Skip to content
 
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.

(Law and Crime)   Kansas death row inmates in their 120th trimester use recent abortion ruling to argue they cannot be executed   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Ironic, Human rights, United States Constitution, Kansas Supreme Court's April decision, Kansas, abortion rights, death row, death penalty, bloc of inmates  
•       •       •

6809 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2019 at 11:50 AM (29 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-06-27 10:26:22 AM  
Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.
 
2019-06-27 11:52:41 AM  

ArkAngel: Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.


Done in one.
 
2019-06-27 11:54:11 AM  
SO what's next sentence them to swim across the pacific ocean. succeed and they aren't guilty?
 
2019-06-27 11:55:10 AM  

ArkAngel: Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.


The court further reasoned that the government "may only infringe upon the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy if the State has a compelling interest and has narrowly tailored its actions to that interest."


They took that into account, at least
 
2019-06-27 11:55:43 AM  
It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.
 
2019-06-27 11:56:24 AM  
where is that exception listed in the holy screed we call the Constitution?
 
2019-06-27 11:59:04 AM  

aseras: SO what's next sentence them to swim across the pacific ocean. succeed and they aren't guilty?


But, if they float they are witches!
 
2019-06-27 11:59:28 AM  
Good for them.  They are awful, but I hope they win.
 
2019-06-27 11:59:39 AM  

asciibaron: where is that exception listed in the holy screed we call the Constitution?


wrong dreck. Try DoI

"certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
 
2019-06-27 12:00:56 PM  
Until I RTFA I thought Kansas had outlawed abortion, and a pregnant inmate was seeking a stay of execution because it would effectively be aborting her baby. I'm pretty sure that would be a more sound legal argument than "my execution interferes with my bodily autonomy." Did these guys also argue about the golden fringe on the flag in the courtroom while making their appeal?
 
2019-06-27 12:03:26 PM  
You either think human life is sacred, or you don't.
 
2019-06-27 12:05:40 PM  
By the way, I was well with in my rights when I killed that guy.  I was pursuing happiness and he ran right in to my knife 29 times
 
2019-06-27 12:06:11 PM  

way south: ArkAngel: Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.

Done in one.


The Law of Unintended Consequences often bites the stupid in the arse. Enjoy your anti-abortion laws making it illegal to kill a person after birth, even if they're a convicted murderer.
 
2019-06-27 12:06:19 PM  
Unborn babies can not commit a crime.  The prisoners did. BIG difference.  But try telling that to some that can not bend his arm when waving hello.
 
2019-06-27 12:07:28 PM  

ArkAngel: Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.


Yes, but the "child" has rights too.  And wasn't (presumably) guilty of a crime punishable by death.
 
2019-06-27 12:08:12 PM  

ArkAngel: Except the whole point of punishment after a criminal conviction is to take away rights. Property can be taken away through fines and forfeiture. Liberty can be removed through imprisonment and restrictions on the right to vote or own firearms. And life can be taken through the death penalty for murderers.


Well, no.  Murder by the state is a crime against humanity, there is no process of law that makes it acceptable.
 
2019-06-27 12:08:30 PM  

boyd1031: Unborn babies can not commit a crime.  The prisoners did. BIG difference.  But try telling that to some that can not bend his arm when waving hello.


That's what you think...I ran an illegal gambling ring from the womb.
 
2019-06-27 12:09:05 PM  
Ugh! Why couldn't we find a sympathetic defendant on Death Row?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-06-27 12:10:23 PM  
The fact that the Kansas ruling protected abortion rights (I was surprised too) makes it really clear who did or did not RTFA.

The idea that the ruling introduces anything relevant to the convicts' cases that hasn't been settled law for centuries is completely idiotic, but lawyers gonna lawyer.
 
2019-06-27 12:10:35 PM  
USC 5A: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

USC 14A Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Federally, the Constitution is A-OK with the death penalty.

Likewise, even arguing that the inmate has a right to self-autonomy, as far as it concerns the end forced of their lives, the inmate has already been provided due process and found guilty and thus is eligible for the death penalty. Given that the application of penalties has always, except in special cases of specifically prescribed penalties, been discretionary by the court and juries, the pronouncement of the death penalty in these judgments reflects the State's compelling interest in carrying out the ultimate penalty. If it were not compelling, the punishment would have been lighter.

So anyway, don't murder people.
 
2019-06-27 12:10:38 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


Babies should have a chance but they are to be brought into a loving family.  What about rape? What about incest? What if the mother is a victim of those.  Should a child be thrusted upon a women that she did not ask for nor have control over?
 
2019-06-27 12:13:04 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

JC
 
2019-06-27 12:14:07 PM  

JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

JC


The important word is "person", not "life".
 
2019-06-27 12:15:26 PM  
I wouldn't put it past Kansas to try a fetus as an adult.
 
2019-06-27 12:16:51 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


Ask me how I know you didn't RTFA.

Hint:  Kansas law has declared that Abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right.  As in, Kansas is a Pro-Choice state.
 
2019-06-27 12:17:08 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "


I do not like the death penalty.  I also do not like incarceration - but I see it as necessary and the USoA does it poorly (or very very well, depending on your goals).

Sometimes, I just don't like the way things are worded.  If you truly have an "unalienable right" I do not see how it can ever be legally deprived.
 
2019-06-27 12:17:49 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


Wrong side of things. Kansas' ruling protected abortions saying the state could not intervene unless they had a narrowly constructed, compelling reason to do so. These inmates are trying to claim the state has no narrowly constructed, compelling reason to execute them.

It's a very bizarre set of mental gymnastics being done.
 
2019-06-27 12:24:04 PM  

Coconice: TrollingForColumbine: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

I do not like the death penalty.  I also do not like incarceration - but I see it as necessary and the USoA does it poorly (or very very well, depending on your goals).

Sometimes, I just don't like the way things are worded.  If you truly have an "unalienable right" I do not see how it can ever be legally deprived.


Well then you can never be jailed as your liberty is taken away.
 
2019-06-27 12:26:34 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


Whoa, whoa, whoa there. All pro lifers care about is if the baby is born. Once that happens, they become someone else's problem.
 
2019-06-27 12:27:35 PM  

KangTheMad: Coconice: TrollingForColumbine: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

I do not like the death penalty.  I also do not like incarceration - but I see it as necessary and the USoA does it poorly (or very very well, depending on your goals).

Sometimes, I just don't like the way things are worded.  If you truly have an "unalienable right" I do not see how it can ever be legally deprived.

Well then you can never be jailed as your liberty is taken away.


Which is why these rights are not called inalienable in the Constitution itself. They left that to rhetoric, not law, because you're right: that word creates some serious problems if you try to put it into a law.
 
2019-06-27 12:29:30 PM  

inglixthemad: Enjoy your anti-abortion laws making it illegal to kill a person after birth


Man, someone was late for their abortion.
 
2019-06-27 12:30:07 PM  

KangTheMad: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

Wrong side of things. Kansas' ruling protected abortions saying the state could not intervene unless they had a narrowly constructed, compelling reason to do so. These inmates are trying to claim the state has no narrowly constructed, compelling reason to execute them.

It's a very bizarre set of mental gymnastics being done.


Gregg v. Georgia is going to be a hell of a hurdle.
 
2019-06-27 12:33:20 PM  

JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

JC


Show me any scientific literature that says life "begins" at conception.

Science does not support the old superstitious notion that God breathes life into inanimate matter at the point of conception.  Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  Human reproduction does not create life, it simply continues it.

But we're talking about law, here, not life.  We're talking about a person, not a living cell or cluster of cells.  Personally, I don't see any reason to deviate from the standard set in nearly every culture since prehistoric times:  Live birth.  That's when you have a new person.  Before that, you've merely got a potential.

I'm OK with laws protecting potential people, as long as they don't unduly burden others.  However, completely rewriting centuries of legal precedent and assigning personhood and the full panoply of rights to potential people is a foolish endeavors creating a whole slew of ridiculous unintended consequences.
 
2019-06-27 12:37:45 PM  
If they executed the convicted criminals by binding them into a fetal position, stuffing them into a huge sack, tearing their limbs off while still alive and then crushed their skulls with huge clamps then I see the point that the convicts are making.
 
2019-06-27 12:39:15 PM  

JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

JC


The mother's right to bodily autonomy is what should prevail.  No one should be able to force you to donate your body in order to keep another living thing alive.
 
2019-06-27 12:44:25 PM  

We Ate the Necco Wafers: JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.


The important word is "person", not "life".


You're being disingenuous.
From Wiki;

In 2004, President George W Bush signed the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" into law. The law effectively extends personhood status to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb" if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.

Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws. According to progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America, "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences."

JC
 
2019-06-27 12:50:35 PM  
No one holds life - human or otherwise - to be sacred.
Anyone who says he does is a liar or a fool.
 
2019-06-27 12:51:29 PM  

special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.


Pro-lifers believe your right to life ends at birth.
 
2019-06-27 12:53:16 PM  

Fallout Zone: Good for them.  They are awful, but I hope they win.


Yeah, out of all the convicted felons to be martyred. These are not them.

Carr brothers

Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr
 
2019-06-27 12:53:54 PM  

JoeCowboy: So not as to get into a debate on abortion here


Now you're being disingenuous.
 
2019-06-27 12:54:32 PM  

pearls before swine: JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

JC

Show me any scientific literature that says life "begins" at conception.

Science does not support the old superstitious notion that God breathes life into inanimate matter at the point of conception.  Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  Human reproduction does not create life, it simply continues it.

But we're talking about law, here, not life.  We're talking about a person, not a living cell or cluster of cells.  Personally, I don't see any reason to deviate from the standard set in nearly every culture since prehistoric times:  Live birth.  That's when you have a new person.  Before that, you've merely got a potential.

I'm OK with laws protecting potential people, as long as they don't unduly burden others.  However, completely rewriting centuries of legal precedent and assigning personhood and the full panoply of rights to potential people is a foolish endeavors creating a whole slew of ridiculous unintended consequences.


I was going to ask for citations as well. I imagine he could dig up some pseudoscience to bolster his statement but no real Science.
 
2019-06-27 12:57:06 PM  

pearls before swine: JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

Show me any scientific literature that says life "begins" at conception. 1/

Science does not support the old superstitious notion that God breathes life into inanimate matter at the point of conception.  Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  Human reproduction does not create life, it simply continues it.

But we're talking about law, here, not life.  We're talking about a person, not a living cell or cluster of cells. 2/  Personally, I don't see any reason to deviate from the standard set in nearly every culture since prehistoric times:  Live birth.  That's when you have a new person.  Before that, you've merely got a potential.

I'm OK with laws protecting potential people, as long as they don't unduly burden others. 3/ However, completely rewriting centuries of legal precedent and assigning personhood and the full panoply of rights to potential people is a foolish endeavors creating a whole slew of ridiculous unintended consequences.


1/ All the scientific literature says life begins at conception.
2/ See when "personhood" LEGALLY starts
3/ That's a strange new twist. Maybe both people farking should have thought about that before, you know, they actually farked.


Like I said, I'm not here for an abortion debate. There are certain instances where I feel abortion would be warranted but being a "financial burden" isn't one of them.

JC
 
2019-06-27 12:57:17 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


... describing the guy in prison who made him his bottom/biatch/manservant.
 
2019-06-27 12:58:05 PM  

aseras: SO what's next sentence them to swim across the pacific ocean. succeed and they aren't guilty?


I'd say give them the choice and if they accept, I am totally cool with it. If you can swim to even just Hawaii from west coast, I don't care what you did, I'd say you earned your freedom.
 
2019-06-27 01:01:05 PM  

JoeCowboy: pearls before swine: JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

Show me any scientific literature that says life "begins" at conception. 1/

Science does not support the old superstitious notion that God breathes life into inanimate matter at the point of conception.  Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  Human reproduction does not create life, it simply continues it.

But we're talking about law, here, not life.  We're talking about a person, not a living cell or cluster of cells. 2/  Personally, I don't see any reason to deviate from the standard set in nearly every culture since prehistoric times:  Live birth.  That's when you have a new person.  Before that, you've merely got a potential.

I'm OK with laws protecting potential people, as long as they don't unduly burden others. 3/ However, completely rewriting centuries of legal precedent and assigning personhood and the full panoply of rights to potential people is a foolish endeavors creating a whole slew of ridiculous unintended consequences.

1/ All the scientific literature says life begins at conception.
2/ See when "personhood" LEGALLY starts
3/ That's a strange new twist. Maybe both people farking should have thought about that before, you know, they actually farked.


Like I said, I'm not here for an abortion debate. There are certain instances where I feel abortion would be warranted but being a "financial ...


You are free to morally object to it all you like, but it's when you try to turn your moral objections into law that things become very sticky.

The truth is, legally, the reason for an abortion SHOULD NOT MATTER, the way the pregnancy happened SHOULD NOT MATTER.  Women should have the right to stop sharing their body whenever they choose.  Full stop.
 
2019-06-27 01:01:31 PM  

OK So Amuse Me: pearls before swine: JoeCowboy: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

So not as to get into a debate on abortion here, but where do you stand on where life begins?

Because all the scientific literature says it begins at conception and if life begins at conception, then where would the fetus' rights start? I would say the fetus has a right to life, wouldn't you if we're talking about infringing on "inalienable rights"?

There are certain instances where I feel abortion is proper, but just because you forgot to take your pill or wrap your willie aren't one of them.

Show me any scientific literature that says life "begins" at conception.

Science does not support the old superstitious notion that God breathes life into inanimate matter at the point of conception.  Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  Human reproduction does not create life, it simply continues it.

But we're talking about law, here, not life.  We're talking about a person, not a living cell or cluster of cells.  Personally, I don't see any reason to deviate from the standard set in nearly every culture since prehistoric times:  Live birth.  That's when you have a new person.  Before that, you've merely got a potential.

I'm OK with laws protecting potential people, as long as they don't unduly burden others.  However, completely rewriting centuries of legal precedent and assigning personhood and the full panoply of rights to potential people is a foolish endeavors creating a whole slew of ridiculous unintended consequences.

I was going to ask for citations as well. I imagine he could dig up some pseudoscience to bolster his statement but no real Science.


How's Princeton? Does Princeton work for you?

JC
 
2019-06-27 01:02:23 PM  

JoeCowboy: 1/ All the scientific literature says life begins at conception.


Repeating bullsh*t doesn't magically make it not-bullsh*t.
 
2019-06-27 01:06:21 PM  
guestguy:

Like I said, I'm not here for an abortion debate. There are certain instances where I feel abortion would be warranted but being a ...

You are free to morally object to it all you like, but it's when you try to turn your moral objections into law that things become very sticky.

The truth is, legally, the reason for an abortion SHOULD NOT MATTER, the way the pregnancy happened SHOULD NOT MATTER.  Women should have the right to stop sharing their body whenever they choose.  Full stop.

AGAIN, you're forgetting about the other life in this equation. They have rights too, it's already been litigated. FULL STOP.

JC
 
2019-06-27 01:08:17 PM  

The5thElement: special20: It's a good point, anyway. Pro-lifers should at least have to stop and think about their hypocrisy... but I know I ask too much.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there. All pro lifers care about is if the baby is born. Once that happens, they become someone else's problem.


I have come to really hate statements like this, they paint with far too broad a brush.  I'm a pro lifer in that I think unborn kiddos past a certain gestational age should be treated like people, with all the legal protections surrounding killing them intact.  I also believe we should make contraceptives freely available, believe we should look after children and help impoverished mother's support them and I hate the death penalty.  Your statement is universal in nature but not universally true.  You can be pro life, pro child, pro choice, and pro woman all at the same time.
 
2019-06-27 01:10:28 PM  

JoeCowboy: guestguy:

Like I said, I'm not here for an abortion debate. There are certain instances where I feel abortion would be warranted but being a ...

You are free to morally object to it all you like, but it's when you try to turn your moral objections into law that things become very sticky.

The truth is, legally, the reason for an abortion SHOULD NOT MATTER, the way the pregnancy happened SHOULD NOT MATTER.  Women should have the right to stop sharing their body whenever they choose.  Full stop.

AGAIN, you're forgetting about the other life in this equation. They have rights too, it's already been litigated. FULL STOP.

JC


So that means if I need a kidney to live, you are legally obliged to give me yours, right?  That's what we're talking about here.  The baby needs the mother to share her body in order to survive.  By legally compelling her to do that, we are denying her control of her own body in order to preserve the life of another.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Fark and Schnitt podcast logo





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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