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.

(Vox)   Believing Jon Gruber's off-hand comments about withholding Obamacare subsidies from states that refuse to establish their own exchange is like uncovering tape of Michael Bay saying there's nothing he hates seeing more in a movie than an explosion   (vox.com) divider line 136
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jul 2014 at 2:27 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-28 12:38:06 PM  
"I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask."
uberfriendship.com
 
2014-07-28 12:52:04 PM  
You mean people willfully claim to believe in things they know to be untrue for political purposes? I've never heard of such a thing.

Now excuse me while I return to that climate change thread.
 
2014-07-28 12:53:21 PM  
I guess i have been slacking on my right wing news watching.  I am not familiar with this Gruber guy or his comments.

It is clear even to me it was meant for the states to get the subsidies.

That is the problem with 1700-page bills no one reads.  but if you enforce the law by interpretation, instead of what is actually written, then there is no law.  Interpretations can be changed to conform to whatever agenda those in power have.

and also, an obamacare disaster isn't awful for the left, as long as they remain in charge.  then they can just toss obamacare and skip to single-payer.
 
2014-07-28 12:56:59 PM  
I read that headline four times making the quizzical-dog face until I realized you weren't talking about dim-bulb NFL analyst Jon Gruden
 
2014-07-28 01:01:16 PM  
So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.
 
2014-07-28 01:01:51 PM  
This whole lawsuit is emblematic of the entire conservative posture during the Obama years - oppose literally everything as much as you can without any good faith or intellectual honesty, and then do it so much that you manage to convince yourself you're actually doing it in good faith.

It's really tiring.
 
2014-07-28 01:02:44 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.


It's impossible this would be decided before the midterms. I don't even think the full en banc court hears it until the fall, and then if the USSC takes it up it won't happen until next year at the earliest.
 
2014-07-28 01:15:42 PM  

DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

It's impossible this would be decided before the midterms. I don't even think the full en banc court hears it until the fall, and then if the USSC takes it up it won't happen until next year at the earliest.


So it will be in time for the 2016 election.

I really don't understand what else the Republican Party can do, other than just come right out and say, "Look. We are a horrible, horrible political party and no one should vote for us. We've been trying to convince you of this for years now, but you're just not getting the message. DO NOT VOTE FOR US."
 
2014-07-28 01:26:56 PM  
And once again I am proven to be correct. It's hard to be this good.
 
2014-07-28 01:41:15 PM  
Yeah, why do we even bother putting laws in writing when we can just sort of, you know, dig the jist of what they were feeling at the time.  All the haters are just uptight about, like, verbiage and stuff.

/The requirement of state exchanges for subsidies was intentional; it was a gamble to pressure state governors into playing along.  They lost.
 
2014-07-28 02:05:49 PM  
It's certainly consistent with "Is X a scandal yet?"

Facts and evidence are boring.  The made up stuff is sexy and exciting.  And if you're a Republican at the moment, the made up stuff is a more effective tool than *yawn* reality.
 
2014-07-28 02:07:46 PM  

Il Douchey: The requirement of state exchanges for subsidies was intentional; it was a gamble to pressure state governors into playing along. They lost.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-07-28 02:23:14 PM  

Il Douchey: Yeah, why do we even bother putting laws in writing when we can just sort of, you know, dig the jist of what they were feeling at the time.  All the haters are just uptight about, like, verbiage and stuff.

/The requirement of state exchanges for subsidies was intentional; it was a gamble to pressure state governors into playing along.  They lost.


No, it's kind-of like your not explicitly telling you that you shouldn't stick your dick in a buzz-saw. Nobody ever imagined they would actually have to spell that out for you, but yet, here we are.

If my kids pulled this sort-of Amelia Bedelia bullshiat on me, their asses would be grounded until infinity.
 
2014-07-28 02:30:08 PM  
Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?
 
2014-07-28 02:34:49 PM  

qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?


The three-legged stool metaphor was popularized by Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who was the architect of the Massachusetts reforms that Obamacare largely copied, and an advisor both to the White House and congressional Democrats while the Affordable Care Act was being crafted. But recently, two remarks he made in January 2012 garnering lots of attention. In both (one more clearly than the other) Gruber suggests that the Affordable Care Act only intended to deliver subsidies in states that set up their own health insurance exchanges.
 
2014-07-28 02:38:30 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.


Not a technicality, it was a feature.  The purpose was to get states to set up their own exchanges, or their citizens would pay higher premiums.  No one expected that a majority of the states would refuse to set up their own exchanges.
 
2014-07-28 02:38:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And once again I am proven to be correct. It's hard to be this good.


Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble.
 
2014-07-28 02:39:41 PM  

qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?


He's not just a crook. He's an extraordinary Republican.
 
2014-07-28 02:39:59 PM  

qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?


He's that guy who sings You Are Loved and You Raise Me Up, but that's not important right now.
 
2014-07-28 02:40:05 PM  
Three crooked squirrels:Citation needed


"If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." He added that "I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges." ~Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare, 2012


http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-arch ite ct-jonathan-gruber-if-youre-a-state-and-you-dont-set-up-an-exchange-th at-means-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/
 
2014-07-28 02:40:48 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?

The three-legged stool metaphor was popularized by Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who was the architect of the Massachusetts reforms that Obamacare largely copied, and an advisor both to the White House and congressional Democrats while the Affordable Care Act was being crafted. But recently, two remarks he made in January 2012 garnering lots of attention. In both (one more clearly than the other) Gruber suggests that the Affordable Care Act only intended to deliver subsidies in states that set up their own health insurance exchanges.


Based on a brief skimming of the article, it looks like no one is substantiating that claim, and historically he has never pushed this assertion.
 
2014-07-28 02:41:33 PM  

Destructor: qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?

He's not just a crook. He's an extraordinary Republican.


Whoops. I meant Han Gruber. Sorry.
 
2014-07-28 02:41:53 PM  

Diogenes: qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?

He's that guy who sings You Are Loved and You Raise Me Up, but that's not important right now.


I thought he was an NFL analyst on ESPN... huh.
 
2014-07-28 02:41:56 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Not a technicality, it was a feature.  The purpose was to get states to set up their own exchanges, or their citizens would pay higher premiums.  No one expected that a majority of the states would refuse to set up their own exchanges.


It's truly amazing how quickly conservatives have managed to convince themselves this is a true statement of fact.

It just goes to show that people's party affiliations and ideological commitments don't really arise from facts or the reality that they perceive. It's really the opposite.
 
2014-07-28 02:42:05 PM  
And what are conservatives who previously condemned "legislating from the bench" to say if the Supreme Court's five Republican appointees overrule Congress's clear intent so they can take health-insurance subsidies away from millions of people?

Not a damn thing. They are, by and large, shameless hypocrites who are completely impervious to the effects of cognitive dissonance.
 
2014-07-28 02:42:45 PM  

Il Douchey: Three crooked squirrels:Citation needed


"If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." He added that "I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges." ~Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare, 2012


http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-arch ite ct-jonathan-gruber-if-youre-a-state-and-you-dont-set-up-an-exchange-th at-means-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/


Except for, you know, not being the architect. He didn't write word one of Obamacare.
 
2014-07-28 02:43:39 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

It's impossible this would be decided before the midterms. I don't even think the full en banc court hears it until the fall, and then if the USSC takes it up it won't happen until next year at the earliest.

So it will be in time for the 2016 election.

I really don't understand what else the Republican Party can do, other than just come right out and say, "Look. We are a horrible, horrible political party and no one should vote for us. We've been trying to convince you of this for years now, but you're just not getting the message. DO NOT VOTE FOR US."


No reason for the Democrats to not use it like crazy this fall, though.

"Every Republican Senator, every Republican House member brings you one step closer to taking healthcare from millions, raising the rates of everyone else, and removing all these additional patient rights the ACA has given you.  A vote for a Republican is a vote to be denied insurance.  A vote for a Republican is a vote for insurance companies to drop you if you get sick."
 
2014-07-28 02:44:50 PM  

Tomahawk513: Based on a brief skimming of the article, it looks like no one is substantiating that claim, and historically he has never pushed this assertion.


He said something stupid, and it was recorded.  The Halbig decision is an insult to anyone that followed the crafting of the legislation.  I don't evne know what to say about Gruber's comments.  Dude must have been farking stoned.
 
2014-07-28 02:44:58 PM  

SlothB77: but if you enforce the law by interpretation, instead of what is actually written, then there is no law.


I'd try to rebut this, but it'll be more fun seeing you get slapped down by an actual lawyer.
 
2014-07-28 02:47:50 PM  

DeaH: "I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask."
[uberfriendship.com image 500x322]


Alan Rickman for Congress.
/no not really- who knows if he's into crazy sheet IRL
 
2014-07-28 02:52:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Galloping Galoshes: Not a technicality, it was a feature.  The purpose was to get states to set up their own exchanges, or their citizens would pay higher premiums.  No one expected that a majority of the states would refuse to set up their own exchanges.

It's truly amazing how quickly conservatives have managed to convince themselves this is a true statement of fact.

It just goes to show that people's party affiliations and ideological commitments don't really arise from facts or the reality that they perceive. It's really the opposite.


Hardly.  It seems very sensible that the Feds would provide a strong incentive to states to set up exchanges so that the federal government wouldn't have to shoulder the burden.
 
2014-07-28 02:54:11 PM  
The comments from Gruber are relevant because of the canons of statutory interpretation.

One of the arguments in this case is that the plain language of the text states that subsidies are available only through exchanges established by the state.  Under the canons on interpretation, If you believe this plain language argument, then the only way you can get a court to consider a different meaning is if the plain language would result in something "absurd."

For something to be absurd, applying it as written must "render[ the] statute nonsensical or superfluous or . . . create an outcome so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have intended it." Note that the standard here is not what Congress *did* intend, or what they *most likely* intended.  It's what they *could* have intended.  The comments from Gruber show that, contrary to what some have argued, the interpretation that the subsidies apply only to plans purchased through state exchanges does not meet the definition of "absurd."  His comments don't mean that Congress intended that result.  They do show that it Congress *could* have intended that result, which is all that matters.

Of course, the canons of construction are there largely to ensure that courts enforce what Congress intended.  And following the letter of the canons when it might result in doing something that Congress did not actually intend would be contrary to the purpose of the canons in the first place.

However, there is still a separation of powers issue here.  If there's a mistake in the law that needs to be corrected (which is what appears to have happened) it's not the job of the courts to fix that mistake.  It's the job of Congress.  The fact that Congress might not now want to fix it is not the court system's problem.
 
2014-07-28 02:54:53 PM  

SlothB77: I guess i have been slacking on my right wing news watching.  I am not familiar with this Gruber guy or his comments.

It is clear even to me it was meant for the states to get the subsidies.

That is the problem with 1700-page bills no one reads.  but if you enforce the law by interpretation, instead of what is actually written, then there is no law.  Interpretations can be changed to conform to whatever agenda those in power have.

and also, an obamacare disaster isn't awful for the left, as long as they remain in charge.  then they can just toss obamacare and skip to single-payer.


And also there is no "Obamacare disaster" and furthermore
 
2014-07-28 02:55:46 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Hardly.  It seems very sensible that the Feds would provide a strong incentive to states to set up exchanges so that the federal government wouldn't have to shoulder the burden.


Sensible or not, it's just not empirically true. Not a single Democrat in Congress has ever stated this was the intent - they are in fact stating that it explicitely was not the intent. Not any person who covered Obamacare (and it was rather intensely covered) wrote about this issue at the time as something that anyone ever thought about.

I'm not here to argue the point with you, since its not really arguable. Empirical reality is what it is. You either must think that every Democrat and every health care reporter is just outright lying to the world, or this just isn't true. And your ideological commitments tell you what must be so.
 
2014-07-28 02:57:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?


www.draftdaysuit.com

"Obamacare is a Foot. Ball. Player."
 
2014-07-28 02:57:34 PM  

Talondel: His comments don't mean that Congress intended that result.  They do show that it Congress *could* have intended that result, which is all that matters.


I'm not sure how his comments have any bearing on this one way or another. Whether Congress could have meant something has no relationship to what some non-Congressperson thought years after the fact.

It's also worth pointing out that Gruber himself said he was misspeaking in 2012 and he completely repudiates those statements.
 
2014-07-28 02:57:39 PM  
cc1984:Except for, you know, not being the architect. He didn't write word one of Obamacare.

Yeah, and HHS only paid him nearly $400,000 in consulting fees while crafting PPACA because they liked the cut of his jib.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/on-jonathan-gruber-and -di sclosure/
 
2014-07-28 02:58:05 PM  

qorkfiend: Who is Jon Gruber, and why do we care what he has to say?



thesportsgeeks.com
 
2014-07-28 02:58:09 PM  
Fark's resident hard drive expert is now going to learn us some law!
 
2014-07-28 03:00:02 PM  
 
2014-07-28 03:00:31 PM  

Il Douchey: cc1984:Except for, you know, not being the architect. He didn't write word one of Obamacare.

Yeah, and HHS only paid him nearly $400,000 in consulting fees while crafting PPACA because they liked the cut of his jib.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/on-jonathan-gruber-and -di sclosure/


Consulted does not equal wrote. Did you know that Congress writes the legislation in the US? It seems like you don't.

Let's also mention that above we see that he repudiated those statements anyway.

Keep digging though, you're bound to strike something other than bullsh*t eventually.
 
2014-07-28 03:01:59 PM  

SlothB77: That is the problem with 1700-page bills no one reads.  but if you enforce the law by interpretation, instead of what is actually written, then there is no law.  Interpretations can be changed to conform to whatever agenda those in power have.


That's a feature, not a bug.

See Marbury v. Madison.
 
2014-07-28 03:05:32 PM  
For the record, I submitted this headline when this "story" broke:

Jonathan Gruber, yes THAT Jonathan Gruber, architect of GruberCare, admitted in 2012 states without exchanges wouldn't get subsidies. Wait who's Jonathan Gruber?

It was not greenlit, and I was very disappointed.
 
2014-07-28 03:06:54 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not sure how his comments have any bearing on this one way or another. Whether Congress could have meant something has no relationship to what some non-Congressperson thought years after the fact.


"Could" have meant. Again, the absurdity analysis has nothing to do with what they actually meant.  It only matters if the results is something that *could* have been intended.  Even if every single member of Congress takes the stand and swears it's not what they actually meant, that's not what matters.  The fact is, there is a plausible reason why Congress *could* have intended this result, as Dr. Gruber pointed out.  It is therefore not absurd.

Now, you can still argue that the plain language, taken as a whole and in context, doesn't say that subsidies only apply to the states.  Or you can argue that the language is ambiguous and needs to be clarified by referring to the Congressional record.  But you can't argue that they law, as interpreted by the majority in the DC Circuit, would result in something absurd.  At least not as absurd is usually interpreted as a canon on construction.  But that's the argument that currently seems most favored by those supporting the ACA subsidies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/24/w hy -the-dc-circuits-interpretation-of-the-aca-in-halbig-v-burwell-is-far- from-absurd/
 
2014-07-28 03:08:20 PM  

Talondel: "Could" have meant. Again, the absurdity analysis has nothing to do with what they actually meant.  It only matters if the results is something that *could* have been intended.  Even if every single member of Congress takes the stand and swears it's not what they actually meant, that's not what matters.  The fact is, there is a plausible reason why Congress *could* have intended this result, as Dr. Gruber pointed out.  It is therefore not absurd.


But anyone could have pointed that out. Why does it matter if Dr. Gruber says it, as opposed to a random commenter on RedState? Whether Gruber thought so is evidence of whether or Congress *actually* intended it, not whether they could have.
 
2014-07-28 03:08:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So if the Republicans are successful in this and they deny a large part of the ACA due to this technicality, millions of people that just got health insurance will have that health insurance denied to them. Right before the mid-term elections.

This is a brilliant plan, Republicans. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.


I said this in the other thread a couple of days ago. Between Boehner's lawsuit and this Gruber nonsense, this is the Republican party right now:

hisvorpal.files.wordpress.com
"I switched the glasses when you weren't looking!"



They really think that by switching the glasses and trying to convince the American people that the Democrats really didn't want health care for red staters, ignoring the extended lawsuit over the Medicaid expansion, people will "rise up" and vote the Democrats out of office and do away with Obamacare. So now they get to either say they want health care for their constituents, thereby pissing off their base, or they can say they don't want health care for kids in their states, thereby pissing off everyone else.

Both glasses are poisoned, and thanks to the steady diet of Obamacare criticism for the past six years, the Democrats have developed an immunity. The Republicans lost when they agreed to play the game, they're just too clever to realize it.
 
2014-07-28 03:09:50 PM  

Talondel: One of the arguments in this case is that the plain language of the text states that subsidies are available only through exchanges established by the state. Under the canons on interpretation, If you believe this plain language argument, then the only way you can get a court to consider a different meaning is if the plain language would result in something "absurd."

For something to be absurd, applying it as written must "render[ the] statute nonsensical or superfluous or . . . create an outcome so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have intended it." Note that the standard here is not what Congress *did* intend, or what they *most likely* intended. It's what they *could* have intended. The comments from Gruber show that, contrary to what some have argued, the interpretation that the subsidies apply only to plans purchased through state exchanges does not meet the definition of "absurd." His comments don't mean that Congress intended that result. They do show that it Congress *could* have intended that result, which is all that matters.


Suppose the language in this case is actually plain language that mandates premium and cost-sharing tax credits be withheld from people living in states that use healthcare.gov. That language really would produce an outcome so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have intended it. The result of withholding those tax credits would be the complete destruction of the individual health insurance market in those states.

Consider the state of Washington. Back in 1993, they passed a law mandating insurance companies offer coverage to all comers and charge them the same rate regardless of their health status. They never implemented a mechanism to entice people to buy insurance. As a result, many people stopped buying insurance because they expected not to need it, and the people who did buy it did so because they expected to need it. Insurance companies' costs skyrocketed so much that they could not raise premiums fast enough to keep up. The companies decided to leave the market entirely. By 1998, the state had gone from nineteen providers to two, and those two only offered coverage in eight of thirty-nine counties, none of which included the Seattle metro. Those last two providers stopped offering new insurance policies in 1999. In short, the market was dead.

If the intention of Congress was to withhold tax credits from residents of states using healthcare.gov, then they were really offering the states a Hobson's choice between establishing their own exchange or nuking the insurance market. That's not a choice at all; that's coercion. Per precedent in New York v. United States, the federal government is not allowed to commandeer the states to implement law under the Tenth Amendment.
 
2014-07-28 03:13:13 PM  

www.dvdtalk.com
"This wasn't about health care, it was about a heist! I know the man! I know the family!"

 
2014-07-28 03:13:48 PM  
Part of me wants the Democrats and the Administration to accept the ruling and run on it.  Campaign ads like:

William lives in Connecticut.  He works in a warehouse as a foreman and earns $52,000 per year.  His employer does not provide healthcare coverage.  He is married and has two children living at home.  He pays $5,800 per year in federal income and payroll taxes.  His family's healthcare insurance costs $210 per month, purchased through the Connecticut exchange website.

Jonathan lives in Utah.  He works in a warehouse as a foreman and earns $52,000 per year.  His employer does not provide healthcare coverage.  He is married and has two children living at home.  He pays $5,800 per year in federal income and payroll taxes.  His family's healthcare insurance costs $975 per month, a cost that could be decreased by over $700 per month if his state would set up an exchange.  However, the GOP-controlled state government has refused to do so.

Jonathan is subsidizing William's healthcare insurance despite identical incomes and despite identical tax bills.

Do you know someone like William?  Like Jonathan?  Are you living in a similar situation?  Then don't vote GOP.  Ever.  Until they stand up for you.

/This advertisement paid by The Three Crooked Squirrels Campaign for Screw the GOP
 
2014-07-28 03:14:06 PM  

Talondel: DamnYankees: I'm not sure how his comments have any bearing on this one way or another. Whether Congress could have meant something has no relationship to what some non-Congressperson thought years after the fact.

"Could" have meant. Again, the absurdity analysis has nothing to do with what they actually meant.  It only matters if the results is something that *could* have been intended.  Even if every single member of Congress takes the stand and swears it's not what they actually meant, that's not what matters.  The fact is, there is a plausible reason why Congress *could* have intended this result, as Dr. Gruber pointed out.  It is therefore not absurd.

Now, you can still argue that the plain language, taken as a whole and in context, doesn't say that subsidies only apply to the states.  Or you can argue that the language is ambiguous and needs to be clarified by referring to the Congressional record.  But you can't argue that they law, as interpreted by the majority in the DC Circuit, would result in something absurd.  At least not as absurd is usually interpreted as a canon on construction.  But that's the argument that currently seems most favored by those supporting the ACA subsidies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/24/w hy -the-dc-circuits-interpretation-of-the-aca-in-halbig-v-burwell-is-far- from-absurd/



I'd call anything ever written on The Volokh Conspiracy "absurd."   These were also the guys who argued the plain language of the individual mandate wasn't a tax.   It's only the latest in a long string of reasons I quit reading the Washingpost.

It's not a law blog, it's sophistry in the defense of conservatism.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report