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.

(CBS News)   And so it begins. Under His eye   (cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: News  
•       •       •

10635 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2020 at 2:17 AM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2020-10-23 8:03:37 AM  

Koodz: .

No contraception, no prostitution, no pornography, no masturbation.

They'd really like it if violence were the only catharsis left to us.


You can't stop me from masturbating til you pry my c0ck from my cold dead hand.

/Mt. Vesuvius reference.
 
2020-10-23 8:10:24 AM  

Circle Girl: Do the people in The Handmaid's Tale secretly worship Odin?  According to Michelangelo, God has two eyes.  🙃


Yes because the women are old crows.
 
2020-10-23 8:17:28 AM  
Sharia law
 
2020-10-23 8:39:11 AM  
Cider House Rulesis my favorite Irving novel, not because it deftly handles the need for safe abortions in a time where unsafe was the norm, but because it isn't pretty much focused on incest.
 
2020-10-23 8:42:28 AM  
After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.
 
2020-10-23 8:44:22 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: "Party of small government", indeed.


Semantics - by "small" they really mean "the minority", by which they really mean "rich white guys".  Study it out.
 
2020-10-23 8:48:17 AM  

Branniganslaw: After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.


Really? You're just now figuring this out?
 
2020-10-23 9:03:46 AM  

Koodz: HypnozombieX: havocmike: I've always kind of toyed with the idea of "what would happen to politics if Democrats just conceded on abortion?" A mental exercise. Would the evangelicals shift to the democratic economic message now that it's off the table? Would the democratic party suffer at the polls if they were forced to campaign on "let's bring back abortions, gang!"

We're about to find out.

After getting their way on abortion evangelicals will move to banning contraceptives. They will never give a shiat about economic issues because they believe that if your poor it means you're a failure in gods eyes or some such nonsense. Evangelicals are led by billionaires who make their money off human suffering, economic equality is the last thing they want.

No contraception, no prostitution, no pornography, no masturbation.

They'd really like it if violence were the only catharsis left to us.


subject to where your skin tone falls on the color swatch
 
2020-10-23 9:12:40 AM  

padraig: fusillade762: FlashHarry: Roe will be overturned. It's all but guaranteed. So wealthy women will still have abortions, but poor ones will wind up in one of hundreds of Kermit Gosnell butcher shops around the country to die of sepsis.

I still think Republicans are making a tactical mistake by getting Roe repealed.  A lot of single-issue abortion voters may simply stop voting.

They'll move to Obergefell v. Hodges next.

They Brown bs Board of Education.

And then, and then, up until they reach Gibbons v. Ogden.


Remember, Buck v Bell has not been explicitly overturned...
 
2020-10-23 9:18:41 AM  

Branniganslaw: After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.


Ditto.
 
2020-10-23 9:31:46 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Look, man, how many times do I have to explain this?  I. WAS. NOT. INSPIRED.


You're forgiven. The rest of you, you've proved we don't need you and you don't give a rat's ass about the country, equality, racism, or women's rights. Fark off.
 
2020-10-23 9:37:35 AM  

Mad Canadian: padraig: fusillade762: FlashHarry: Roe will be overturned. It's all but guaranteed. So wealthy women will still have abortions, but poor ones will wind up in one of hundreds of Kermit Gosnell butcher shops around the country to die of sepsis.

I still think Republicans are making a tactical mistake by getting Roe repealed.  A lot of single-issue abortion voters may simply stop voting.

They'll move to Obergefell v. Hodges next.

They Brown bs Board of Education.

And then, and then, up until they reach Gibbons v. Ogden.

Remember, Buck v Bell has not been explicitly overturned...


Yet.

Sorry, think you may have dropped that - at this point I don't put any form of cruelty beyond their capacity to consider/execute.

We have open nazi's, concentration camps, forced sterilization... and more.
 
2020-10-23 9:42:57 AM  
It's just a Party of Fearmongering.

No plan, no principles, no cohesion, just a bunch of fearmongering assholes getting votes from the fearful

Though apparently that wins seats in Congress.
 
2020-10-23 9:56:29 AM  
It's already difficult and expensive to get an abortion past 12 weeks from what I gather. Do we really need another law restricting it?

I keep this website saved as a phone contact for easy sharing. They offer telemedicine appointments and mail abortion pills for about $100. Just because it's still legal doesn't mean there's a clinic the woman can get to.

https://aidaccess.org/
 
2020-10-23 10:01:58 AM  
Abortion is the right to self defense. That's the number one right every human has- the right to defend their body from those who will do harm.
 
2020-10-23 10:07:33 AM  

qorkfiend: They should boycott the vote.


Agreed
 
2020-10-23 10:27:22 AM  

LurkLongAndProsper: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Squid_for_Brains: This is what happens when you don't vote.

Look, man, how many times do I have to explain this?  I. WAS. NOT. INSPIRED.

Hillary would've been exactly the same anyway, or possibly even worse. You could tell because of how shrill she was and also how she never visited Michigan. It's just not your fault. Never your fault. No. The voters are not to be blamed! The candidate wasn't perfect so there was nothing you could do. If Hillary had really wanted to earn your vote she'd have come to your state and made a personal connection with you. She didn't and now bortion is illegal, sorry centrists, guess you should've picked a candidate who was more inspirational. This is why I'm voting for Hudson Hawk, the Green Party is clearly the only way out of this disgusting 2 party system.


We ran Jesus Christ in the primary and you didn't vote for him so you're getting what you deserve. Unlike Hillary, he wasn't going to have to go through Congress or the courts to get things done. He would have WILLED universal healthcare into law using the power of our unwavering cult-like love for him alone. All evangelicals would have totally changed their beliefs and stopped fighting to strip our rights away. Neo Nazis would have disappeared overnight. Cats and dogs would be living together in harmony and climate change would completely reverse itself. It would have been paradise but you idiots had to live in the real world. What's wrong with you people?
 
2020-10-23 10:29:02 AM  
The time to prevent this was 4 years ago.
 
2020-10-23 10:37:34 AM  
A strong majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, but the GOP long ago quit caring what anyone but their base thinks. The question is, do enough people who usually vote GOP care enough to change the way they vote? 

Cagey B: If this is the plan they may have played themselves. Biden is set up (albeit with the always lame "study panel" excuse) to move forward with court expansion after a provocation. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be the perfect such justification politically for adding four new Supreme Court justices.


Yep. Obviously this assumes the Democrats win the Senate. Then such an action still leads to the issue of what happens when Republicans re-take the Senate. Do they expand the Court even more? I'm not saying that means Democrats absolutely shouldn't do it. At this point, I don't know WTF the other option would be. The GOP has turned SCOTUS and other courts into far right wing institutions.

fusillade762: A lot of single-issue abortion voters may simply stop voting.


Nah. The GOP will keep them riled up with constant "Democrats will make murdering babies legal again!!!1!" claims.
 
2020-10-23 10:50:13 AM  

patrick767: fusillade762: A lot of single-issue abortion voters may simply stop voting.

Nah. The GOP will keep them riled up with constant "Democrats will make murdering babies legal again!!!1!" claims.


Next will be "Birth control must be outlawed because it kills babies."
Then "Pregnant women must be monitored so they don't hurt/kill their babies."
Then "All women of childbearing age must be monitored so they don't hurt/kill a potential baby."
 
2020-10-23 10:51:09 AM  

FlashHarry: Roe will be overturned. It's all but guaranteed. So wealthy women will still have abortions, but poor ones will wind up in one of hundreds of Kermit Gosnell butcher shops around the country to die of sepsis.


States rights would come into play. Only poor Republicans would likely be affected.
 
2020-10-23 10:58:49 AM  

inglixthemad: Nine new justices, double the size of the court, ranging from liberal for one to the libbiest libs that evar libbed for the others.


I saw a pretty good argument awhile back for expanding the court to 27. We already have appeals courts with that many justices. Take the Fifth Circuit. They have 17 active judges and 10 senior judges. Senior judges also hear and decide cases, but may not be full time judges. The largest appeals court, the 9th Circuit, has 29 active judges and 18 senior judges.

Most SCOTUS cases would be assigned to just 9 of the justices. Cases would be assigned to different justices basically randomly.

It lowers the stakes of each new court vacancy because a new justice isn't shifting the partisan balance on every damn case the court hears, and for most cases a party can't count on five of their favorite justices being involved in it. There are other good reasons to drastically increase the size of the SCOTUS like being able to hear more cases. Right now the Court hears about 1% of the cases filed, and the cases that get accepted are heavily dominated by a small group of lawyers, half them former Supreme Court clerks.  Article here.
 
2020-10-23 11:14:28 AM  
I had to explain to a friend on Facebook that overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't immediately make abortion illegal nationwide.

Here's my prediction, once there's a conservative majority in place:


Roe v Wade gets overturned.
States where they already have trigger laws in place are activated and abortion is banned (or heavily restricted).
Republican states where they hold a majority in both legislative and executive pass laws restricting or outlawing abortion outright.
Rich people who want / need an abortion travel to liberal states where it is legal.
Poor people pull out the coat hanger (yes, I know this is crude, deliberately) and women start dying.
Others try to buy the drugs on the black market.
Depending on the laws in effect, poor women go to jail for aborting a fetus. Or die, using mechanical means to attempt abortion or fake drugs that sociopaths provide.
Eventually, it becomes so bad that the Democrats get a veto proof majority in most states and pass laws legalizing abortion. A few states will never have it legal, again (ultra-Red, like Utah and Alabama).
This will take 10 years or more of women dying and being jailed.

Just to be clear, this entire process is horrifying, to me.
 
2020-10-23 11:55:42 AM  

jst3p: I am not OK with Roe being overturned. That being said, if you live in a right wing shiat-hole, farking move. I hear people say "Not everyone has the funds to move" and to that I say bullshiat. When I was 18 I moved from Cali (not a shiathole) to Washington state (again not a shiathole). I was broke as fark, that made it easy to move, everything I owned was liquidated in a garage sale or fit in my car.


When I was in my late 20's I had a fiance and a kid and I was living in Florida (long story but Florida is a shiathole) to the Denver metro area. We were still living paycheck to paycheck but we found a way to do it.

Now that I am doing much better financially it would actually be more difficult to uproot and move.

Tell these right wing shiatholes that they can go fark themselves by moving to a sane blue state.


"I did it, so why can't you" is never not an utterly shiatty argument.
 
2020-10-23 12:09:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Branniganslaw: After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.

Really? You're just now figuring this out?


I've always considered it, but the Barret opportunity hammers it home. If the court was left at 5-4, or RBG's replacement would be chosen by the next prez, the potential for abuse would be reduced or eliminated.
 
2020-10-23 12:10:14 PM  

erik-k: puffy999: COVID. No health care improvements. No stimulus. No minimum wage increase.

For this?

The pulse of America is NOT ON ABORTION.
There is something more going on: a full-on coup of the legal system.

*Anything* the Russpublican haters-of-America want from Infectious ACB, it matters not one bit if she's on the court before or after the election.

With one exception: If the party of outright treason attempts to corrupt the vote counts and have the SCOTUS steal the election for one of the worst monsters in American history.

Came here to say basically this. Remember, at least two of the GOP Senators on the committee had tested positive for COVID-19, which they ironically got from the #RedVetting / #RoseGardenMassacre (I love "Infectious ACB" perhaps even more than "Contagious ACB" btw). Why risk infecting the others to rush her for a confirmation? Killing Roe, Obergefell, Brown, the ACA, etc. ― all of that could've waited until the lame duck session. They'd still have through January 2 to put her on the court even if they lose both the White House and Senate in the election.

As you say, only one thing requires her on the court at or shortly after the election, and that's a case to overturn the election itself and make sure that Trump stays in the White House and the Senate stays GOP. I wouldn't be surprised to see a case quickly brought using the Gohmert (I think it was him) Rule that says that since the Constitution guarantees unto the States a Republican Form of Government, all non-Republicans are ineligible to hold office, from President on down to village clerk (of course that's not what that clause means, especially since there was no such thing as a Republican Party at the time nor would there be for a decade or so and even then it wasn't the GOP that would later form in the aftermath of the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850s, but hey, they get their 6−3 on board and they could do that). So even if Biden gets 99.9% of the popular vote and every single Elector, and every GOP Senator up for grabs loses, and ditto every House candidate, every State legislator, every Governor, etc., all the way on down to mayors and such, they could simply rule that only Republicans can hold office.
 
2020-10-23 12:10:56 PM  

jst3p: Tell these right wing shiatholes that they can go fark themselves by moving to a sane blue state.


I live here by choice. Why are you judging people by where they live? If I put the rainbow flag up, can I be accepted?
Why wouldn't I stay here and try to point out the hypocrisy, not turn and run like a goddamned city slicker, who can't stand it except where they all the comforts that their middle-class, high-consumption lifestyle demands?

I don't want that shiat. And since nothing "liberal" ever shows up except in the guise of another doggy daycare business, a new yoga studio, coffee shop, or organic food store, (where I can work, oh lucky me, that the liberals have come!) then I guess you all liberals can shove your inflated standards up your butt, along with the rest of your fantasyland ideals where everybody just floats along on a wave of idyllic consumerism, and nobody has to work hard, because serving consumerism is our pride and joy.

That's what I get for not getting an MBA like you "smart" farkers. Now take your concrete and your snotty tastebuds back to where you came from. I know this might come as a huge surprise to you urban sluts, but a large number of otherwise intelligent people live in the middle of nowhere because they prefer it. They choose to live 200 miles away from Wal-Mart, because you know why? Because they don't care. They aren't out here waiting to be rescued by the almighty urbans, coming in with their money and their snotty demands. They aren't thirsting for your "development" any more than the Indians were waiting for Columbus.

What kind of arrogance does it take to always assume that if some place isn't paved over by materialism, that it needs more of something? That's the kind of arrogance that liberals manufacture. And it's just as farking stupid and annoying as the guys waving the Trump flags in your face.  I know a lot of country people who are liberals. Don't assume that the IQs all had to assemble in a city to make things happen. Some of the higher ones just don't like you.
 
2020-10-23 12:46:35 PM  

entitygm: englaja: ChrisDe: Can we just reduce SCOTUS justices to 7? And remove the last two?

That requires a House majority and a Senate 2/3 majority.

Fortunately, adding new states only requires a House and Senate majority and Presidential approval.

So, an extra 25 states it is, all heavily Democratic. Give the Republicoonts a taste of their own medicine.
Actually the size is entirely up to Congress, they can both enlarge and shrink it. Wall of text below.

Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though the existence of the office of the chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Instead, these powers are entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court was first altered by an 1801 act which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.76

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt to limit the power of Andrew Johnson, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced

As per this, the most justifiable number of SCOTUS Justices at present is thirteen, since there are (and have been for decades) thirteen Circuits.

Yes, Congress (with signature or overridden veto of the President) decides the size of the Court, not the Constitution. 13 can be justified without being political. Simply say that we're restoring the Court to the siza it should've been after those last four Circuits were added.

patrick767: inglixthemad: Nine new justices, double the size of the court, ranging from liberal for one to the libbiest libs that evar libbed for the others.

I saw a pretty good argument awhile back for expanding the court to 27. We already have appeals courts with that many justices. Take the Fifth Circuit. They have 17 active judges and 10 senior judges. Senior judges also hear and decide cases, but may not be full time judges. The largest appeals court, the 9th Circuit, has 29 active judges and 18 senior judges.

Most SCOTUS cases would be assigned to just 9 of the justices. Cases would be assigned to different justices basically randomly.

It lowers the stakes of each new court vacancy because a new justice isn't shifting the partisan balance on every damn case the court hears, and for most cases a party can't count on five of their favorite justices being involved in it. There are other good reasons to drastically increase the size of the SCOTUS like being able to hear more cases. Right now the Court hears about 1% of the cases filed, and the cases that get accepted are heavily dominated by a small group of lawyers, half them former Supreme Court clerks.  Article here.

I can also see having two Associate Justices for each Circuit, with only one being seated at a time. Twelve Associate seats, two Justices per seat, plus the Chief Justice to both break ties and be over the Judicial Branch as a whole. If an Associate Justice is unavailable, the alternate for that seat takes his or her place. So, yes, 27 in all, but thirteen for any given case.

During the year, SCOTUS would be in session full time, with each Justice serving ½ of the time. For half of the year, a Justice for a given Circuit would be the default for SCOTUS cases, with the alternate stepping in only on the death or incapacitation or resignation of the other. Whichever is not in session would either be on hiatus, or would "ride the Circuit" that that Justice seat represents, sitting in on the cases of the corresponding Circuit Court of Appeals.

All of this could be implemented in a new Judiciary Act of 2021, if we take the Senate as well as the White House.

Gyrfalcon: gcc: Gentle reminder that if a democrats win control of both houses and the presidency and this still happens, they've decided it's ok if abortion is outlawed.

/ Don't let anyone off the hook, regardless of party.
// And by hook I mean coat hanger
/// Literal slashies

This will happen regardless because Congress has zero input on Supreme Court decisions.

Congress being 110% Democratic (or Republican) has no impact on how the justices ultimately decide a case. Congress could stand at the doors screaming "SAVE ROE!" and the vote could still be 9−0 to overturn if the Court wanted it to be.

Not actually true. Congress has the authority to limit what subjects the Court can take up, but must do so via a Judiciary Act, same as adding or removing Justices:
ARTICLE III
§2

¶2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
2020-10-23 12:49:12 PM  

eurotrader: FlashHarry: Roe will be overturned. It's all but guaranteed. So wealthy women will still have abortions, but poor ones will wind up in one of hundreds of Kermit Gosnell butcher shops around the country to die of sepsis.

Tie highway funding to a state having safe and reasonably access for women's health care. States could have their own law but that doesn't mean the majority of the US should not be able to express displeasure by not giving those states federal money.


Tie health care funding. Road funding. Disaster relief.

If Red States want to live in the dark ages, let them live in the dark ages.
 
2020-10-23 1:01:54 PM  

Branniganslaw: qorkfiend: Branniganslaw: After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.

Really? You're just now figuring this out?

I've always considered it, but the Barret opportunity hammers it home. If the court was left at 5-4, or RBG's replacement would be chosen by the next prez, the potential for abuse would be reduced or eliminated.


And the Bernie Bros will continue to place 100% of the blame on Democrats because reasons.
 
2020-10-23 2:04:14 PM  
cryinoutloud:

That's what I get for not getting an MBA like you "smart" farkers. Now take your concrete and your snotty tastebuds back to where you came from. I know this might come as a huge surprise to you urban sluts, but a large number of otherwise intelligent people live in the middle of nowhere because they prefer it. They choose to live 200 miles away from Wal-Mart, because you know why? Because they don't care. They aren't out here waiting to be rescued by the almighty urbans, coming in with their money and their snotty demands. They aren't thirsting for your "development" any more than the Indians were waiting for Columbus.

I never said living in a city was superior. You are aware that it is completely possible to live 200 miles from a WalMart in a blue state as well, right? You seemed to have missed the point of my post. I wasn't calling everyone to the city, nor was I saying that urban living is superior to rural. I was just saying that living in a state that isn't run by backward ass conservatives is better.
 
2020-10-23 2:08:41 PM  

Froman: Branniganslaw: qorkfiend: Branniganslaw: After reading about PA courts striking down GOP attempts to limit mail voting, I came to a realization. Even with the Dems win the House/Senate/Presidency, the GOP has won. Every law passed in the next two years that doesn't have their seal of approval, a lawsuit will be filed to stop it. The law will go through a series of judges validating or vacating the law, followed by immediate appeals. The goal, to have SC rule in their favor.

This sucks.

Really? You're just now figuring this out?

I've always considered it, but the Barret opportunity hammers it home. If the court was left at 5-4, or RBG's replacement would be chosen by the next prez, the potential for abuse would be reduced or eliminated.

And the Bernie Bros will continue to place 100% of the blame on Democrats because reasons.


I haven't actually seen any "Bernie Bros" in the thread doing that, but I've seen at least half a dozen comments imputing motives to them and putting words in their mouths.
 
2020-10-23 2:13:12 PM  

Cagey B: If this is the plan they may have played themselves. Biden is set up (albeit with the always lame "study panel" excuse) to move forward with court expansion after a provocation. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be the perfect such justification politically for adding four new Supreme Court justices.

Not that I want that to happen. Such a ruling would be the most harmful since Citizens United and contrary to what a lot of liberals say, would not be the end of the anti choice movement.


Couldn't congress legislate a requirement for this to be an available health service? Like they've done with contraceptives? Does this have to hinge on the constitutional right to privacy?
 
2020-10-23 3:48:08 PM  

Koodz: HypnozombieX: havocmike: I've always kind of toyed with the idea of "what would happen to politics if Democrats just conceded on abortion?" A mental exercise. Would the evangelicals shift to the democratic economic message now that it's off the table? Would the democratic party suffer at the polls if they were forced to campaign on "let's bring back abortions, gang!"

We're about to find out.

After getting their way on abortion evangelicals will move to banning contraceptives. They will never give a shiat about economic issues because they believe that if your poor it means you're a failure in gods eyes or some such nonsense. Evangelicals are led by billionaires who make their money off human suffering, economic equality is the last thing they want.

No contraception, no prostitution, no pornography, no masturbation.

They'd really like it if violence were the only catharsis left to us.




Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-23 7:02:06 PM  
 
Displayed 35 of 135 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





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.