Comments for We're finalists! Yay! Yipee! We're in the running!

We're finalists! Yay! Yipee! We're in the running!

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:55:51 -0600

...to receive the Gitmo detainees. Heh.SWWBO is rather concerned, from a safety aspect. I'm more concerned from a job and local economy aspect. The Editorial Board of the KC Star wishes we hick rednecks would just listen to our betters and suck it up and quit whining.The other finalist, Standish, Michigan, *wants* to take 'em on. Given the Administration's tin ear on stuff like this, I expect we'll win just because. Well, that and we're mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging rednecks who voted for McCain, and replaced our Democrat congresswoman Nancy Boyda with a Republican, Lynn Jenkins, so it's not like he's going to...

Comment from SezaGeoff on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:24:35 -0600

I am with SWWBO to a point. We have just broken a terrorist ring here in Oz that wanted to attack an army base. Report With the GTMO people where the loonies and the terrorist sympathizers can get close to them, you would have a significant problem. And the US doesn't have a lot of (real) castles designed to keep the peasants out of them and away from the dungeon inhabitants.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:22:18 -0600

Let's turn it around: "W" did his best to insulate the American public from the terrorist menace after 9-11. That and the rules of international conflict as his administration interpreted them made GTMO the logical choice to house wanton Islamo-fascist killers. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe they should be kept in America's heartland. That way, there is a better chance that their comrades will try to srping them, then there would be violence in the heartland and blood in the street and America might wake up and realize their is a war on -- a war that is just as profound as WWII because the enemy wants to either kill us or convert us; those are the enemy's only 2 acceptable outcomes to the conflict. Just a thought...

Comment from AFSister on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:08:41 -0600

Murtha was all gung-ho to get them until his constituents spoke up. I'm with Kevin on the Papillion suggestion.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:58:12 -0600

Perhaps we could just board them with some Congressional hosts .... like Pelosi, Reid, Franken, Frank, et al.

Comment from Saker on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:51:14 -0600

Bah. Humbug.

Although, if you have to send them somewhere, putting them with a bunch of gun toting rednecks might be the best thing. I mean, if they ended up in Seattle or something it would be like foxes in a henhouse...

Comment from Kevin on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:50:18 -0600

If indeed you all are so unfortunate as to have this mess dropped into your backyard, may I suggest a change to your city flag?

Just put up a picture of the 'facility' with a big bullseye overlaid on it.

What a completely stupid idea to bring these yobbos to the mainland and even moreso, place them in an unsecurable location like Leavenworth.

Might I suggest Johnson Atoll as a better location? Or perhaps the French could lease us the old Papillion location... leave them in the boonies!

Comment from BillT on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:25:39 -0600

Well, geez, man, how *else* can we insure they get their, like, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights under the -- uhhhhhh -- *Constitution* unless we, like, incarcerate them on US soil? I mean, like, otherwise, it'd mean it'd have to go to, like, the Supreme Court 'n' stuff, man, and the SC'd have to go all decisiony and cite, like, precedents 'n' stuff. And it would really be, like, *mean* in the end, man, if, like, the guest-terrorists couldn't even *get* their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Especially after Obie went and *promised*, man...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-08-04

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:11:55 -0600

Bringing these Islamists to American soil is just so wrong, on so many levels, for so many reasons.