but it's not like New York was turning into Greece or something.


That's because our states "Balanced Budget Amendment" has safeguards for the state to function when something like that happens. And actually since the 1970's when the GOP controlled the State Senate and the Democrats the Assembly, things run pretty well. Its been when one party has controlled both that things went to hell. So its not dysfunctional, its that it forces both sides to talk, so when they do pass something its usually pretty good
 
2014-07-23 06:30:17 PM  
Como was responsible for ISPs pulling newsgroups.

/he will never be forgiven.
 
2014-07-23 06:34:36 PM  

somedude210: jedihirsch: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least

I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed. But on the whole, he's liked by the people because hey he's as bad as the last guy, the GOP likes him because on fiscal issues he sits down and talks with them, and he helped them take back the State Senate when they lost it (though that was due to the democrats being so dysfunctional that he felt stability was better than politics), and its worked out well for him. However he's pissed off most of Upstate and Long Island, and his only saving grace is, is that NYC and the lower Hudson valley likes him and is the majority of the state. Though he could lose to the right republican, like if they find another smooth talking moderate like Pataki, they can pull it off. However that is unlikely given today's upsate/downstate GOP divide that will result in another idiot like last time.
Cuomo is mediocre, but compared to Spitzer, he's amazing. But I would rather one of a dozen different democrats or republicans than him. But he's not bad given the likely opposition and alternatives

as someone from your neighboring state, I find that fascinating as I have no idea what the inner politics of the NY statehouse is like. Was Pataki a bad gov? Or just your run-of-the-mill Northeast Republican (pre-derp)?


Pataki was considered one of our better governors and well liked by both parties, and was known for helping republicans and democrats to work together on issues.

The problems in the state Senate with the democrats come from Blue Dogs from upstate, and the social conservatives from the Jewish, Black and Latino areas in NYC, against the regular liberal establishment. The GOP in the state senate may have some difference on some issues (like quite a number voted for gay marriage), they tend to keep their house in order. So when the democrats went all dysfunctional, Cuomo helped the GOP retake back the Senate. Bruno, the GOP majority leader rewarded Cuomo by conceding on numerous budget issues and said he would allow GOP senator to vote the way they wanted on the gay marriage bill with no consequences. Since a number of democrats voted against it, the five republicans who voted for it allowed it to pass by one vote. Bruno and Cuomo have had a good relationship since, similar to the one State Speaker Sheldon Silver had with Pataki. So its pretty functional with a lot of cross the isle work, its just the democrats in the state senate who are dysfunctional, even when they are in the minority they are a mess.
 
2014-07-23 06:34:52 PM  

dittybopper: hobberwickey: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).

Mmmm... sane gun laws... I can only dream.

Yes, because a law that says you can only put 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine is sane.


I meant the gun confiscation / buyback. There's literally no sane reason why people should be armed.
 
2014-07-23 06:35:18 PM  

jedihirsch: So its not dysfunctional, its that it forces both sides to talk, so when they do pass something its usually pretty good


IMO given the last few years it's more like because if one side is out of power in both houses they'll raise a stink about it and fark up the process. I have no basis for this except for the turmoil during the Patterson administration when Espada and I forget who else changed parties and the shiatstorm that ensued.
 
2014-07-23 06:57:21 PM  
Geez a whole thread discussing someone's presidential potential - someone who already has a job governing millions. Dafark is the point of politics?
 
2014-07-23 07:09:14 PM  

jedihirsch: somedude210: jedihirsch: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor? Could that be why he'd get reelected and not because he's corrupt? It's possible that he could be good crooked (Buddy Cianci) where he's clearly shady as all hell, but he does good for his constituents and therefore they want him back...even if he is running for re-election from a prison cell

/remember, if you are living in the city, mob-run neighborhoods are normally decent places to live
//well, used to at least

I am a New Yorker, as he has not done much, except he did break the six year streak of the state running without passing a budget and got one passed. But on the whole, he's liked by the people because hey he's as bad as the last guy, the GOP likes him because on fiscal issues he sits down and talks with them, and he helped them take back the State Senate when they lost it (though that was due to the democrats being so dysfunctional that he felt stability was better than politics), and its worked out well for him. However he's pissed off most of Upstate and Long Island, and his only saving grace is, is that NYC and the lower Hudson valley likes him and is the majority of the state. Though he could lose to the right republican, like if they find another smooth talking moderate like Pataki, they can pull it off. However that is unlikely given today's upsate/downstate GOP divide that will result in another idiot like last time.
Cuomo is mediocre, but compared to Spitzer, he's amazing. But I would rather one of a dozen different democrats or republicans than him. But he's not bad given the likely opposition and alternatives

as someone from your neighboring state, I find that fascinating as I have no idea what the inner politics of the NY statehouse is like. Was Pataki a bad gov? Or just your run-of-the-mill Northeast Republican (pre-derp)?

Pataki was considered one of our better governors and well liked by both parties, and was known for helping repu ...


huh, that is fascinating. In MA, the GOP in the legislature is such a non-entity (last year, 4 of the 36 total GOP held seats either resigned for jobs in the private sector or decided they weren't going to run for re-election), so what's ended up happening is that our Democratic party is all over the place in terms of factions, that and our Speaker is given unholy amounts of power (arguably more powerful than the governor) that the last 5 Speakers have all been either indicted or alluded to some form of corruption. Currently our current Speaker just got accused of having dealings in our Probation System Hiring Patronage scandal.

Regardless, our Democratic party is very much splintered between conservative (pro-business, tough on crime) Democrats (Martha Coakley is a great representative of this faction), Establishment Dems (Grossman) and the far more liberal wing (Berwick).

On the other side, you have mostly Weld-ian Republicans (pro-business, socially liberal) who, up until this year, seemed to have made up a majority of the party and it's leadership. The party heads have gone a much more conservative route, lately and have taken up very socially conservative stances on abortion and gay rights (though they deny they are against gay rights, they just wanted to put it in their Party's stances at the convention) There isn't much in terms of a Tea Party faction in the state but I get a feeling it's starting to grow a bit more. It's starting to take over the heads of the party and the candidates running for Congress and governor, who have both done this before (Richard Tisei and Charlie Baker, respectively) were both publicly aghast at what the party adopted at the convention. If either of them win the seats they're running for, it'd be interesting to see what the party heads do. Or, likewise, if they lose, it'll be interesting to see who the party tosses up there next time.

/okay, I'll stop now
//I just find the local politics of other "like minded" states fascinating
///RI, from what I've gathered, is a very interestingly farked up state
 
2014-07-23 07:12:44 PM  

hobberwickey: dittybopper: hobberwickey: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).

Mmmm... sane gun laws... I can only dream.

Yes, because a law that says you can only put 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine is sane.

I meant the gun confiscation / buyback. There's literally no sane reason why people should be armed.


"No one wants to take your guns".

Except the ones who do.
 
2014-07-23 07:14:50 PM  

LemSkroob: Como was responsible for ISPs pulling newsgroups.

/he will never be forgiven.


Perry always was an asshole.
 
2014-07-23 07:28:26 PM  

dittybopper: hobberwickey: dittybopper: hobberwickey: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: Headso: somedude210: I'm not a New Yorker, but is he doing a pretty decent job as governor?

he's doing a non job as governor, he's the quintessential spineless democrat who is padding his resume for his presidential run, the guy couldn't even sign a medical cannabis bill into law without a bunch of idiotic restrictions. The funny thing is he doesn't seem to have the self awareness to realize he is an uninspiring zero and he's from NY so he has no chance in a presidential run.

He'll have the resume on paper and it will look and sound great, but he seems cynical to the point of being an empty husk of a human.

He won't even make it past the early primaries if he does run, because of the New York SAFE Act.  He's radioactively  venomous poison to blue dogs.

Look at the early ones:  Iowa.  New Hampshire.  Nevada.  South Carolina.  All NRA friendly states.   All the NRA has to do is run adds quoting him:  "Confiscation could be an option.  Mandatory sale to the state could be option".

I think Cuomo, if he has a modicum of intelligence at all, realizes that unless there is some radical sea change in how America views its guns, governor of New York State is going to be the highest elected office he will ever hold.  He'll get re-elected in NYS because he's a Democrat in a state where Democrats have a 2 to 1 advantage in registered voters (5.8 million to 2.9 million as of 2010).

Mmmm... sane gun laws... I can only dream.

Yes, because a law that says you can only put 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine is sane.

I meant the gun confiscation / buyback. There's literally no sane reason why people should be armed.

"No one wants to take your guns".

Except the ones who do.


Seriously, give me one good reason why people should have guns that doesn't depend on some boogeyman jumping out of the shadows and trying to steal your daughters. I've travelled all over the world and never felt so unsafe as I do here in the states.

Elsewhere you might get robbed, you might get beaten up or even stabbed if you're an idiot and try to fight. Probably you'll survive. Here you'll probably get shot and your odds of survival are significantly less.
 
2014-07-23 07:40:19 PM  

Arkanaut: Compared to his predecessors though, he's a political genius. He's gotten the budget passed


You know who made that possible? David Paterson.

The state was about to go into another one of their annual three-month-long budget farkup dramas, and Paterson said "fark it - I'm going to put my entire next year's budget into the continuing resolution that keeps the state running". The bosses took him to court over it and lost.

To drive home the point that he was actually serious, Paterson vetoed 6800 pieces of budget pork. Not bad for a blind guy.

Which means that Cuomo and all his successors have one hell of a hammer to use to bring budgets in on time.

I wasn't expecting much of Paterson since he had no legislative accomplishments of note, and his dad was the big power broker from the same machine that foisted Charlie Rangel off on us. And yet he did two great things - ended the annual state budget dance of the bullshiat artists, and hired Chris Ward to run the Port Authority instead of the usual patronage hack. Ward is why there's an actual tower in lower Manhattan today and not a 9/11-era hole in the ground.

Naturally, Cuomo and that fat fark Christie saw to it that Ward was thrown under the bus right quick.

jedihirsch: Pataki was considered one of our better governors and well liked by both parties


Because he sat there like a little biatch and didn't call bullshiat on even a little bit of the corruption. No wonder the party bosses loved him.

 Albany in the 90's and early 00's was like a nonstop bad imitation of a fraternity party, except that the douchebags getting grabby with the cute co-eds were 60-year-old assemblymen instead of 20-year-old poli-sci majors.

One professional acquaintance of mine worked for an assemblyman at the time. He wasn't the problem. The assembly speaker's chief counsel was - he sexually assaulted her. He copped a plea, got a slap on the wrist (now he's a lobbyist, of course), the assembly came up with $450,000 to settle the lawsuit she brought, and Pataki just sat there and shrugged at the whole thing.

Ten years later the same smarmy motherfarkers who let that culture thrive want to talk to their party faithful about how much they care about women's issues. Yeah, they oughta know.

Pataki also tried to turn the World Trade Center rebuilding project into a giant crony-contractor party. It got bad enough that  even National Review was calling for Eliot Spitzer to investigate Pataki. for corruption
 
2014-07-23 08:51:12 PM  

hobberwickey: Seriously, give me one good reason why people should have guns that doesn't depend on some boogeyman jumping out of the shadows and trying to steal your daughters. I've travelled all over the world and never felt so unsafe as I do here in the states.


Wow, and people accuse us pro-gunners of being afraid of every little thing. What's it like to live with such fear in your life? Must be awful.


Elsewhere you might get robbed, you might get beaten up or even stabbed if you're an idiot and try to fight. Probably you'll survive. Here you'll probably get shot and your odds of survival are significantly less.

Got any sources to back up these claims?
 
2014-07-23 09:14:27 PM  
i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-07-23 10:15:16 PM  
Democrats are always party/person before country.  Hardly news.
 
2014-07-23 10:37:36 PM  

hobberwickey: Seriously, give me one good reason why people should have guns that doesn't depend on some boogeyman jumping out of the shadows and trying to steal your daughters. I've travelled all over the world and never felt so unsafe as I do here in the states.


Really?

We're actually safer than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homici de _rate#By_country

Go ahead and order the list by rate, descending.

You'll find we're on par with some European nations.

And, in fact, if you only count "European-Americans", their homicide rate is actually lower than Europe as a whole.

European homicide rate:  3.0 per 100,000.
(source:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate#By_region )

"European-American" homicide rate:  2.53 per 100,000
(source:   http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html )

Now, if you believe that access to guns causes the "high" US homicide rate, this is incomprehensible: Whites in the US are far better armed than their European cousins, but they actually have a lower homicide rate.

But if you believe, as I do, that violence is largely cultural, it makes perfect sense given the immigration patterns of Europeans to the United States:  You'd expect that it would be higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, as both are widely represented here, and indeed, it is the case that the homicide rate for "European-Americans" falls between the two.

You see, you learn your cultural values from your parents and peers (who learn from their parents), and your parents learned from their parents, and so on back down the line.  Your great-great-grandfather back in the old country taught your great-grandfather, who taught your grandfather, who taught your father, who taught you.  Likewise with your great-great-grandmother.

It's got nothing to do with the color of your skin and everything to do with the culture you were raised in.

For example, Asia has the lowest homicide rate per region in that Wikipedia listing (Especially East Asia).  And lo and behold, if you check the CDC data, they have the lowest homicide rate of any group in the US, despite having the same legal access to firearms as everyone else.

It ain't because they've got epicanthal folds, though.  It's that their culture tends to suppress violence.  Strong family pressures to conform and excel, less homicide (but more suicide).

Now, go ahead and tell me I'm a racist dirtbag KKK member for suggesting that your propensity for violence (among other things) is transmitted to you through your family, and to a lesser extent, your peers.
 
2014-07-23 11:59:46 PM  

dittybopper: Now, go ahead and tell me I'm a racist dirtbag KKK member for suggesting that your propensity for violence (among other things) is transmitted to you through your family, and to a lesser extent, your peers.


You are a racist and you can't read charts. We're hitting 400-500% the rate of most European nations.

And you are definitely a racist. Let me be clear. You're a racist, and not in the way that "all of us are a little racist" or we might know a few racist jokes or slurs. You're a full-on, black-people-hating, spelled-out-his-black-people-murder-culture-theory Racist.

//I'm sure you'd probably fit in better with the KKK than here.
 
2014-07-24 07:51:01 AM  

dittybopper: hobberwickey: Seriously, give me one good reason why people should have guns that doesn't depend on some boogeyman jumping out of the shadows and trying to steal your daughters. I've travelled all over the world and never felt so unsafe as I do here in the states.

Really?

We're actually safer than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homici de _rate#By_country

Go ahead and order the list by rate, descending.

You'll find we're on par with some European nations.

And, in fact, if you only count "European-Americans", their homicide rate is actually lower than Europe as a whole.

European homicide rate:  3.0 per 100,000.
(source:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate#By_region )

"European-American" homicide rate:  2.53 per 100,000
(source:   http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html )

Now, if you believe that access to guns causes the "high" US homicide rate, this is incomprehensible: Whites in the US are far better armed than their European cousins, but they actually have a lower homicide rate.

But if you believe, as I do, that violence is largely cultural, it makes perfect sense given the immigration patterns of Europeans to the United States:  You'd expect that it would be higher than Western Europe, but lower than Eastern Europe, as both are widely represented here, and indeed, it is the case that the homicide rate for "European-Americans" falls between the two.

You see, you learn your cultural values from your parents and peers (who learn from their parents), and your parents learned from their parents, and so on back down the line.  Your great-great-grandfather back in the old country taught your great-grandfather, who taught your grandfather, who taught your father, who taught you.  Likewise with your great-great-grandmother.

It's got nothing to do with the color of your skin and everything to do with the culture you were raised in.

For example, Asia has the lowest homicide rate per region in that Wikipedia listing (Especially East Asia).  And lo and behold, if you check the CDC data, they have the lowest homicide rate of any group in the US, despite having the same legal access to firearms as everyone else.

It ain't because they've got epicanthal folds, though.  It's that their culture tends to suppress violence.  Strong family pressures to conform and excel, less homicide (but more suicide).

Now, go ahead and tell me I'm a racist dirtbag KKK member for suggesting that your propensity for violence (among other things) is transmitted to you through your family, and to a lesser extent, your peers.


You are indeed racist. Sure growing up around violence tends to make people more violent, but that's more a function of poverty than 'culture' as you put it. Desperate people do desperate things, go figure.

Also just for reference we're closer to Afghanistan's murder rates than we are any western European country according to your helpful chart. Couldn't be easy access to murder tools could it?
 
2014-07-24 08:16:54 AM  

hobberwickey: Sure growing up around violence tends to make people more violent, but that's more a function of poverty than 'culture' as you put it.


There's plenty of poor countries with low homicide rates too. Indonesia has 43% of the population living on under $2/day and they have one of the lowest murder rates. India's at 68%.

And there are comparatively well-off countries with higher homicide rates than the US, too. Brazil, for one.
 
2014-07-24 08:20:00 AM  

moothemagiccow: dittybopper: Now, go ahead and tell me I'm a racist dirtbag KKK member for suggesting that your propensity for violence (among other things) is transmitted to you through your family, and to a lesser extent, your peers.

You are a racist and you can't read charts. We're hitting 400-500% the rate of most European nations.

And you are definitely a racist. Let me be clear. You're a racist, and not in the way that "all of us are a little racist" or we might know a few racist jokes or slurs. You're a full-on, black-people-hating, spelled-out-his-black-people-murder-culture-theory Racist.

//I'm sure you'd probably fit in better with the KKK than here.


Did you know that my adopted son is mixed race?

Probably not.

I should think that alone would probably get me excluded from the KKK, though I suppose they'll take practically anyone these days, what with their membership woes and all.

But let's take a look at your first two sentences:

You are a racist and you can't read charts. We're hitting 400-500% the rate of most European nations.

See, the problem here is that you are excluding vast swaths of Europe, to wit, all of Eastern Europe.  So it's *NOT* most European nations.  They don't count, do they?  Because they aren't really European, right?  I mean, heck, the Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorus, Czechs, Slovaks, Bosnians, Armenians, Albanians, etc. don't count because they aren't "pure" ethnic Europeans, right?  They're more Slavic than Aryan, so they're somehow inferior in your eyes, correct?

But let's take another look at those statistics for Western Europe.  And since my language ability is limited to English, Morse, Russian, cursing in gutter Puerto Rican Spanish, and ordering a beer in multiple languages (usually the wrong one), We'll just take a look at the statistics for the one country in Western Europe that speaks English, of a sort:  The United Kingdom.

Since 1967, the Home Office in the UK only reports for official purposes a homicide once there has been a conviction.

So all the unsolved murders aren't included in the official homicide counts.

In effect, they keep "two sets of books", and only officially report homicide statistics on the *LOWER* one:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/qualit y- reviews/theme/crime-and-justice/nsqr-25/nsqr-series-report-no--25--rev iew-of-homicide-statistics-.pdf

This isn't like the US, where we count dead bodies that were obviously due to foul play whether we've got a conviction or not:
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homi ci de.html

And there is evidence that the homicide rate in the UK could easily be double or more of what they are reporting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561945/Rate-of-unsolved-murd er s-doubles-in-decade.html
"London, while having the highest population in the country, also had the greatest proportion of unsolved murders, with one for every 28,000 people."

That's an "unsolved homicide rate" of (100,000/28,000) = 3.6 per 100,000, which when added to the "official" London homicide rate of around 1.2 per 100,000 means that in London, at least, the *ACTUAL* homicide rate is about the same as in the US as a whole (4.8 per 100,000 vs.  5.21 per 100,000 in 2011 according to the CDC).

If the UK as a whole has *HALF* the unsolved rate as London, the unsolved rate would be 1.8 per 100,000, which added to the overall homicide rate for the UK puts it at about 3 per 100,000.

I suspect a lot of the same statistical jiggery-pokery is going on in many European nations.

[sarcasm]
But I'm just a racist, so feel free to ignore the facts.
[/sarcasm]
 
2014-07-24 04:23:05 PM  

hobberwickey: You are indeed racist. Sure growing up around violence tends to make people more violent, but that's more a function of poverty than 'culture' as you put it. Desperate people do desperate things, go figure.


Actually, that's not true in the United States.  When you correct for poverty, you still come up with a massive difference.

I'm going to cut and paste from a previous Fark post because redoing the calculation that proves you wrong from scratch is unnecessary and tedious:

I've done that calculation before. In order to correct for poverty issues, you can come up with a bogus statistic I like to call "Homicide rate per 100,000 poor people of race X". So, according to the census, in 2007 there were 14.135 million white adults living in poverty, and 4.742 million blacks the same age range. (Source: US Census Historical Poverty tables)

There were 4,464 white victims of homicide that year and in the same age group (18 to 64), and there were 7,615 black homicide victims, same age range, same year (Source: CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Doing the math, we get a "poor white adult" homicide rate of 31.6 per 100,000, and a "poor black adult" homicide rate of 160.6 per 100,000. Now, those numbers are *PURELY* for the purpose of controlling for poverty levels, and they still show that black non-Hispanics have a much higher homicide rate than white non-Hispanics, independent of their poverty levels. It's 5 times higher, in fact, and that is *AFTER* we've controlled for poverty levels.


OK, so I removed poverty from the equation.  Now what are you going to claim?  That poor blacks are more urbanized?  Not significantly more, not in a way that would account for that difference:  Urbanization of poor blacks is around 90%, and around 80% for poor whites.

But again, it's not skin color, it's the transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next.  When you interrupt that, by say, something like slavery that rends families apart, or by economic incentives for parents to be single and stay and to have more kids, that's when you start to have problems with the transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next.
 
2014-07-24 04:43:01 PM  

dittybopper: hobberwickey: You are indeed racist. Sure growing up around violence tends to make people more violent, but that's more a function of poverty than 'culture' as you put it. Desperate people do desperate things, go figure.

Actually, that's not true in the United States.  When you correct for poverty, you still come up with a massive difference.

I'm going to cut and paste from a previous Fark post because redoing the calculation that proves you wrong from scratch is unnecessary and tedious:

I've done that calculation before. In order to correct for poverty issues, you can come up with a bogus statistic I like to call "Homicide rate per 100,000 poor people of race X". So, according to the census, in 2007 there were 14.135 million white adults living in poverty, and 4.742 million blacks the same age range. (Source: US Census Historical Poverty tables)

There were 4,464 white victims of homicide that year and in the same age group (18 to 64), and there were 7,615 black homicide victims, same age range, same year (Source: CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)

Doing the math, we get a "poor white adult" homicide rate of 31.6 per 100,000, and a "poor black adult" homicide rate of 160.6 per 100,000. Now, those numbers are *PURELY* for the purpose of controlling for poverty levels, and they still show that black non-Hispanics have a much higher homicide rate than white non-Hispanics, independent of their poverty levels. It's 5 times higher, in fact, and that is *AFTER* we've controlled for poverty levels.

OK, so I removed poverty from the equation.  Now what are you going to claim?  That poor blacks are more urbanized?  Not significantly more, not in a way that would account for that difference:  Urbanization of poor blacks is around 90%, and around 80% for poor whites.

But again, it's not skin color, it's the transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next.  When you interrupt that, by say, something like slavery that rends families apart, or by economic ...


Oh look, someone who doesn't understand how institutional racism works. See for minorities poverty is something much harder to escape than it is for say... white males. Poverty isn't experienced differently by all groups of people; for some, it's a temporary situation, and for others pretty much inescapable. While a poor white male may be able to get a decent job and pull themselves up out of poverty, it's much less likely that a black male will be afforded the same opportunity.

Like I said before, desperate people do desperate things. Poverty breeds desperation for everyone, but to varying degrees for different groups. Are you going to argue now that racism is over in this country and it's just as easy for minorities to get ahead? Good luck with that one.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report