I for one am glad that Glenn Beck and the other wingnut jackasses are on the airwaves- they serve as a constant reminder of how disingenuous, hypocritical, dishonest, and morally bankrupt the right is at its core.

What he said ^.

Obviously we can defeat the terrorists by becoming exactly like them.

"Glen Beck" is the entire entry for the definition of "douchebag" in Merriam-Webster.

And ^^What they said.

Dinki: I for one am glad that Glenn Beck and the other wingnut jackasses are on the airwaves- they serve as a constant reminder of how disingenuous, hypocritical, dishonest, and morally bankrupt the right is at its core.

I'll never be confused for a conservative, but I kind of disagree with this.

The "right", so called, consists of two main factions these days; the ones who rightly believe that practices like extrajudicial detention, torture, "preemptive" war etc. are an embarassment to America, and the ones who think bloodlust should be a national policy.

It seems to me that that the former camp is more in line with the traditional, academic "right" wing of politics (limited government intervention, hands-off type policies on individual behavior), while the so-called neoconservatives are basically crypto-fascists.

Be careful when you generalize about the right wing. I don't agree very often with conservatives (as opposed to fascists, whom I never agree with and detest), but I think they're decent people who genuinely want to find the best way to govern, and that it's possible to work with them. I wouldn't want to sully them by associating them with the terrible, terrible people that think erosion of the rule of law and Constitutional rights is okay.

Cagey B: I wouldn't want to sully them by associating them with the terrible, terrible people that think erosion of the rule of law and Constitutional rights is okay.

Then they should speak up and distance themselves from those who do.

The problem is either that these 'traditional' conservatives are either as rare as unicorn farts, or that they do not have the conviction of their principles to stand up for what they believe in.

Either way, their silence is deafening.

Skleenar: Cagey B: I wouldn't want to sully them by associating them with the terrible, terrible people that think erosion of the rule of law and Constitutional rights is okay.

Then they should speak up and distance themselves from those who do.

The problem is either that these 'traditional' conservatives are either as rare as unicorn farts, or that they do not have the conviction of their principles to stand up for what they believe in.

Either way, their silence is deafening.

I can think of a few actual conservatives just here on Fark, and I think you can too. I'll let them show up so I don't get in trouble for calling out people in a thread.

This is disturbingly close to the "there are no moderate Muslims, otherwise they'd speak out after every major/minor/non-existent terrorist attack" argument. If you look hard enough, you'll see people who are indeed speaking out. Some are probably just too damn tired and disgusted by what's going to say much.

Could more be done within the GOP to squelch their fanatics? Sure. But alienating the rational members of the party and other reasonable conservatives isn't the way to build a viable partner in government.

Shoot them in the head

...starting with the NLECs (poppity-pop) who the US government already ruled "not guilty."

Some of them may or may not have been released since their NLEC status was declared, but who cares, right?

Skleenar: The problem is either that these 'traditional' conservatives are either as rare as unicorn farts, or that they do not have the conviction of their principles to stand up for what they believe in.

Or it's just too easy to be a go-with-the-flow fanboy, while completely forgetting the principles that conservatism was once based on.
And yes, their silence is deafening.

Skleenar
Then they should speak up and distance themselves from those who do.
This guy is an asshat. How's that :P

Cagey B good point, but I don't really belong to either of those factions. I like George Will's definition: "Conservatives tend to favor freedom and are willing to accept inequalities of outcome from a free market. Liberals tend to favor equality of outcome and are willing to sacrifice freedom in order to get it."

Is this "conservative" humor? I can never tell when these 'tards are joking.

Lionel Mandrake: Is this "conservative" humor? I can never tell when these 'tards are joking.

I've listened in outrage to enough of Glenn Beck's verbal spewings to be pretty sure that there is no humor or attempt at humor involved here.

Lionel Mandrake: Is this "conservative" humor? I can never tell when these 'tards are joking.

And was he talking about the folk at Gitmo, or the folk on the SCOTUS?

I'd largely agree with Cagey B, but I wish more conservatives would take their own party back... or at least refuse to comply and/or form another party when their batshiat brethren run amok. Instead, most I know begrudgingly go along and back the deranged motherfarker bent on turning "What a country!" into "Soviet Russia." Sure, I know conservatives who would qualify as exceptions, but as stated, they're the exceptions, not the norm.

Still, those exceptions are one of the few things that help me keep any faith in the right. At day's end, I can still maintain respect for those people, despite disagreements. But as for the Glenn Becks of the world, all I can do is tell them not to breed, something they seem to be a little too good at.

/Neoconservativism isn't driven by Conservatism.
//Neoconservatism is driven by Neofeudalism.

I want to cram Glenn Beck's old-timey microphone down his throat.

What a sick, disgusting little man.

turtle1:

Cagey B good point, but I don't really belong to either of those factions. I like George Will's definition: "Conservatives tend to favor freedom and are willing to accept inequalities of outcome from a free market. Liberals tend to favor equality of outcome and are willing to sacrifice freedom in order to get it."

Except George Will has defended this shiat all along. I'll say it again "true conservatives" and many "Libertarians":

I'm a baptist. I go to a Catholic church, tithe a Catholic church, was married in one, and Christened in one. But for reals, I'm a baptist.

Oh, and seriously, when Glen Beck dies, I'll drink a beer to it.

He should have stayed on US talk radio where saying idiotic, hate-filled crap like that is normal.

HE and his ilk need about 2,000 mics of acid plopped into their morning coffee one day, just so they get the whole picture.

Seriously.

Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

"Shoot them in the head"

Shoot Glenn Beck in the head? Very well, I accept.

Good idea Glenn, we'll go with that! But first, why not try it on yourself, just to make sure it's gonna work.

thisisntnamtherearerules: Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

Where in the Supreme Court ruling does it say they cannot be interrogated?

thisisntnamtherearerules: Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

No, he said that is what he would ORDER if he were President.

thisisntnamtherearerules: Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

Yes, just like cops do all the time, right?

The moral of the story: either they go through the courts or they are prisoners of war. The enemy combatant bullshiat doesn't fly.

//Send Becky to Gitmo and see how he likes it. I think he's hiding some terrorist secrets
//Terrorist secrets, or gay porn.

thisisntnamtherearerules: Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

Due process is for communist terrorist flag pin hating pinko skum.

You want to kill someone for breaking your laws but don't believe enough in the laws that are set in place to work them through the system. You want the best of both worlds.

thisisntnamtherearerules: Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

I'm pretty sure most of the people at Gitmo were arrested in their homes or places of business, not some Gettysburg-style 'battlefield'. Going into people's homes and summarily executing them is not what the US does.

/can't believe that had to be said
//I hope you're a troll

thisisntnamtherearerules: Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier

Aye, the people biatching about the right in this thread are far too stupid to realize this. I'm a little disapointed that you clued them in. It was actually pretty amusing.

They are too dumb to realize that SCOTUS ruling the way they did has more implications on the battlefield than it does at GITMO.

I've already talked to soldiers that have been to Iraq and are scheduled to go back that say that in the future rather than risking their lives to spare the life of someone who will cost more taxpayers money, they will simply pull the trigger.

I guess the left got exactly what they wanted... And then some...

You know, determining you entire opinion of a person based on what they thought about GTA4 is bound not to be a very good metric, but so far it's god a pretty solid track record.

Glenn Beck = Douchebag

shreezbot: I've already talked to soldiers that have been to Iraq and are scheduled to go back that say that in the future rather than risking their lives to spare the life of someone who will cost more taxpayers money, they will simply pull the trigger.

Well thank God the soldiers are out there looking out for our tax dollar expenditures.

Cagey B: The "right", so called, consists of two main factions these days; the ones who rightly believe that practices like extrajudicial detention, torture, "preemptive" war etc. are an embarassment to America, and the ones who think bloodlust should be a national policy.

It seems to me that that the former camp is more in line with the traditional, academic "right" wing of politics (limited government intervention, hands-off type policies on individual behavior), while the so-called neoconservatives are basically crypto-fascists.


This Fark. Fark simple. Two sides. Left. Right. Left not like Right. Right not like Left. Steak good. Bears bad.

/Seriously...Usually when you think low-brow macho crap offered as serious policy you think FOX News, but IMO Beck is neck-and-neck with O'Reilly for the Most Heinous Commentator award on a regular basis.

shreezbot: I've already talked to soldiers that have been to Iraq and are scheduled to go back that say that in the future rather than risking their lives to spare the life of someone who will cost more taxpayers money, they will simply pull the trigger.

This speaks quite poorly of them. Why do you hate the troops?

Sev79: Cagey B: The "right", so called, consists of two main factions these days; the ones who rightly believe that practices like extrajudicial detention, torture, "preemptive" war etc. are an embarassment to America, and the ones who think bloodlust should be a national policy.

It seems to me that that the former camp is more in line with the traditional, academic "right" wing of politics (limited government intervention, hands-off type policies on individual behavior), while the so-called neoconservatives are basically crypto-fascists.


This Fark. Fark simple. Two sides. Left. Right. Left not like Right. Right not like Left. Steak good. Bears bad.

/Seriously...Usually when you think low-brow macho crap offered as serious policy you think FOX News, but IMO Beck is neck-and-neck with O'Reilly for the Most Heinous Commentator award on a regular basis.

I used to listen to Beck daily during a work commute (YEAH THAT'S RIGHT I SAID I LISTENED EVERY DAY). He's much worse than O'Reilly.

thisisntnamtherearerules
Ummmm.... he wasn't talking about the people that are already at gitmo, he is saying that If a soldier on the battlefield has the choice between killing an insurgent, or trying to capture him to get information, they will now use the former. Why would they take prisoners if they will not be interrogated, and more money spent on lawyer fees for the civil rights of a particular insurgent than on the salary of said soldier


I see FSU is still turning out a fine product.

The shortest path to their hearts and minds is through their skulls and sternums.

HowlingFrog: Lionel Mandrake: Is this "conservative" humor? I can never tell when these 'tards are joking.

I've listened in outrage to enough of Glenn Beck's verbal spewings to be pretty sure that there is no humor or attempt at humor involved here.

Nah, its pretty obvious when he thinks its funny. He isn't, but this isn't one of those times.

Wow. Just wow. He was being sarcastic. Jeez people. Open your ears.

kronicfeld: shreezbot: I've already talked to soldiers that have been to Iraq and are scheduled to go back that say that in the future rather than risking their lives to spare the life of someone who will cost more taxpayers money, they will simply pull the trigger.

This speaks quite poorly of them. Why do you hate the troops?

I was going to jump in on this action, but I see a fellow Fark Legal Eagle has things in hand; carry on!

kronicfeld: This speaks quite poorly of them. Why do you hate the troops?

It doesn't speak poorly of them. They are risking their lives every time they choose to take a prisoner on the battlefield. My nephew was almost blown up by a combatent that was "surrendering." If it wasn't for someone with a good eye, he wouldn't be with us today.

This is really more a matter of self preservation than anything.

Our troops are the best. Well, most of them anyway. Bad apple in every bunch and all...

AeroSquid: Wow. Just wow. He was being sarcastic. Jeez people. Open your ears.

And it was hilarious. Oh wait, no it wasn't.

The erosion of due process is a big problem and I'm surprised that the so-called conservatives haven't raised more questions about it. I think they saw the election of a very poor candidate (twice) and always assumed that they would win all the elections. Now they're in the position of having set up the apparatus of a police state when they are going to lose the election to the most liberal candidate in decades. How many of these guys have bothered to think about their apparatus being applied to them if they stand in the way of a Chavez type revolution led by Obama? They say that's what he's going to do, then they turn around and cheer Gitmo. I think they assume Gitmo is only for guys who don't eat pork and that it's possible to take away the rights of one group only.

shreezbot: This is really more a matter of self preservation than anything.

Yeah, except you said they were concerned about taxpayer dollars. Which is it?

shreezbot:

I've already talked to soldiers that have been to Iraq and are scheduled to go back that say that in the future rather than risking their lives to spare the life of someone who will cost more taxpayers money, they will simply pull the trigger.



I'll go ahead and call you a liar. Is that ok?

Solon Isonomia: a fellow Fark Legal Eagle

That is a really gay label and you know it.

earlm: The erosion of due process is a big problem and I'm surprised that the so-called conservatives haven't raised more questions about it. I think they saw the election of a very poor candidate (twice) and always assumed that they would win all the elections. Now they're in the position of having set up the apparatus of a police state when they are going to lose the election to the most liberal candidate in decades. How many of these guys have bothered to think about their apparatus being applied to them if they stand in the way of a Chavez type revolution led by Obama? They say that's what he's going to do, then they turn around and cheer Gitmo. I think they assume Gitmo is only for guys who don't eat pork and that it's possible to take away the rights of one group only.

Oh man. You brought up a point I'd never even considered.

I bet it's damned IMPOSSIBLE to get a decent BLT in Gitmo.

You should hear my thoroughly thought-through and cunning plan to sidestep Glenn Beck.

kronicfeld: That is a really gay label and you know it.

It's a work in progress and only slightly better than Farking Shyster. I'm all for suggestions.

It doesn't matter if it is on a battlefield, in a cave, or in someone's home, it is much more dangerous for our troops to capture someone alive than to just shoot them. I am not saying that they should or will storm houses and execute families. What I am saying is that we benifit far less from capturing an insurgent today than we did two years ago, and the individual soldier loses almost nothing by pulling the trigger instead of slappng on the flexcuffs.

How do you think it feels going house to house to make sure that everybody only has one machine gun, a freedom that we don't even have in the U.S. When we capture somebody, there are alot of thoughts going through their minds, but they can be pretty sure that their friends won't be watching their beheading next week on youtube. our soldiers can't say the same thing.