This is topic My latest conspiracy theory in forum Politics forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001118
Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on June 25, 2016, 10:35 AM:
In what seems to be a never ending quest to drive America to its knees, I've struggled to understand why the issue of transgenders and bathrooms was even brought up, to begin with. What the hell is wrong with a country that indoctrinates its people to actually believe that there's no difference between the two sexes?
I wonder if I haven't finally figured that out.
With Obama, it's always been about slight of hand, deception, and diverting our attention from a critical issue by making us look at something much less significant.
It's no secret that Obama considers anti-gun laws to be the mainstay of his legacy. He'd like nothing more than to take away our Second Amendment rights. No further commentary needed.
But, he's smart enough to know that this isn't something he's gonna pull off nationwide in one fell swoop. He knows he needs to test the proverbial waters. Slowly bring the weakest minds to his side of the debate using fear, then swoop in and harvest the low hanging fruit.
The first thing he needs to know is where are the people that will be the easiest to scare. Enter - weak-kneed liberals and candy asses.
How best to separate the fly shit from the pepper - to figure out who are the bible clutching, gun loving misfits - than to do a test run using an issue that your average red neck wouldn't see any reason to be concerned about who sees them speaking out, and who doesn't. After all, even the average mouth breather exercises a certain degree of caution when posting on the interweb, just in case Big Brother is watching. You never know when or how your anti-anti-gun remarks will come back to haunt you.
But, when it comes to allowing some hairy-assed pedophile to swing his junk in the little ladies room, that's something else entirely and, quicker than a NASCAR minute, you have every slack-jawed 'Bama boy railing against gays, lesbians and anyone in between.
Monitor the internet. Locate and document where the preponderance of these remarks is originating from and watch for trends to develop. Chances are, you'll see a lot of little red stick pin icons appearing in places with a lot of dirt between the light bulbs - incandenscent or those fancy, fru-fru fluorescent jobbies.
By using the "anti-dick in the girl's room" number as an index to approximate and illustrate where gun owners gather, seein's how people who like guns typically don't like queers - and you have everything you need to know just where your friends are, and where they aren't.
Again, you won't be able to ban guns nationwide all with one phone call or one swipe of the Obama pen, but by knowing where the fru-fru bunch lives, you can start building momentum. You start in places like CA and the east coast. You pretty much know where to expect resistance and how it will present, because you already saw it with the transgender uproar. You don't care a goddamned bit about queers in the loo, but the information that little experiment gave you is worth its weight in gold bullion and hair extensions when it comers to laying the ground work for coming after guns, and they think we're too stupid to know what they're doing.
Now, why would I even try to connect the LGBTQ bathroom issue with guns? Because this isn't the first time the government has used one aspect of human behavior as a means of extrapolating data to support the study of another.
In the early 1980's, King County, Washington (Seattle) was conducting a number of studies that contributed to much of how trauma management is done today in the EMS setting. Within the context of these studies, one produced a serendipitous discovery that continues to impact you and I today.
The study looked bat victims of car crashes, the severity of their injuries, and seatbelt use. The researchers only wanted to know if a patient was wearing a seatbelt, but the hospitals were also asking standardized questions like whether a patient smoked or not. The auto insurance industry glummed onto the results of this study when they realized that most insured would lie when asked if they wear their seatbelts in order to keep their rates as low as possible. The connection between not wearing a belt and insurance costing more because of the chance of higher medical costs after an accident are logical.
The results were clear: people who smoked were less likely to wear a seatbelt. Therefore, as far as the insurance industry was concerned, smokers were a higher risk. Just ask the applicant if he smokes. He isn't likely to make the connection and is more likely to speak truthfully, telling them that the guy is less likely to wear a belt, ergo, bend him over and stick it in his ass on his premiums.
The point? When you see something in the news that makes you ask, "WTF?", start looking at the other hand because the bastards are up to something.
Posted by Moe (Member # 4494) on June 28, 2016, 12:44 PM:
It isn't just this administration that's done this. The Clintons also used subterfuge to get away with shit. And Republicans, too.
I read the Benghazi report this morning and I'm wondering how much of it was political theater to keep us busy while the party screwed us.
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0