Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jack Skellington

Enough with Political Correctness

184 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jack Skellington

I'm sick of the ridiculousness of politically correct stupidity. There is no other way to describe it and those who are pulled along by the nonsense are simply willfully ignorant.

That means "stupid on purpose."

This Islamist terrorist attack in Tennessee is just another example, but it reignites (momentarily) America's brain activity and makes us question how we got so far off track.

For example-- who's idea was it to restrict our military from carrying guns on military installations? The answer is--- Clinton. In 1993, with the stroke of a pen and without Congressional approval, Clinton made the decision. Not even after 13 dead bodies accumulated on the cafeteria floor, did President Obama act. Another radicalized immigrant to this country carried a weapon into a gun free zone (aka Military Base full of soldiers trained to use weapons) and wantonly killed our personnel to cries of Allahu Akbar!

Change course? Nope-- Obama insists it was just an isolated case of workplace violence, not Islamic terrorism. So no, not even 13 dead bodies made a lick of difference.

4 more now in Tennessee. That's on you Barack Obama. You are asleep at the wheel of the car called America you are deliberately driving to a cliff.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daughter of the Nine Moons

You failed to mention Bush who had the chance to change it between Clinton's and Obama's presidency...but didn't

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

I'll mention it now-- he should have. But it wasn't under Bush that a rash of these kinds have attacks have occurred.

It was under Clinton.

It's now under Obama. Over and over and over. And Obama, unlike the others was warned. And he did nothing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Here are a few more examples.... Some people might call these "hints" of a growing problem

Obama-- Chatanooga TN, 4 Dead, 2 Wounded

Obama-- Norfolk VA--- Navy Shipyard 1 Dead

Obama-- Washington DC Navy Yard Complex-- 12 dead.

Obama-- Fort Hood--- 13 Dead, 32 Wounded

Clinton-- Fort Bragg-- 18 Wounded

Clinton-- Fairchild Air Force Base-- 4 Dead, 18 Wounded

Clinton-- LittleRock AK Military Recruiting Center-- 1 Dead

Clinton-- Arlington VA-- 2 Wounded

Bush-- ?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashotep

We had 9/11 under Bush, biggest terrorist attack we ever had, 3000 dead and he was warned by the Clinton admininstration something was going to happen. Unless you don't consider that worth mentioning.

I do agree political correctness is getting out of control.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

It's always a good idea to check your facts before posting.

From Snopes:

"It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office."

Read more at http://www.snopes.co...oqotjz7kdb2t.99

Typical nonsense. Ignore the problem. Blame Bush.

Maybe you should refer to the ACTUAL Clinton era Regulation-- Dated March, 1993

Bill Clinton modified and implemented the ban on base... http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal_Etcetera

Um, where is the politically correct stuff? Thats just political crap

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
owf

It's obviously a very serious problem but I can only guess that you're one of those people who will criticize Obama no matter what he does. So do you think he should over ride the Department of the Army's mandate?

Edited by owf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

To me Political Correctness is any instance the government caves in to knee jerk reactions for an emotional public. Taking down all monuments after a Confederate Flag incident for example. Giving all troops guns on home soil, one day after a shooting as another example. Realistically we should at least wait for the bodies to cool and see what the military has to say before caving in to hysterical people on chat forums.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
owf

That is the Department of the Army's directive that Snopes referred to, it was not signed by Clinton.

Edited by owf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

It's obviously a very serious problem but I can only guess that you're one of those people who will criticize Obama no matter what he does. So do you think he should over ride the DOD's mandate?

If Obama changes the policy I'd be happy to give him full credit. But he won't.

Can you imagine Police Officers having to check their guns at the door of the Police Station?

Gee-- I wonder if he has the Secret Service hand over their weapons when they show up for duty at that fence that circles the Whitehouse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

That is the DOD directive that Snopes referred to, it was not signed by Clinton.

Wrong-- but why let facts get in the way of a supportive Snopes note.

While the Directive got its start under George H.W. Bush, it was heavily modified by Bill Clinton in 1993. The changes were, in fact, so extreme they didn’t even bother highlighting altered portions. The result was Army Regulation 190-14, which was signed into effect in March of 1993 – and reinforced in 2011, and now we have a bunch of trained soldiers running around on post with no greater weapon than a sharp wit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

Um, where is the politically correct stuff? Thats just political crap

Where's the common sense, while we're at it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

Wrong-- but why let facts get in the way of a supportive Snopes note.

While the Directive got its start under George H.W. Bush, it was heavily modified by Bill Clinton in 1993. The changes were, in fact, so extreme they didn’t even bother highlighting altered portions. The result was Army Regulation 190-14, which was signed into effect in March of 1993 – and reinforced in 2011, and now we have a bunch of trained soldiers running around on post with no greater weapon than a sharp wit.

What's the solution then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

With the stroke of a pen-- (Executive Order) the Commander in Chief could change the policy. Rescind the regulation and restore common sense. These are trained professional personnel tasked with the defense of our nation (your way of life). They should be permitted to defend themselves as well.

Here's another example. "People" get all up in arms about government surveillance. We don't like getting our knacks x-rayed at the airport for all the world to see, we don't like it when the NSA listens to our phone calls or reads our emails....

HOW ABOUT we just leave most folks alone and maybe focus a little attention on say...... ISLAMIC immigrants. Not politically correct, no-- but with just a little common sense applied maybe someone would have noticed that this particular fellow's dad was for a time on the Terrorist Watch List, and that his son was spending months and months overseas in Jordan and Kuwait. Maybe the icky beard was what a professional "watcher" might have recognized as ---- a CLUE. Maybe someone should have looked--- not at EVERYONE'S emails, but THIS guys.

How about we single out LIKELY problems and pay special attention there, instead of grandma in the wheelchair going to Paduka for Thanksgiving.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

With the stroke of a pen-- (Executive Order) the Commander in Chief could change the policy. Rescind the regulation and restore common sense. These are trained professional personnel tasked with the defense of our nation (your way of life). They should be permitted to defend themselves as well.

Here's another example. "People" get all up in arms about government surveillance. We don't like getting our knacks x-rayed at the airport for all the world to see, we don't like it when the NSA listens to our phone calls or reads our emails....

HOW ABOUT we just leave most folks alone and maybe focus a little attention on say...... ISLAMIC immigrants. Not politically correct, no-- but with just a little common sense applied maybe someone would have noticed that this particular fellow's dad was for a time on the Terrorist Watch List, and that his son was spending months and months overseas in Jordan and Kuwait. Maybe the icky beard was what a professional "watcher" might have recognized as ---- a CLUE. Maybe someone should have looked--- not at EVERYONE'S emails, but THIS guys.

How about we single out LIKELY problems and pay special attention there, instead of grandma in the wheelchair going to Paduka for Thanksgiving.

Because only ISLAMIC immigrants are bad, is that right? No American would actually do such a thing, right? Timothy McVeigh is a figment of my imagination, right?

But you're right -- let's watch out for those guys with icky beards. Like these guys:

They'd never do anything wrong, would they, even though they have beards? They're the right color, isn't that it? Is that where your "common sense" is actually coming from?

Edited by Leo Krupe
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Focus.

It might offend you. (I don't care). But when little Johnny Jihad grows a goofy beard and holidays in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and so on.... it's worth keeping an eye on him. Particularly when his daddy donates to known terrorist organizations.

You think otherwise?

You think limited time and resources are better spent watching out for another pasty white boy from Oklahoma?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
owf

"With the stroke of a pen-- (Executive Order) the Commander in Chief could change the policy."

Don't you think that would be better left up to military commanders? I'm sure if they asked Obama would certainly agree.

"Particularly when his daddy donates to known terrorist organizations."

That is a crime. Please offer proof.

"You think limited time and resources are better spent watching out for another pasty white boy from Oklahoma?"

This was indeed terrible but he killed 4 people while Dylan Roof killed 9. Are you willing to say the same about white supremacists? I'd guess mental insanity was very much to blame in both cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

um.... According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

If that isn't clear, I can't help you,

Regarding the father-- he is a muslim fundamentalist accused of physically and sexually assaulting his wife (divorce documents show)-- but maybe you will vouch for his character...

Officials stressed that Abdulazeez' father was one of many people investigated for their funding of overseas charities, especially after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Most of them were never charged with a crime.

According to CNN, Abdulazeez Sr's charitable donations were scrutinized by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI believed the middle eastern groups he was supporting had links to terrorism but ultimately dismissed the case.

They will now re-examine the evidence in light of the terror attack although there is no suggestion Abdulazeez's father had any knowledge about his son's plot.

A longtime friend said Abdulazeez changed after spending time in the Middle East and "distanced himself" for the first few months after returning to Tennessee.

"Something happened over there," Abdulrazzak Brizada told CNN, saying, "he never became close to me like he was before he went overseas... I'm sure he had something that happened to him overseas."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/us/tennessee-naval-reserve-shooting/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
Officials stressed that Abdulazeez' father was one of many people investigated for their funding of overseas charities, especially after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Most of them were never charged with a crime.

Is that because funding overseas charities isn't a crime? Shouldn't we give people with names like Abdulazeez the double bend-over at the airport, coming in from or flying out to faraway places like the Middle East, Jack Skellington?

A longtime friend said Abdulazeez changed after spending time in the Middle East and "distanced himself" for the first few months after returning to Tennessee. "Something happened over there," Abdulrazzak Brizada told CNN, saying, "he never became close to me like he was before he went overseas... I'm sure he had something that happened to him overseas."

If he came back a different person, if his longtime friend is correct, he must have seen things and heard things over there. He came back with motivation to kill. I'd really like to know what the substance of the motivation actually was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/us/chattanooga-gunmans-past-scoured-for-extremist-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1&referrer=

From the New York Times: (aka... the Toilet Paper of Record)

The only run-in Mr. Abdulazeez had with the law in the Chattanooga area appears to have been an April 20, 2015 arrest on a charge of driving while intoxicated; he posted a $2,000 bond.

According to a police affidavit, officers spotted him weaving through downtown Chattanooga after 2 a.m., in a gray 2001 Toyota Camry, and when they pulled him over, they smelled alcohol and marijuana, and he failed a sobriety test. They said his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, he was 'unsteady on his feet,'and he had 'irritated nostrils' and white powder under his nose, which Mr. Abdulazeez said came from snorting crushed caffeine pills.

He was scheduled to appear in court on July 30.

Edited by acidhead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

What's the solution then?

Well Id say arming the MPs would be a good start.

Then putting up REALLY big signs saying in multiple languages "trespassers will be shot. Expamples of trespassers include but are not limited to: People carrying or appearing to carry concealed weapons, people carrying flags non-representative of the United States and its Allies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

MP's are armed, or were when I was in the military. As were the gate guards and people guarding secured areas.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

But MP's are not everywhere. That's like thinking shopping malls are not soft targets because of Mall Cops.

Ever been to Camp Pendleton? Twentynine Palms? They're kind of BIG.

More MP's are not needed. Every Marine is a rifleman. They are trained. They already have the guns. Stop requiring them to relinquish their weapons on Base. It's very simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.