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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Five steps Republicans are taking to child-proof the government   ( talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, President of the United States, Trump, George W. Bush, President Trump, Bill Clinton, United States Senate, Donald Trump, Trump campaign  
•       •       •

4263 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2017 at 1:35 PM (41 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-08-07 11:54:00 AM  
I read the comments. They were surprisingly informed. :o
 
2017-08-07 11:59:32 AM  
At least with #5, the budget, it's one thing to pass the budget, but it's another thing to get him to use the funds.

I'm all for the Gov't spending less money, but not for necessary Gov't functions (like foreign affairs in the State Dept).
 
2017-08-07 12:06:54 PM  
We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.
 
2017-08-07 12:09:54 PM  
Christ, I hope they're not going to make us use those stupid push-and-twist caps
 
Ant
2017-08-07 12:10:23 PM  
Shouldn't kicking the child out of the government be the first step?
 
2017-08-07 12:11:40 PM  
these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts
 
2017-08-07 12:58:37 PM  

blastoh: he needs to write a letter to congress explaining why


do they accept tweets?
 
2017-08-07 01:25:36 PM  
I read the headline as "Five steps Republicans are taking to child-pr0n the government" and thought, "They're not even trying hide it anymore and 30% will still support them."

AG Keebler Beavis likes 'em young. *crazy Beavis laugh*
 
2017-08-07 01:40:14 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.


Just swap out Trump's phone with this.  He won't know the difference.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2017-08-07 01:40:57 PM  
Careful, GOP. Do you want Trump changing parties and starting to appoint Democrats? Don't think he won't do it? He called your party idiots.
 
2017-08-07 01:43:53 PM  
Curiously not mentioned: Stop endorsing him for President.
 
2017-08-07 01:44:54 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.


Hands must be at least *this* big to tweet.
 
2017-08-07 01:48:44 PM  
Making themselves extinct?
 
2017-08-07 01:49:38 PM  

blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts


Stripping the President of the power to pardon is a bad idea.
 
2017-08-07 01:49:50 PM  
The problem with trying to make something idiot proof is the surprising ingenuity of complete idiots
 
2017-08-07 01:50:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.

Just swap out Trump's phone with this.  He won't know the difference.

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 225x225]


My daughter has that.. Annoying as FARK
 
2017-08-07 01:51:41 PM  
If they child proof the government, how will they get anything done?
 
2017-08-07 01:52:22 PM  

Snapper Carr: If they child proof the government, how will they get anything done?


... have you been paying attention for the last 6 years?
 
2017-08-07 01:57:00 PM  
Take the safety covers off all the outlets and give little Donnie a fork.
 
2017-08-07 01:57:57 PM  

kevlar51: At least with #5, the budget, it's one thing to pass the budget, but it's another thing to get him to use the funds.


A federal budget can be vague such as $14B for HHS or specific the Navy is directed to spend up to $14b to purchase 25 F-35 from Lockheed Martin in the next 22 months. In the latter case Congress has passed the president signed a law which is hard to get around.
 
2017-08-07 01:59:26 PM  

PlaidJaguar: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

Stripping the President of the power to pardon is a bad idea.


how about explicitly excluding  people in the administration, especially the president himself ?
 
2017-08-07 02:01:16 PM  

keldaria: Fart_Machine: Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.

Just swap out Trump's phone with this.  He won't know the difference.

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 225x225]

My daughter has that.. Annoying as FARK


Any more annoying than what comes out of his phone?
 
2017-08-07 02:02:43 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-07 02:12:39 PM  

Ant: Shouldn't kicking the child out of the government be the first step?


They would need to admit it was wrong to put him there in the first place.
 
2017-08-07 02:14:35 PM  

Madison_Smiled: Take the safety covers off all the outlets and give little Donnie a fork.


Put a little sign on them that says "DO NOT STICK FORK IN HERE BY ORDER OF BARACK OBAMA"
 
2017-08-07 02:18:27 PM  

PlaidJaguar: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

Stripping the President of the power to pardon is a bad idea.


Why? I dislike the existence of this bypass of the judicial process.

'Ya, you were convicted by a jury of your peers, given the same consideration as everyone else before a judge in this country, but, ya, go on, you get to pretend it didn't happen.'
 
2017-08-07 02:21:44 PM  
Wait.... Tillis actually said that?  I call bullshiat.

/ fake news
// fake quote
/// fake Tillis
 
2017-08-07 02:27:26 PM  

SMB2811: PlaidJaguar: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

Stripping the President of the power to pardon is a bad idea.

Why? I dislike the existence of this bypass of the judicial process.

'Ya, you were convicted by a jury of your peers, given the same consideration as everyone else before a judge in this country, but, ya, go on, you get to pretend it didn't happen.'


It's not a bypass of the judicial process, it's one of the checks and balances between the branches of the government.

Also, there have been more than a few innocent people who were convicted by "a jury of their peers" due to factors such as bigotry, and the ability of the Executive to pardon is a last recourse for those innocents.

CodeMonkey4Life: how about explicitly excluding  people in the administration, especially the president himself ?


Well, I'm pretty sure as it stands no President can pardon themselves, and preemptive pardons shouldn't be a thing (the Nixon pardon was bullshyte on so many levels) so a person shouldn't be simultaneously a member of the administration and in a position to receive a pardon.  I would be amenable to some form of external oversight regarding "in house" type pardons, however.
 
2017-08-07 02:30:28 PM  

PlaidJaguar: SMB2811: PlaidJaguar: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

Stripping the President of the power to pardon is a bad idea.

Why? I dislike the existence of this bypass of the judicial process.

'Ya, you were convicted by a jury of your peers, given the same consideration as everyone else before a judge in this country, but, ya, go on, you get to pretend it didn't happen.'

It's not a bypass of the judicial process, it's one of the checks and balances between the branches of the government.

Also, there have been more than a few innocent people who were convicted by "a jury of their peers" due to factors such as bigotry, and the ability of the Executive to pardon is a last recourse for those innocents.

CodeMonkey4Life: how about explicitly e ...


Just limiting it to exclude the president, from pardoning himself, prior presidents,  and any federal executive political appointees would go a long ways.   I'd be fine with this.
 
2017-08-07 03:14:10 PM  
Love the pic.

Ryan smirking, McC trying to suppress a guffaw, Trump glowering

Presumably someone insulted Trump using a 3 syllable word
 
2017-08-07 03:17:36 PM  

Fart_Machine: Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.

Just swap out Trump's phone with this.  He won't know the difference.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-07 03:19:45 PM  

blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts


1-3 would all require Constitutional amendments.
 
2017-08-07 03:24:47 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Madison_Smiled: Take the safety covers off all the outlets and give little Donnie a fork.

Put a little sign on them that says "DO NOT STICK FORK IN HERE BY ORDER OF BARACK OBAMA"


LOL, this.
 
2017-08-07 03:35:21 PM  

qorkfiend: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts
1-3 would all require Constitutional amendments.


1 might not.  But considering it only happened during the Andrew Johnson administration and was the "high crime  and misdomeanor" used for his impeachment, it is an amazingly bad idea.
 
2017-08-07 03:38:49 PM  

Fart_Machine: Eddie Adams from Torrance: We need a child safety lock on his farking phone.

Just swap out Trump's phone with this.  He won't know the difference.

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 225x225]


🐮🐶🐭🐰🐔🐔🐥🦊🐻... 🐯🐷🐼🐮

Would that be apt to what he'd attempt to post?
 
2017-08-07 03:43:39 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: qorkfiend: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts
1-3 would all require Constitutional amendments.

1 might not.  But considering it only happened during the Andrew Johnson administration and was the "high crime  and misdomeanor" used for his impeachment, it is an amazingly bad idea.


It was explicitly ruled unconstitutional in Myers v United States
 
2017-08-07 03:44:33 PM  

qorkfiend: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

1-3 would all require Constitutional amendments.


Gotta keep in mind, that while you may not like Trump, altering the fundamental function of the executive branch will impact all future Presidents too.

- The check on Cabinet members by Congress is necessary as it requires the President to work with Congress on the appointments.  If the President couldn't fire a cabinet member without Congress, I think the members of the cabinet would be less willing to work with the President and more likely to cozy up to Congress.

- Reducing the number of political appointments isn't a bad idea, however this would transfer power from the President to the bureaucracy in the Federal Gov't.  Having so many appointees is one way that the President can exercise control over the bureaucracy.

- One of the primary functions of the Government is to be able to legally dispense punishment.  Pardons are a necessity as a check on the Judicial branch.  A President pardoning himself is something that's never been done, and would probably need the Supreme Court to make a decision on that, as with other Constitutional questions.

- Reigning in War Powers is under the purview of Congress already.  They can revoke the AUMF or pass additional laws restricting funding/etc. Congress could in theory pass a Declaration of War and stipulate that no nuclear weapons can be used.  However, the executive branch can still act if the US or its interests are under attack.

Again, just because we don't like this President, doesn't mean that we should be taking drastic steps to change the Constitution to limit his power.  Any changes will be applied to all future Presidents as well.  I remember thinking how great it was to change the rules in the Senate to pass the ACA, but now those same rules can be used to dismantle it.
 
2017-08-07 03:46:10 PM  

Famous Thamas: qorkfiend: blastoh: these are short term

at least 4 Long term solutions:
1. No more firing cabinet members.   If congress has  to approve hiring, then they have to approve firings.
If the president wants to fire the Attorney General, he needs to write  a letter to congress explaining why. Congress can then hold a hearing and vote on it.   This would also make the president elect put a little more consideration into who is going to appoint if he knows he cant just fire the person on a whim.

2.  Also need to reduce the number of political appointments.   There is no reason that I can see for Sally Yates and Brahara to be political appointees.  Again, at the very least, it should have required congressional approval to remove them.

3. No more pardons.  At the very least, the President can not pardon; himself, any other president, vice president, or cabinet members.   But seriously, no pardons.

4. We need a check on nukes, and to reign in war powers.
The president specifically can not drop a nuke without Congressional approval unless we are responding to an impending nuclear threat.  The Sec State and/or Sec Def should have the power to nix any nuclear option also.   This will carry even more weight if they know they can't be fired for opposing the action.

just a few thoughts

1-3 would all require Constitutional amendments.

Gotta keep in mind, that while you may not like Trump, altering the fundamental function of the executive branch will impact all future Presidents too.

- The check on Cabinet members by Congress is necessary as it requires the President to work with Congress on the appointments.  If the President couldn't fire a cabinet member without Congress, I think the members of the cabinet would be less willing to work with the President and more likely to cozy up to Congress.

- Reducing the number of political appointments isn't a bad idea, however this would transfer power from the President to the bureaucracy in the Federal Gov't.  Having so many appointees is one way that the President can exercise control over the bureaucracy.

- One of the primary functions of the Government is to be able to legally dispense punishment.  Pardons are a necessity as a check on the Judicial branch.  A President pardoning himself is something that's never been done, and would probably need the Supreme Court to make a decision on that, as with other Constitutional questions.

- Reigning in War Powers is under the purview of Congress already.  They can revoke the AUMF or pass additional laws restricting funding/etc. Congress could in theory pass a Declaration of War and stipulate that no nuclear weapons can be used.  However, the executive branch can still act if the US or its interests are under attack.

Again, just because we don't like this President, doesn't mean that we should be taking drastic steps to change the Constitution to limit his power.  Any changes will be applied to all future Presidents as well.  I remember thinking how great it was to change the rules in the Senate to pass the ACA, but now those same rules can be used to dismantle it.


What Senate rules were changed to pass the ACA?
 
Ant
2017-08-07 03:46:59 PM  
While we're all fantasizing about changes that can be made to prevent another Trump-level event:

I don't think presidential candidates should get to pick their own vice president. We need to go back to electing the vice president separately from the president.
 
2017-08-07 03:48:02 PM  

Ant: While we're all fantasizing about changes that can be made to prevent another Trump-level event:

I don't think presidential candidates should get to pick their own vice president. We need to go back to electing the vice president separately from the president.


What the fark for?

This is one of the handful of changes that were actually made by the Founders themselves to correct their own error.
 
2017-08-07 04:20:00 PM  
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age IQ of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fixed
 
2017-08-07 04:52:08 PM  

Famous Thamas: Gotta keep in mind, that while you may not like Trump, altering the fundamental function of the executive branch will impact all future Presidents too.


I would be totally fine if Obama, HRC, or any other president had to abide by the those changes.

I think the members of the cabinet would be less willing to work with the President and more likely to cozy up to Congress.

I don't see this as an all together bad thing as it would keep a check on the president.  

Pardons are a necessity as a check on the Judicial branch.

Again, then just keep the president from being able to pardon himself and members of his administration.  


People might want to consider that there is a sizable part of our country who actively wants a authoritarian president.  That isn't going to go away with Trump.    Its not just about keeping Trump in check, but also keeping the next Trump/Nixon/Cruz in check.   

Imagine if Trump was more cunning and had actually surrounded himself with competent people?  I'm totes cool if the Next D president has limited power as long as I know the next Trump does also.
 
2017-08-07 05:22:44 PM  

blastoh: Famous Thamas: Gotta keep in mind, that while you may not like Trump, altering the fundamental function of the executive branch will impact all future Presidents too.

I would be totally fine if Obama, HRC, or any other president had to abide by the those changes.

I think the members of the cabinet would be less willing to work with the President and more likely to cozy up to Congress.

I don't see this as an all together bad thing as it would keep a check on the president.  

Pardons are a necessity as a check on the Judicial branch.

Again, then just keep the president from being able to pardon himself and members of his administration.  


People might want to consider that there is a sizable part of our country who actively wants a authoritarian president.  That isn't going to go away with Trump.    Its not just about keeping Trump in check, but also keeping the next Trump/Nixon/Cruz in check.   

Imagine if Trump was more cunning and had actually surrounded himself with competent people?  I'm totes cool if the Next D president has limited power as long as I know the next Trump does also.


Cabinet secretaries being subordinate to Congress instead of the President is in fact a bad thing.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





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