Town Square

Post a New Topic

My Theory about These Obama-Planned "Occupy" Protests...

Original post made by Hope I am wrong on Nov 11, 2011

First, we all know that these Occupy Protests around the US (spreading to other countries) was clandestinely planned by Obama/SEIU/ACORN/Cloward-Piven-ites and other related Obama groups. It is the Alinksy and Cloward-Piven blueprint.

My theory is that these Occupy protests are designed to grow and become more and more violent each month up to next November just prior to the election. These Occupiers will try to raise hell at the election sites.

Obama, sensing election defeat and to create maximum chaos using the Occupy violence as an excuse, will then declare "martial law" and will attempt to call off the elections.

This will create even more chaos.

Maximum chaos is his intent...so that the citizens will look for immediate Federal intervention to stop the chaos.

This is pure marxist Alinsky and Cloward-Piven. i.e. Obama's bibles and playbook.

Buckle your seatbelt for a rocky 2012.

For the sake of America in general and for our children in particular, I sure hope I am wrong.

Comments (43)

Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Are you wrong? Yes

Are you a complete idiot? Yes


Posted by hope i am wrong, a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:13 pm

wow mr. slippers. you have such a tremendous way of persuading others to your view given your brilliant economy of thought.

now would you care to tell me where my theory may break down? after all, obama has sided with the marxist anti-capitalist protestors, he believes strongly in alinsky and used to teach the ACORN community organizers alinsky's "rules for radicals," and he has stated the he is intent on "fundamentally transforming america."

i am open to hear your constructive criticism.




Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:22 pm

OK, "hope I am wrong", here's my honest constructive criticism: You're really going off the deep end here and you need to seek out some professional help.


Posted by clink, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:23 pm

Hope, I sure have to tell you that when it comes to fabricating the most arcane, absurd and close to schizophrenic notions about politics, you post takes the cake.

But on the other hand, I would sure love to hear your comments on the Repubs like Cain (womanizer), Perry (duh! I forgot what I was talking about) and the others. A sad sack of potential candidates I have every seen. I guess the one that strikes me more like you is Michelle Bachmann (Obama is at fault for everything, including the rain, the fact my grass isn't cut, and my campaign is in the toilet).

Just remember folks, ol' Obama is responsible for everything, absolutely everything wrong. Mental decay like Hope here doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Hey, and I'm not an Obama fan either. I just think malarkey needs fumigating.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm

I don't know that Obama has much to worry about. The Republican candidates, so far, are either not someone I would vote for or have no chance of getting the nomination. Your scenario is possible, I suppose, but not probable.


Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm

Hope I'm Wrong, the depth of your conspiracy driven paranoia is frightening. Would it matter to you that guys like Colin Powell support the OWS movement? Or is he just an Obama apologist?

Get some help, soon.


Posted by Republican, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm

Hope, you are right...occupy actually announced last night it was going to become a leftist political body...no surprise with SEIU
and other union groups, started with nurses, now striking teachers.
Kathleen, you are the the scary religious crusaders and bigots, who are a minority but the most vocal in the rep party would rather have Obama than vote for a Mormon, although the most competent, educated, and experienced candidate in quite some time.
If he's nominated by mainstream, the zealots will vote against him in Nov to insure he will not be elected. Obama is safe ! !


Posted by Hope I am wrong, a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:28 pm

Dear "A Neighbor"...
I have respect for Colin Powell's military service to America.
However, I have ZERO respect for his politics.
Tho he states he is a republican, there is absolutely zero evidence of this from his various leftist positions and Obama worshipping.

So save me from your Colin Powell BS.

May I suggest pulling your head out of the mainstream media sand and find out what is really happening to America, its Constitution, our freedoms, our national defense, our (growing lack of) energy independence, the debt that we and our children are facing, etc. under this absolute anti-American President bent on the destruction of this country (and succeeding in this effort thanks in large part to people like you who are oblivious).


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm

Neither party sufficiently represents my views. If the Libertarians could come up with a real candidate, then maybe. I don't like Romney because I don't like many of his policies. That simple. Religion will never be part of my concerns.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Mormonism, witchcraft and voodooism, snake worship, apocalypse-right-around-the-corner millenialism, Satanic child-beating cultism, UFO abductees.... Let me tell ya, all that doesn't concern me. Religion will never be any part of my concerns when considering a presidential candidate. We just need govt out of our lives.


Posted by So, ok..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:46 pm

"First, we all know that these Occupy Protests around the US (spreading to other countries) was clandestinely planned by Obama/SEIU/ACORN/Cloward-Piven-ites and other related Obama groups. It is the Alinksy and Cloward-Piven blueprint."

I do not know this to be a truth. Dear "I Hope I am Wrong": can you please provide me evidence of this "truth" that you think "we all" hold as self-evident?

Please?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 pm

Jane/Dean--You're back as Mr. Slippers-how fun is that! What is so difficult to understand? Who cares what religion a candidate practices--the important thing is whether the teachings of _name that church_ creep into policies. And then, I'm voting on the policies. Here's the list--were the religions the thing we remember about any of them other that JFK?

List of Presidential religious affiliations (by religion)

Baptist:
Warren Harding
Harry Truman
Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist)
Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)
Congregationalist
Calvin Coolidge
John Adams (later Unitarian)
Disciples of Christ
James Garfield
Lyndon Johnson
Ronald Reagan (also Presbyterian)
Dutch Reformed
Martin Van Buren
Theodore Roosevelt
Episcopalian:
George Washington
James Madison
James Monroe
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush (later Methodist)
Methodist:
James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
Ulysses Grant (allegedly; his theology is unknown)
William McKinley
George W. Bush (originally Episcopalian)
Presbyterian:
Andrew Jackson
James Polk (later Methodist)
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan (also Disciples of Christ)
Quaker:
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Roman Catholic:
John F. Kennedy
Unitarian:
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
United Church of Christ
Barack Obama (later no affiliation)
Note that the 1957 merger which formed the U.C.C. included the Congregational Christian Churches.
No denominational affiliation:
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
Barack Obama (previously United Church of Christ)


Posted by Hope I am wrong, a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 11, 2011 at 8:59 pm

Dear So Ok...

I don't have time to spoon-feed those who only watch the Obama-controlled mainstream media news.

So I will only give one source below...

Web Link

If you haven't heard, ACORN IS/WAS OBAMA. He was an ACORN instructor and their legal representative. ACORN's unwritten objective and goal is to build more democrat voters and votes by any means necessary...most of which are illegal. ACORN is also a means for community agitation, intimidation, corruption and worse.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm

Jan and Dean? Isn't that an old rock group?

I was merely pointing out that voting for a candidate solely on his or her proposed policies indicates a tad bit of simplicity on the part of he or she who would adhere to such.

When thinking about a candidate for president, it would be naive not to look at, say, Herb Cain's alleged penchant for groping and actual penchant of degrading women, or Michelle Bachmann's apparently relgiously based belief that homosexuality is a curable disease, or Sarah Palin's religious belief (wedded somehow to a voodooist cult -- see her being purged of witches in her 'church') that dinosaurs and Adam and Eve co-existed, or Santorum's strict adherence to the very worst tenets of Catholicism. The list goes on.... (See Perry's stupidity, Gingrich's morality in his relationships with wives, Paul's one-rutted road paved with insanity. Have I left out any of the buffoons?)

If we weren't concerned about matters of character, moral judgment, cognitive independence from a cult religion or a pope, we wouldn't have the candidates debate. We'd simply look at how they voted on one policy or another in the past, and then go to their websites to learn what policies they _claim_ they might wish to promote in the future.

I'm not strictly against a candidate being religious, though I do think it implies a disturbing cognitive-moral weakness. But if in times of crisis they fall back on a god for guidance, I don't want it to be a god that tells them to invade Iraq and lie about it so as to pull it off; nor do I want it to be a long-johns wearing, supporter of polygamy and child abuse whose adherents stopped engaging in such only because of relatively weak secular state intervention. To ignore such matters is, again, a wee bit naive. But I guess it's easier to count presidents and their religions and count up their policy stances than to actually think through the moral foundations of their _alleged_ policy positions.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm

Correction:

"relatively _recent_ secular state intervention."


ps Dear "Hope I am wrong". I doubt you mean that. But then again, being the idiot that you are....


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm

Not naive. Of course I look at the whole, just haven't found that religious preference has weighed in very high. As you perhaps inadvertently point out, candidates show their true colors in many other ways.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm

Always happy to have helped you better clarify some of your more simplistic remarks. You might consider reading up on Mormonism, its history and its current doctrine.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 11, 2011 at 10:43 pm

Thank you, "Hope I am wrong but too idiotic to realize I actually hope I'm right." Your idiocy knows no bounds, as now you have resorted to a threat of violence.

This is precisely why the vast majority of the tens of thousands of posters on these sites do not post their real names. This "Hope" guy is one of yours, Kath.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jane,

Boy, did you miss a big chance there to bring up Perry's religious affiliation. Web Link


Posted by Republican, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2011 at 12:09 am

Thanks much Stacey for the link. Yes Perry's good 'huggin buddy' the puckered pursed lips of Rev Jefress, made it very clear at 'Values Voters' political strategy planning convention how they wouldn't vote for Romney. He repeated judgemental evangelicals do not consider Romney a Christian....The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. Never mind that out of the entire slate Romney is the only truly competent, educated, experienced, and squeeky clean personal life. Instead, the bigotry of Rev Jefress, and the mean bi*** on Fox will not vote for him in Nov. They would rather have one of the clowns, and keep Obama. These zealots are so bad for the country, which obviously they do not care about....very sick minds.
They would rather have Cains personal shortcomings, and Newt's 3 marriages. Hypocrisy ???


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 12, 2011 at 6:26 am

I was clear. Is this a full moon thing?


Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2011 at 9:38 am

Dear Posters, it is time to ignore Hope I am Wrong and not respond to any more of his baiting. Threatening violence against Mr. Slippers on this thread is unacceptable, and he needs to be shunned.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 13, 2011 at 7:30 am

A Neighbor, not at all in favor of violence, but you need to catch up on Mr. Slippers as Jane or Dean or many other names used. Just an FYI.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm

Like I say, Kath, this "Hope" guy is one of yours.

You say you're "not in favor of violence, but...." "But" what? Just what are you saying, Kath? Sounds like a strongly implied endorsement of "Hope's" threat of violence to me. As I and others have stated, you seem to be in serious need of a moral compass.

Oh, and you seem to be just peachy when someone like "Hope I'm Wrong" doesn't reveal his actual name. It's only Mr. Slippers who you seem so intent on identifying. Methinks you may be as sick as "Hope I'm Wrong" is.


Posted by Republican, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm

...and all that prayin' at Perry's tent revival, just days before entering the race, hasn't protected him from making frequent boo-boos. Most of the boos-boos could have been avoided if he had a full understanding with personal positions. But, it all comes from his advisors coaxing, reviewing, and he forgets because they weren't his original thoughts. Then when he does have notes to read, you recall how he stumbed in a debate by interchanging 'scrapping and scraping', which proved they were NOT HIS thoughts, just attempting to read what staff had written for him.
He still doesn't get it ...he's NOT in Texas anymore ! ! AND, he's not ready for the big time or a big TENT, (beyond revival) ! He's just hiring more minions to spout his religious bigotry for him, but now I think it's spreading to a wider range of issues.


Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Kathleen, I do not care what Mr. Slippers's legal name is, and neither should you. He was the target of a clear threat of violence made by Hope I am Wrong, period. You cannot blame the victim here, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm

You guys need to get over yourselves, in spite of mr. Slippers impending demise.
Mr slippers is a cats name and sometimes cats fight with horrible consequences.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm

Mr. Slippers, You should know all you do is insult people, and then you wonder why someone would appear to threaten you. Nonsense. What others? My compass teaches me that a discussion does not require implied threat nor demeaning someone for holding a different viewpoint.

A Neighbor, I don't think it was a clear threat, but I truly would not accept it as a reasonable approach, even to an objectionable person.


Posted by Big Poppa, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 13, 2011 at 7:35 pm

This thread need to go back on target and I'm the one to do it.

Hey Occupy Oakland, the hammer is gonna drop tonight so you better leave or batton down the hatches cause there's a world of hurt coming and it couldn't happen to a better bunch of scumbags.


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm

I was the first to respond to the psychologically imbalanced "Hope I'm Wrong." Probably should have left the sicko to wallow in his own malaise.

Still, a threat is a threat. And Kath's strongly implied endorsement of the threat, then her weak denial, then her most recent attempt to dissemble, combined with her political allies, Steve and Big Poppa, all point to a rather gleeful receptance to violence against those they disagree with. To Kath, Hope, Steve, and Big Poppa, I think you're all pretty disgusting human beings.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

So what you're saying, Mr. Neighbor Jane Slippers, is that only you are allowed to engage in insulting and uncivil discourse on this site? Perhaps you should lighten up and allow for all manner of rhetorical style and stop trying to censor others with calls to shun them.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

After all, it's only anonymous posters who are writing.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:24 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Given that OWS has been going on for more than a month now, one does have to wonder when the Obama administration is going to start standing up for the 99%. Instead, Obama's administration is pushing for California to accept the settlement over the mortgage abuses perpetrated by the banks. Here's hoping that Kamala Harris continues to hold out.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm

I reported the threat to the edit.

The OP's IP address should be blocked.

Mike


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:37 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Ah Mike, a man of action!


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Mr. Slippers, I said, more than once, that violence was an unacceptable reaction, even for the likes of you. You consistently use derision and feign surprise that others react in equal measure. Tell the other posters the truth; this isn't even an implied threat because you don't live in Ruby Hill.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Kathleen,

I'm sure Jane will find a way to rationalize it in order to save face.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:16 am

Friends,

This is an Internet discussion board.

Say it with me, "This is an Internet discussion board."

Anyone who becomes emotional involved enough to post a threat needs to stay away from the medium.

Mike


Posted by Mr. Slippers, a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 14, 2011 at 4:59 am

And now we have Stacey, predictably, casting her lot with Kath and the rest of the morally depraved who threaten others with violence or who advocate the use of violence against others. Neither seems to be able to discern a difference between the use of derision -- "How idiotic!" -- and a threat of violence. Kath, for example, claims that a threat is merely to "react in equal measure" to an act of derision. Oh, and then she claims that a threat cannot be a threat when the person who is threatened has provided a fictional address. The moral deficit in someone advancing such claims couldn't be clearer.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:02 am

Slip, You provoke; there is potential for a reaction; you know it. I'm going to assert (taking an example from you here) that you like to push the limits so you can blather on about, well, everything.

Hope posts an improbable scenario. You are pleased "to be the first" to call Hope an "idiot." It devolves from there. One could interpret the request to meet "face to face" comment literally, and there is no threat because you are both anonymous. Probably not accurate. One can also take the other extreme, as you have, and infer a real and present danger. Also inaccurate--you don't live there and few know who you are. Both parties are behaving poorly, and I defend neither of you.

If you feel derision is perfectly acceptable, that is what would point to moral deficit.


Posted by Joe1195, a resident of Siena
on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:27 am

Joe1195 is a registered user.

Whew! So many comments. I'm not going to read through all of them---too much work. I just want to say that I agree with the original post.


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 14, 2011 at 8:46 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Good news, the flea party Occupy Oakland squatters are being rousted out of Frank Ogawa plaza as we speak. Ms. Slippers was seen running with her sleeping bag to Snow Park to scratch out a spot in the loose dirt there.
This 'movement' is now circling the drain, as expected.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 14, 2011 at 10:12 am

Stacey is a registered user.

This is an Internet discussion board with anonymous and unverified posters who regularly abuse the anonymity that this site affords them. I have a history here of denouncing the use of uncivil rhetorical styles like name-calling, calumniating, derision, and threats and Jane called my efforts censorship. Now it seems like Jane is too emotionally sensitive and gets bent out of shape when someone else uses uncivil rhetorical styles on an anonymous Internet discussion board. So why would Jane call Hope an idiot and advocate the use of such rhetoric herself? It's a propaganda tactic that works to fool readers into believing her propaganda. Remember, Jane never denounced the Occupy violence. Has Jane fooled you yet, reader?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

The Gay Rights Movement Coming of Age
By Tom Cushing | 32 comments | 1,273 views

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 6 comments | 1,056 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 477 views