Skip to content
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.

(Slate)   SCOTUS is in the position to make a decision that would deny Republicans the outright theft of multiple elections in 2024 based on their over-the-top gerrymandering. But they probably won't because, you know, they don't even pretend anymore   (slate.com) divider line
73
    More: Obvious, United States, Supreme court, Constitution, Law, Government, State supreme court, Supreme Court of the United States, Judiciary  
•       •       •

2022 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2023 at 10:05 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 8:47:32 AM  
Why would they do anything like that, they're mostly republicans.
 
NewportBarGuy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 8:52:39 AM  
I'm just glad Congress gave them their own little army to protect them from the people their corrupt rulings impact.

That's very nice of us.
 
Rev.K [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 9:00:00 AM  
Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.
 
NewportBarGuy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 9:06:44 AM  

Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Noticeably F.A.T. [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 9:10:37 AM  

Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.


Look, I believe that only votes for republicans should count. And I'll say that. I'll say that loud, and often. But if I'm not matching my actions to my words, then am I really saying anything? So you see, gerrymandering isn't just my first amendment right, it's my first amendment obligation. And I trust that this SCOTUS will not only defend my rights, but enforce my obligations. God Bless Us All.
 
nmrsnr [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 9:23:34 AM  

Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.


Remember:

1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

2) Common man, because also recall that only men (specifically free men, generally free, White, landed men) were the one who were granted the privilege of voting to begin with.

3) The Founders didn't want people voting for their senator either, that was supposed to be up to the state legislature to represent state interests, not the interests of "the people."

The only place they actually wanted democratic representation was the House, so in that sense it's even worse to pervert that one intention of the Founders, but on the other hand, fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.
 
Cyclometh [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 9:54:08 AM  

nmrsnr: 1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.


This is not entirely accurate.  The founders envisioned the country as a collection of states. The states were the ones voting, not the citizens.

The strong federal government, not to mention the Civil War, have taken us as a society far away from that original conception- but it is still the states who elect the President, not the people.
 
etoof
2023-02-06 10:16:28 AM  
The only way scotus rules against Republicans is if it only hurts specific republicans.
 
qorkfiend
2023-02-06 10:17:27 AM  
Oh, yeah. They'll definitely punt.
 
JimmyTheHutt
2023-02-06 10:17:45 AM  
All the institutions that we've relied on to keep this place stable have actively betrayed us in a quest for permanent Christian Fascist hegemony.
 
Chthonic Echoes [OhFark]
2023-02-06 10:19:19 AM  

nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.


It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.
 
dracos31
2023-02-06 10:21:05 AM  

qorkfiend: Oh, yeah. They'll definitely punt.


More like an onside kick while Ginni Thomas flashes the refs.
 
rudemix [OhFark]
2023-02-06 10:21:47 AM  
Whatever is the worst thing that can be done to anyone who is a non hetero white person, or to their rights, that is what the GQP will do. Because they are a party of bigoted piles of human trash with no real platform, or even an intelligent enough 'brain-trust' to put together a platform, outside of hurting people who are different from them.
 
Petey4335
2023-02-06 10:23:52 AM  

JimmyTheHutt: All the institutions that we've relied on to keep this place stable have actively betrayed us in a quest for permanent Christian Fascist hegemony.


... and Corporate Aristocracy
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 10:27:04 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.


It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.
 
qorkfiend
2023-02-06 10:27:50 AM  

EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.


The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.
 
phalamir [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:30:16 AM  

nmrsnr: Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.

Remember:

1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

2) Common man, because also recall that only men (specifically free men, generally free, White, landed men) were the one who were granted the privilege of voting to begin with.

3) The Founders didn't want people voting for their senator either, that was supposed to be up to the state legislature to represent state interests, not the interests of "the people."

The only place they actually wanted democratic representation was the House, so in that sense it's even worse to pervert that one intention of the Founders, but on the other hand, fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.


No.  Because of 2), only the 1% were allowed to vote at all.  So, it was really just the people who were selecting the other parts, just with a few of their friends.  Most definitions of "democracy" are not "The C-Suite Crowd"
 
qorkfiend
2023-02-06 10:30:57 AM  

phalamir: nmrsnr: Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.

Remember:

1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

2) Common man, because also recall that only men (specifically free men, generally free, White, landed men) were the one who were granted the privilege of voting to begin with.

3) The Founders didn't want people voting for their senator either, that was supposed to be up to the state legislature to represent state interests, not the interests of "the people."

The only place they actually wanted democratic representation was the House, so in that sense it's even worse to pervert that one intention of the Founders, but on the other hand, fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

No.  Because of 2), only the 1% were allowed to vote at all.  So, it was really just the people who were selecting the other parts, just with a few of their friends.  Most definitions of "democracy" are not "The C-Suite Crowd"


Yes, but that was not due to the Constitution restricting the vote
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 10:31:27 AM  

qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.


Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.
 
qorkfiend
2023-02-06 10:32:33 AM  

EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.

Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.


Except it's not, because "the land" isn't under the control of a small handful of landowners who are the only ones who can vote.
 
Wessoman
2023-02-06 10:32:48 AM  
Is it wrong that I pray to the gods that at least four supreme court justices slowly die of painful squirting ass cancer, every night?
 
HotWingConspiracy
2023-02-06 10:32:55 AM  
5-4, with Roberts adding some lament about having to go along with it because the other conservatives will make fun of him if he doesn't.

Even if this doesn't clear, the plants would just write a road map on how to get it in front of them again in their dissents.
 
nmrsnr [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:35:51 AM  

phalamir: nmrsnr: Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.

Remember:

1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

2) Common man, because also recall that only men (specifically free men, generally free, White, landed men) were the one who were granted the privilege of voting to begin with.

3) The Founders didn't want people voting for their senator either, that was supposed to be up to the state legislature to represent state interests, not the interests of "the people."

The only place they actually wanted democratic representation was the House, so in that sense it's even worse to pervert that one intention of the Founders, but on the other hand, fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

No.  Because of 2), only the 1% were allowed to vote at all.  So, it was really just the people who were selecting the other parts, just with a few of their friends.  Most definitions of "democracy" are not "The C-Suite Crowd"


You're right, I should have said "democratic" representation, because that's what they thought they were doing, despite not actually doing it.

Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.


It can be both understood as progressive for its time while not actually being construed as a good system. We don't hold up the Magna Carta as a goodruling charter, just an important one that led to reforms that enabled the better government we have today.
 
nmrsnr [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:37:51 AM  

Wessoman: Is it wrong that I pray to the gods that at least four supreme court justices slowly die of painful squirting ass cancer, every night?


Yes, it should be quickly so that they vacate the bench.
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 10:38:48 AM  

qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.

Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.

Except it's not, because "the land" isn't under the control of a small handful of landowners who are the only ones who can vote.


You fail to see my point. It is land voting, and not in proportion to population. Montana gets the same power as California. Their vote is skewed by population.

Then you add in minority rights, and you have a disaster. The senate can't be abolished via amendment, only a new constitution. I'll be damned if I'm going to follow the precepts of a failed document.
 
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier
2023-02-06 10:39:35 AM  
And why would SCOTUS not jump at the chance to provide precedent for maximum partisan advantage, even if the underlying issue no longer exists? They did it with the EPA in West Virginia's suit, for a rule that never went into place.

Take away the security funding they got after the Dobbs leak. Mob justice is still justice.
 
qorkfiend
2023-02-06 10:40:04 AM  

EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.

Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.

Except it's not, because "the land" isn't under the control of a small handful of landowners who are the only ones who can vote.

You fail to see my point. It is land voting, and not in proportion to population. Montana gets the same power as California. Their vote is skewed by population.

Then you add in minority rights, and you have a disaster. The senate can't be abolished via amendment, only a new constitution. I'll be damned if I'm going to follow the precepts of a failed document.


No, I didn't fail to see your point. You said "land holders", which is obviously and categorically false.
 
HotWingConspiracy
2023-02-06 10:42:13 AM  

EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.

Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.

Except it's not, because "the land" isn't under the control of a small handful of landowners who are the only ones who can vote.

You fail to see my point. It is land voting, and not in proportion to population. Montana gets the same power as California. Their vote is skewed by population.

Then you add in minority rights, and you have a disaster. The senate can't be abolished via amendment, only a new constitution. I'll be damned if I'm going to follow the precepts of a failed document.


You're talking to a dog with a bone, it's never going to let it go.
 
macadamnut
2023-02-06 10:44:31 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.


Yeah, as long as you're a white guy with inherited property.  It stands apart for its brazen misrepresentation of itself.  The French monarchy never pretended not to be a hereditary aristocracy.
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 10:45:30 AM  

macadamnut: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

Yeah, as long as you're a white guy with inherited property.  It stands apart for its brazen misrepresentation of itself.  The French monarchy never pretended not to be a hereditary aristocracy.


The second estate.
 
palelizard
2023-02-06 10:46:34 AM  
It's too close to an election to change things.
 
macadamnut
2023-02-06 10:46:37 AM  

EnderWiggnz: macadamnut: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

Yeah, as long as you're a white guy with inherited property.  It stands apart for its brazen misrepresentation of itself.  The French monarchy never pretended not to be a hereditary aristocracy.

The second estate.


Yes, we also pretend to have religious freedom here, where France e.g. made no such claim.
 
The Irresponsible Captain [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:47:37 AM  

nmrsnr: Rev.K: Yes, this is obviously the democratic institution the Founders wanted. Don't appeal to voters with good governance and policies, just cheat to win.

Remember:

1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

2) Common man, because also recall that only men (specifically free men, generally free, White, landed men) were the one who were granted the privilege of voting to begin with.

3) The Founders didn't want people voting for their senator either, that was supposed to be up to the state legislature to represent state interests, not the interests of "the people."

The only place they actually wanted democratic representation was the House, so in that sense it's even worse to pervert that one intention of the Founders, but on the other hand, fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.


It was a system riddled with compromise and experimentation, and we used to treat it as such, and that's why it was amended 27 times.
We need quite a few more, but almost half the county thinks it's some document handed down from White JEEZUS himself to the founders on Stone Mountain.
 
The Irresponsible Captain [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:48:09 AM  

Wessoman: Is it wrong that I pray to the gods that at least four supreme court justices slowly die of painful squirting ass cancer, every night?


Nope.
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 10:52:21 AM  

macadamnut: EnderWiggnz: macadamnut: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

Yeah, as long as you're a white guy with inherited property.  It stands apart for its brazen misrepresentation of itself.  The French monarchy never pretended not to be a hereditary aristocracy.

The second estate.

Yes, we also pretend to have religious freedom here, where France e.g. made no such claim.


Post revolution France went so far as to only have state certified clergy. Given the amount of power they hold, it's not a bad idea.

When you look at opiate users, they will do ANYTHING to get their fix. It's what Marx's quote is about, not keeping the population happy.

Religion is the opiate of the masses. You can get them to do ANYTHING.
 
Cheron
2023-02-06 10:53:24 AM  
Please do not disparage the Supreme Court. Each time you do it it hurts their legitimacy. They only make desions based on law, the Constitution, and historical presidents.

Oh look a 13th century account of a 9th century ruling by the Wessex Witan about an elderman's land.
 
IlGreven
2023-02-06 10:56:00 AM  
These "divides in the Republican Party" stories are about as genuine as the "Dems in disarray" stories we keep hearing, too.

If they were really this bad, why the fark hasn't there been any other viable party?
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 11:08:50 AM  

IlGreven: These "divides in the Republican Party" stories are about as genuine as the "Dems in disarray" stories we keep hearing, too.

If they were really this bad, why the fark hasn't there been any other viable party?


Due to the constitutional structure, only a 2 party system is viable.

Parliamentary style, ruling coalition rules, unicameral is a much better solution going forward.
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 11:10:44 AM  

dracos31: qorkfiend: Oh, yeah. They'll definitely punt.

More like an onside kick while Ginni Thomas flashes the refs.


Fark It's not your personal erotica site
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-02-06 11:11:41 AM  
The SC has already declared gerrymandering legal, because math is hard!
 
vilesithknight
2023-02-06 11:13:20 AM  
The American Empire has already began it's death spiral and is heading to irrelevancy. Presumably China will be the next world leader in approx. 25-50 years. I expect every SCOTUS decision to be bad from here on out. Once you accept this fact, life becomes easier to handle. Nothing short of violent revolution will save this country, and that doesn't appear possible with all the apathy we have floating around.

Eeoyre on a Monday. You're welcome.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-02-06 11:13:58 AM  

Cyclometh: nmrsnr: 1) the Founders didn't let people vote for President, they voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President, because such an important decision couldn't be left to the common man.

This is not entirely accurate.  The founders envisioned the country as a collection of states. The states were the ones voting, not the citizens.

The strong federal government, not to mention the Civil War, have taken us as a society far away from that original conception- but it is still the states who elect the President, not the people.


Land being more important than people makes sense for a bunch of slave owners.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-02-06 11:17:01 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.


Any system that let Donald Trump become President is terminally flawed, and should be abandoned.

\the irony is that the EC was supposed to prevent people like him from getting into office, but instead it helped him. But the "founding fathers" weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-02-06 11:19:38 AM  

Wessoman: Is it wrong that I pray to the gods that at least four supreme court justices slowly die of painful squirting ass cancer, every night?


Yes, it's wrong. You should pray they die quickly of ass cancer, so Biden and a Democratic Senate can replace them.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-02-06 11:21:19 AM  

EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: qorkfiend: EnderWiggnz: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

It's antiquated. The peoples house is overruled by gentrified land holders, the senate, the executive again by states/ land and the Supreme Court.

The people are at a disaffection to their voice.

The Senate isn't elected?

This must be new.

Since every state gets 2, it isn't proportional. It's land voting, and has more power than the people.

Originally, it wasn't directly elected. Yes, that's changed, but it's still representing land.

While America was able to throw off the first estate, kings, it failed by enshrining the second.

Except it's not, because "the land" isn't under the control of a small handful of landowners who are the only ones who can vote.

You fail to see my point. It is land voting, and not in proportion to population. Montana gets the same power as California. Their vote is skewed by population.

Then you add in minority rights, and you have a disaster. The senate can't be abolished via amendment, only a new constitution. I'll be damned if I'm going to follow the precepts of a failed document.


He doesn't fail to see your point, he's being deliberately pendantic and obtuse, because that's what he does.
 
EnderWiggnz
2023-02-06 11:21:48 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Chthonic Echoes: nmrsnr: fark what the Founders wanted, they didn't really make as great a system as we think they did.

It's important to recognize the system's flaws, but it's also important to recognize that it's been radically better than most governments that had ever existed before in history.

Any system that let Donald Trump become President is terminally flawed, and should be abandoned.

\the irony is that the EC was supposed to prevent people like him from getting into office, but instead it helped him. But the "founding fathers" weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.


The bigger flaw is that impeachment couldn't stop a traitor who staged a coup d'Etat

In 259 years impeachment has never removed a president. Not once. It's hard to believe that no one deserved it.
 
bronskrat
2023-02-06 11:22:44 AM  
Get rid of the electoral college and add in ranked choice voting.

When I get elected ruler/tyrant/almighty, this is what I'll do. Vote for me!
 
NewportBarGuy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 11:31:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: You're talking to a dog with a bone, it's never going to let it go.


tse1.mm.bing.netView Full Size
 
CarnySaur [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 11:34:37 AM  
They're just giving power back to the states, you fascists!
 
RasIanI
2023-02-06 11:37:11 AM  
ISL is a ridiculous theory on its face: how can you have a country if its individual states can just reject its laws?
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come check out what's behind the curtain.

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.