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.

(Washington Post)   If the GOP rush to get ACB on the court to kill Obamacare, they will only usher in a Democratic Majority that will pass Medicare for All in record time. Much like their Confederate heroes they will win the battle but lose the war   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
123
    More: Spiffy, President of the United States, Immune system, President Trump, Republican Party, Bill Clinton, White House, Facebook video, Michael Caputo  
•       •       •

1101 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 9:54 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
MFK
2020-09-28 12:15:50 PM  

shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.


the full ACA is before the SCOTUS this november again. It's widely expected to be struck down if Barrett is confirmed but even if she isn't, a 4-4 split would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and the lower court struck the ACA down.  Ginsberg was the only thing keeping that law alive.
 
shut_it_down
2020-09-28 12:22:31 PM  

MFK: shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.

the full ACA is before the SCOTUS this november again. It's widely expected to be struck down if Barrett is confirmed but even if she isn't, a 4-4 split would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and the lower court struck the ACA down.  Ginsberg was the only thing keeping that law alive.


I'm aware. And the justification for striking it down, in legal terms, is bullshiat. But I'm not willing to be fatalistic about legislation just because SCOTUS might strike the whole thing down on specious grounds.
 
GardenWeasel [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 12:23:54 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image 420x417]


Disenfranchisement at work.
 
Count Bakula
2020-09-28 12:28:21 PM  

madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.


You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.
 
lilplatinum
2020-09-28 12:29:23 PM  

MFK: eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.

this would be the cleanest, most efficient way of getting to M4A. If given the choice between a not-for-profit plan that covers everything and is cheaper vs a private plan that's more expensive and has deductibles while siphoning off billions for executives, people aren't going to stay on the private plans very long. I'd guess a 10 year transition barring any political interference tops. Medicare isn't the greatest program anyway and everyone on it needs supplemental private insurance anyway because it's limited in what is covered.


The mere existence of the option to have a private option drives Fark "Progressives" into such a rage that they just have to pout and vote for Trump.
 
AdmirableSnackbar [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-28 12:29:51 PM  

Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.


It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.
 
mamoru
2020-09-28 12:45:22 PM  

GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?


You mean Clinton could have had ~3million + 1 more votes than Trump rather than just ~3million more votes than Trump?

Or are you certain that the person you are snarking at lived in a place where their vote would have actually counted? Because every time people b*tch about protest votes and non-votes around here, they ignore the fact that over 3 million votes for Clinton did not f*cking matter at all. Are you going to tell those people that their votes were wasted too, because they had the temerity to live in a place where their vote for Clinton didn't count, thanks to the electoral college system? 

F*ck off with that noise.
 
Kittypie070 [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 1:05:28 PM  

Spartapuss: mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.

To be fair, I think ACB earned her moniker by going after ACA.


acb + aca = ACAB

also:

acb

I'm calling her Coney the Timid Rabbit.

AKA Judge Bunny.
 
Count Bakula
2020-09-28 1:08:19 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.


Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.
 
GardenWeasel [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 1:10:45 PM  

mamoru: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

You mean Clinton could have had ~3million + 1 more votes than Trump rather than just ~3million more votes than Trump?

Or are you certain that the person you are snarking at lived in a place where their vote would have actually counted? Because every time people b*tch about protest votes and non-votes around here, they ignore the fact that over 3 million votes for Clinton did not f*cking matter at all. Are you going to tell those people that their votes were wasted too, because they had the temerity to live in a place where their vote for Clinton didn't count, thanks to the electoral college system? 

F*ck off with that noise.


You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.
 
AdmirableSnackbar [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-28 1:22:54 PM  

Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.


Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?
 
mamoru
2020-09-28 1:37:26 PM  

GardenWeasel: You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.


And yet over 3 million MORE people chose Clinton over Trump in the general. Their votes didn't count. I should know, because I am one of them.

B*tching about a single voter here who probably doesn't live in an area where it mattered (and is under no obligation to disclose whether or not they do) about their vote does NOTHING to help. AdmirableSnackbar is not the reason why Trump won. Our bullsh*t voting system that pretends to be "democracy" is the reason why Trump won, combined with the Republican party getting away with every dirty trick in the book so suppress the vote. 

Unfortunately, we still have to try to work within that system (while the Republicans continue to get to get away with sabotaging it in their favor every way they can w/out consequence) to try to get the f*ckers out, so how about not alienating potential allies, hmm? Or is it more important for you to feel high and mighty over those you perceive to be the problem than to have a chance at fixing this sh*tstorm?
 
madgonad [OhFark]
2020-09-28 1:53:50 PM  

BMFPitt: madgonad: Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

Assuming the filibuster continues to exist, it would be as hard to repeal as it would be to pass.


The procedural filibuster is gone. We all know it. An actual filibuster may remain, but it is hard to talk continuously for a 2 year Congress.
 
GardenWeasel [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 2:39:58 PM  

mamoru: GardenWeasel: You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.

And yet over 3 million MORE people chose Clinton over Trump in the general. Their votes didn't count. I should know, because I am one of them.

B*tching about a single voter here who probably doesn't live in an area where it mattered (and is under no obligation to disclose whether or not they do) about their vote does NOTHING to help. AdmirableSnackbar is not the reason why Trump won. Our bullsh*t voting system that pretends to be "democracy" is the reason why Trump won, combined with the Republican party getting away with every dirty trick in the book so suppress the vote. 

Unfortunately, we still have to try to work within that system (while the Republicans continue to get to get away with sabotaging it in their favor every way they can w/out consequence) to try to get the f*ckers out, so how about not alienating potential allies, hmm? Or is it more important for you to feel high and mighty over those you perceive to be the problem than to have a chance at fixing this sh*tstorm?


You don't think people in safe states who vocally trumpeted anti-Clinton rhetoric for months did not influence the 40K voters in Michigan who voted for Jill Stein instead? "Social media influencer" is a term for a reason. I'm not saying any single person caused all the votes to flip, but in aggregate they did.
 
Count Bakula
2020-09-28 2:40:10 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?


I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes people like me look bad.

I don't believe you voted for Elizabeth Warren any more than you believe I do. You're a lying liar who lies. It's your whole schtick.
 
mamoru
2020-09-28 3:05:04 PM  

GardenWeasel: You don't think people in safe states who vocally trumpeted anti-Clinton rhetoric for months did not influence the 40K voters in Michigan who voted for Jill Stein instead?


That those people seem to have had more influence over such voters than the Clinton campaign did should tell you something about the quality of her campaign and its ability to get much more than a "are you really gonna vote for someone like Trump?" message across to people everywhere. 

The 2016 election was a perfect storm of sh*t all around, from weak campaigning where it mattered from Clinton, the fact that "where it mattered" is even a thing due to the electoral college system meaning that not all votes matter equally, outside influences and online troll campaigns to influence votes where it mattered, what has sadly become standard voter suppression tactics by the GOP, etc etc. 

Sh*tting on people here and now does NOTHING to help fight that happening this time around. We're looking at an election where we are going to need every single bit of help, every single ally we can get, etc. in order to try to counter act not only huge amounts of voter suppression, who knows how much outside influence, huge amounts of ballot shenanigans like trying to keep mail-in ballots from being counted, etc. but on top of that the possibility that the sitting president may just wipe his ass with the constitution anyway and ignore the results of the election even if they are overwhelming and the Republican party and a far too significant portion of this country would go along with it just for stigginit. And everyone else going along with it so long as the news media can find some way to spin it as somehow still being within the system that America is supposed to be.

Even if we get an overwhelming majority everywhere to vote against Trump by giving Biden their vote and vote out every rat-f*ck Republican out of office that they can, there is actually a non-zero chance (and possibly a scarily high chance) all of that may not actually be enough. 

Such a fear should not even be in the realm of impossibility, but here we f*cking are.
 
austerity101 [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 3:31:23 PM  

Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?

I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes ...


He's a liar?  What does he lie about?  All I see is you attacking him for making correct statements.

Maybe the problem is you.
 
natazha [BareFark]
2020-09-28 4:10:33 PM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


Medicare is not free, there are monthly premiums, treatment has copays, drugs and dental are not part of the basic Medicare.
 
Count Bakula
2020-09-28 4:57:33 PM  

austerity101: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?

I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes ...

He's a liar?  What does he lie about?  All I see is you attacking him for making correct statements.

Maybe the problem is you.


In this thread, he's only lied about me, which he is admittedly doing in ignorance due to this being an anonymous online forum. In the thread I'm referring to, he lied that Nancy Pelosi endorses the more right-wing Democrat in every primary, then responded to the fact that she endorsed Omar and AOC by saying it didn't make up for her support of some other people.

Then again, in yet another thread, you just declared that "Pete Buttigieg resigned before the end of his term as mayor" is nota lie, even though Pete Buttigieg didn't do that and the person who said he did that knows he didn't do that. You seem to have some problems with the truth as well.
 
Geotpf
2020-09-28 5:19:01 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image 420x417]


Meh.  Clinton's numbers look above average-for a white person.  Obviously, having an actual black guy at the top of ticket would boost African American turnout.
 
Corn_Fed [TotalFark]
2020-09-28 5:22:02 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.

Stop being a despair troll.


"Despair troll" = "accurate forecaster" of the coming years. Why wouldn't this 6-3 rightwing Supreme Court declare Medicare unconstitutional? It's not like they're burdened by principle, stare decisis, or fair play.

John Roberts might even join the liberals, but it would still be a 5-4 rightwing victory.
 
AdmirableSnackbar [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-28 5:25:39 PM  

Corn_Fed: AdmirableSnackbar: GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.

Stop being a despair troll.

"Despair troll" = "accurate forecaster" of the coming years. Why wouldn't this 6-3 rightwing Supreme Court declare Medicare unconstitutional? It's not like they're burdened by principle, stare decisis, or fair play.

John Roberts might even join the liberals, but it would still be a 5-4 rightwing victory.


That's why you expand the court. You do what you need to do and don't make excuses and you say you did the right thing no matter what. Do what Mitch McConnell would do, if he were a Democrat instead of a Republican.

Throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, we might as well not even try" is despair. There's no hope of something if you refuse to try to do it, which is what so many conservatives here don't understand.
 
dababler
2020-09-28 7:36:53 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


This is more likely.
 
Displayed 23 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more stories with less ads? Try

TotalFark

It's what the cool kids are doing.
It also helps us pay the bills.

learn more | sign up

On Twitter

  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.