Keukasmallies Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 http://www.democratandchronicle.com/usatoday/article/2117653 Solely in the spirit of gastronomic hands-across-the-sea, let's share some recipes that might tempt those fellas. OK, I'll go first: Wrap a 3lb pork roast with 1 lb of bacon, grill over a low fire of sandals made from truck tires 'til pink in the center, serve hot with a sprinkling of cell-corner dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Thanks guys, you're saving us taxpayers, money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 F- them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 PPP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Trying to care.....trying to care....Nope. Don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 OK, I'll go first: Wrap a 3lb pork roast with 1 lb of bacon, grill over a low fire of sandals made from truck tires 'til pink in the center, serve hot with a sprinkling of cell-corner dust. How about this? http://www.bbqaddict...acon-explosion/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 28, 2013 Author Share Posted April 28, 2013 I'd like to slip that bacon explosion through an IV and provide a protein jolt to the "detainees." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 (edited) Why bother with the nasal feed tubes? Seriously, why bother. Edited April 29, 2013 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why bother with the nasal feed tubes? Seriously, why bother. Why bother with a hunger strike to begin with. Seriously, I didn't understand it when the IRA was doing it back in the 80s, either. You don't want to eat? Okay...so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 (edited) What else could they do? We just had another terror attack, which knocks back the whole "GITMO Bad" issue to 2002. They had to do something to try and get themselves back into the headlines, because they were staring at being forgetten, forever. And what does that tell you? A political move, designed to sway public opinion, for political gain, and to avert political oblivion? It should tell you: these guy's motives are political after all, aren't they? Not religious, not because they come from poverty, not because of any other lameass excuse or nonsense far-left meme. No. Their goal is to "take over the world" They aren't "freedom fighters". They are "tyranny fighters". They failed, and they are lucky we haven't hanged them all. Keep in mind, I don't want that to happen. Much better for them to rot in GITMO forever. The good news? The "Close GITMO immediately" and the "use GITMO for political gain" people to have to eat this schit sandwich every single day for the rest of their lives. There will be no hunger strike for them. That is truly hilarious. They get a seat at the Schit Sandwich Diner...right next to "The Surge Won't Work" people. Edited April 29, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/25/kafka-at-gitmo-why-86-prisoners-are-cleared-for-release-but-might-never-get-it/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 http://www.washingto...t-never-get-it/ I'll forever consider Obama's inability to close Gitmo on Day 1 as the first proof he was in over his head. All you heard from him, over and over and over, was "My first act in office will be to close Gitmo." His second act in office, apparently, was to never complete his first act in office, which I guess technically makes not closing Gitmo his first act in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 (edited) http://www.washingto...t-never-get-it/ Leave it to ...lybob But the second theory that’s increasingly mentioned by critics: some administration officials might fear that a released detainee could later participate in terrorism, for which the administration might well be blamed. Is that you, Fox Butterfield? (Reference: http://online.wsj.co...4228137272.html) Right, so according to dopey WP reporter the fear is the blame...and not the terror incident itself? Or, is he right on, and the Administration might actually be thinking about the blame...rather than some more dead Americans? I may hate this administration's ability to get things done properly, but I'm not prepared to say that they are more worried about blame than people dying. IF that's not what he's saying or if that's just stupid: then why print it at all? Where the hell is this guy's editor? It’s exactly this sort of dilemma that President Obama was likely hoping to avoid when he pledged, at the start of his presidency, to close Guantanamo. If he hoped to avoid it...then why the F did he do it? What exactly did he "hope to avoid"? Either he didn't understand the situation and signing the order was an act of ignorance, stupidity, or both, or, he did, and he didn't care, because he wanted to score points with the left. Either way: he could not possibly have "hoped to avoid" something he either didn't know, or, knew so well that he thought he could use it. So...I guess my first impression was correct. The Washington Post has a new Fox Butterfield. Edit: If I don't see comments to the above effect soon...I'm signing up. This level of stupidity cannot go unchecked. Edited April 29, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Didn't Gitmo close in 2009? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why hasn't Gitmo been closed? It seems to me that keeping people locked up for 10 years with no due process is cruel. Put them on trial or release them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why hasn't Gitmo been closed? It seems to me that keeping people locked up for 10 years with no due process is cruel. Put them on trial or release them. The intent was to close Gitmo after the president got other countries to take prisoners awaiting trial off their hands. No countries would take them, so Obama shut down the department in charge of transferring the prisoners, and there they sit, waiting for due process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 The intent was to close Gitmo after the president got other countries to take prisoners awaiting trial off their hands. No countries would take them, so Obama shut down the department in charge of transferring the prisoners, and there they sit, waiting for due process. Impossible I tell ya. It had to have closed in 2009. I clearly remember it being promised. Gitmo was a failed policy of the Bush administration. No way someone as smart and transparent as Obama would keep it open when he promised to close it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why hasn't Gitmo been closed? It seems to me that keeping people locked up for 10 years with no due process is cruel. Put them on trial or release them. Read the article. On second thought....don't. I'll tell you faster and better why: 1. Nobody wants them, or, we know if we release them, there's a good chance they will be killed/tortured in their own country. Which is more moral, keeping somebody locked up, or throwing them to the wolves? So...release them to...where? How can we release somebody to nowhere? 2. There's a better than average chance that many of these guys will go right back out and start trouble again. This sucks because we don't have anything to charge them on, but, we know that if we let them go, they will re-offend. With a 90% recidivism rate...why would you let them go? Whose child has to die...so that far-left turds can have their phony moral superiority? These guys are prisoners of, illegal, war. However, they are also responsible for the choices they made. It's not our fault that the only rational outcomes here don't match with the legal standards afforded to US citizens. These turds put themselves into the situation they are in. Should we just execute them and get it over with? See? These are complex questions that require the attention of adults. These are not questions for children like Obama, or his supporters, to be issuing executive orders on, as though that was an answer, on the first day they get into office. An adult would have known that, and never would have signed that order. We have the Child in Chief, so he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Read the article. On second thought....don't. I'll tell you faster and better why: 1. Nobody wants them, or, we know if we release them, there's a good chance they will be killed/tortured in their own country. Which is more moral, keeping somebody locked up, or throwing them to the wolves? So...release them to...where? How can we release somebody to nowhere? 2. There's a better than average chance that many of these guys will go right back out and start trouble again. This sucks because we don't have anything to charge them on, but, we know that if we let them go, they will re-offend. With a 90% recidivism rate...why would you let them go? Whose child has to die...so that far-left turds can have their phony moral superiority? These guys are prisoners of, illegal, war. However, they are also responsible for the choices they made. It's not our fault that the only rational outcomes here don't match with the legal standards afforded to US citizens. These turds put themselves into the situation they are in. Should we just execute them and get it over with? See? These are complex questions that require the attention of adults. These are not questions for children like Obama, or his supporters, to be issuing executive orders on, as though that was an answer, on the first day they get into office. An adult would have known that, and never would have signed that order. We have the Child in Chief, so he did. You forgot to mention that Congress has forbidden to let the the Gitmo detainees on American soil, no country will take them so what is Obama supposed to do? There is no real solution here as far as I can see. I guess you could let the doors open and release them in Cuba. We used to get boat people from Cuba, maybe put them in a boat and let them land on shore in Havana? This is a real **** sandwich created by Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Gitmo is the new hot caribean resort... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563791/Greetings-Guantanamo-Bay---sickest-souvenir-shop-world.html http://inothernewz.com/ritz-carltons-guantanamo-bay-resort-and-spa-to-open-this-fall/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts