jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (47 posts)

Could Barack Obama turn out to be one of our greatest presidents?

  1. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're still in their presidency. It takes perspective and time to provide a proper evaluation. Anything else is just politics. The second caveat is that the economy needs to keep growing.

    Having said that, if the economy keeps growing along with the stock market, Obama will complete his second term with some fairly impressive accomplishments. Since a president is generally regarded based on how the economy does during his presidency, Obama should receive high marks. Further, Osama Bin Laden was killed during his presidency, which will be looked on favorably. Finally, and perhaps more than any president before him, Obama has been doing this with a Congressional opposition that is near unified in opposing everything and anything that he does.

    While I think the notion will drive many Republicans crazy, those simple qualifications may go down in history very favorably. What do you think (trying to put partisanship aside as much as possible)?

    1. 59
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Partisan question to start.  What economic growth?  2% growth is little more than an inventory adjustment.  Obviously not an economist.  As for the Stock Market - the Fed has the spigot all the way open monetizing the debt - Obama's debt.  Of course Obama will be holding hands with FDR, JFK and LBJ because hack partisan historians like Doris Kearns Goodwyn will write the history, hack partisan historians will repeat it and journalists will re-enforce it.  It is not the truth that stands the test of time, it is the established mythology - the secular scripture - that stands the test of time and American historians are the myth makers and evangelists.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Surely he would only be considered great if he was assassinated?

      Please be aware I am not advocating that Obama be assassinated, its merely a point of view from a historical perspective

      1. Sychophantastic profile image84
        Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Kennedy's legacy has been widely re-evaluated by historians, so no.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's easy to reevaluate 40 or 50 years along in history but of the era he was considered great.
          Great men are  perceived by the public not by historians or the media. (Although the media play a huge part in modern times)

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I bet Kennedy's pool of Washington call girls thought he was great.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you think they cried when he was assassinated then?

              Not far from where I work in Birmingham (UK) there is a mosaic in homage to Kennedy, they moved it from a subway they pulled down. It seems there are still some who think he was a great man.

              1. 59
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or is it a public rendezvous spot for those publicly commemorating Clinton's greatest accomplishment.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know!
                  Men who seek greatness (politicians) rarely achieve it.

                  It looks nice and gives somewhere for those stumbling out of the Irish centre to have a piss whilst waiting for a taxi.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Out of 16 rankings of Kennedy reported by Wikipedia the highest was 6 out of 41 (NYTimes) and the lowest 18th (Wall Street Journal). He is widely recognized for resisting most of his advisers in the Cuba crisis and reaching a peaceful compromise. He was also a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament and made some progress on it as I recall.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He was also both for and against coal power. 

            He was also both for and against nuclear power.

            He was also for closing Guantanamo Bay, but he hasn't done it yet.

            He was also for reducing the debt, but he sure hasn't done it yet.

            He was for the middle class, but studies and polls confirm that the middle class has taken a beating under his "leadership."

            I'm not impressed.  In my book, anybody, either republican or democrat, who makes as many dishonest, wishy-washy pledges deserves to be low on the list.  Is he the worst?  I don't know.  Other presidents have made campaign promises they didn't keep too.   Wasn't Obama supposed to be different?  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

            The man still has 3.5 years to prove himself; for our sake, I hope he does some good.  What is his signature legislation, Obamacare?  I sure hope he fixes that debacle and improves his standing among other presidents.  I have no desire to watch our country fall further just to see President Obama go down with us.  Still, I can't see, for the life of me, how or why anybody would rate him that high.

            Was that nuclear disarmament mutual or only America's disarmament?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Is he the worst?  I don't know."

              That is ridiculous.

              "He was also for closing Guantanamo Bay, but he hasn't done it yet."

              He has been blocked by Congress and by several states who didn't want the prisoners. 

              "Was that nuclear disarmament mutual or only America's disarmament?"

              As I recall, Kennedy got Russia and a number of other countries to agree to a ban on nuclear testing and, later, a reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles. (I haven't researched this.)

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I believe you are referring to a ban on above-ground nuclear testing.

                Kennedy was a leader.  Obama is no Kennedy.  I doubt Obama has the ability or desire to turn his proposed disarmament of America into something that will actually result in a safer world.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Proposed disarmament of America?

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Google "Obama nuclear disarmament."  You'll find many articles.  There are recent articles from CBS, The Economist, and U.S. News and World Report.

    3. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While Obama will always be remembered as being the first black President, other than killing bin Laden, I think his foray in the White House will be remembered as being on of the worst in recent history.

      I think his biggest detractor will be the health plan. That was a mistake from the get-go and he knows it. He just issued another year waiver for employers. Nevermind that his supporters have already been waiting five years for healthcare - he pushed the implementation of the bad bill back another year because businesses were already laying off workers and cutting their hours.

      To make matters worse - he did NOT waive the individual mandate. That means that every worker that was looking forward to getting a health plan from their employer in a few months must now fork over the bucks to buy it themselves.

      And, despite the NYC "news" claiming lower premiums, many states have reported premiums increases over 100%.

      That will hit Obama's legacy where he lives.

      I'm not going to call Obama a traitor like Lonestar did - but he DID violate the War Powers Resolution and the drone killings of Americans overseas is not going to be remembered fondly.

      The second biggest mistake that I think will cause folks to remember Obama in a poor light is his involvement in the Middle East. Ouch! He's really screwed the pooch on that one. Mistakes in Egypt, Libya and Syria. His ideas have resulted in massive destabilization of the region. The biggest results from those errors will be seen in two to three years.

      Then, there is the increased racial division in our nation. His comments about "stupid" police and how he could have been Trayvon fanned the flames of racism.

      No - history will not remember Obama kindly.

      1. crankalicious profile image88
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree with a lot of this, but I respect the tone.

        Every president has violated the War Powers resolution since it was enacted (I'm exaggerating a bit). But Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr., Clinton, all violated it.

        Remember that some kind of national health care has been an interest of a majority of Americans for some time and that Obama may get more credit for starting the conversation than you think. If the public wants it, and it turns out to have beneficial application, it will be viewed positively. There's lots of good stuff in Obamacare that's helping a lot of people.

        The Middle East has been a mess for a long time and saying that Obama destabilized the region when Bush went into Iraq unprovoked and changed the balance of power there is crazy. I wouldn't really use the Middle East as a stick on any president because it's so combustible there. You really think given the push toward democracy across the Middle East that that movement is going to hurt Obama's legacy? I doubt it.

        1. crankalicious profile image88
          crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I should take back the word "unprovoked". He started a war based on false assumptions.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image89
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        G-day Mr. Thiname. Thank you for sharing your opinions about the historical legacy of Barack Obama's Presidentcy. If I may, I would like to respectfully disagree.

        You begin with “[Obamacare] was a mistake from the get-go and he [Obama] knows it.”

        You claim to be clairvoyant. You don't really know what the President is thinking. Do you? Otherwise, please tell us when President Obama told you he knew the ACA was a mistake. Claiming to know what the President is thinking reveals a glaring lack of the skills needed to predict how the future would view his administration.

        Following this incredible beginning is a highly misleading, cynical, and unbalanced evaluation designed to ignore the positive aspects of his administration. Such negative reporting leads me to suspect an ulterior motive.

        Most Americans are better informed and they are aware of the positive impact Barrack Obama has had on this country since 2009. I do not have the time to correct all of the false claims but I will address the most glaring omission here.

        You said:
        “I think his foray in the White House will be remembered as being on[e] of the worst in recent history… history will not remember Obama kindly.” roll

        Permit me to remind you that President Obama entered the oval office back in 2009 after inheriting the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. How odd that you did not mention the economy once in your negative appraisal of his administration. Please allow me to provide a few facts you conveniently overlooked:

        … Driven by steady positive economic trends, the economy has been pressing against historical peak levels since May 2013 with the Dow and S&P 500 actually reaching new highs never seen before August 1, 2013. {1}

        … The Labor Department reported the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits fell to a five-year low confirming the job market’s steady improvement since President Obama took office.

        … The Institute for Supply Management published its monthly manufacturing sentiment index revealing the highest level in two years. Expectations in the manufacturing sector continue to run high.

        … GM, Ford, Chrysler Group, and Toyota, the nation's four largest automakers, had their best July since before the 2007 recession. Consumer confidence has been restored.

        … U.S. New Home Sales surged 8.3 percent, the highest in five years signaling resurgence in the housing industry. {2}

        … Small Businesses indicate a 7 percent increase regarding plans to hire new workers and a 23 percent increase in plans to make major capital expenditures.

        I could go on and on about the economic gains you seem to have missed. President Obama has navigated the nation out of the worst economic downturn in 75 years and all you can say is “history will not remember Obama kindly.”   That claim is highly improbable.
        {1} http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/investi … index.html
        {2} http://thesupportcenter-nc.org/blog/sma … ic-trends/

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Moreover, nobody can take away from him the fact that he is the first African-American president. This automatically puts him in history along with the greatest African-Americans. Although his accomplishments have already been quite significant (ending the war in Iraq and winding down Afghanistan, reviving the Palestine-Israel peace talks, repairing the Bush damage to U.S. relationships with other countries,  averting a depression and of course health care reform, the dream of every Democratic president since Truman) its a bit early to predict his rank in history as a president.

      I'll leave it to the Republicans, Tea Partiers and Libertarians to point out the downsides of Obama's presidency.

    5. pramodgokhale profile image60
      pramodgokhaleposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is strange that some guys have extreme views and then it is unfair to discuss. Discussion should be without bias and prejudice if not then it is waste of time.
      I am an Indian, we welcome him and two term presidency is a honor and Afro American reached paramount and given a chance by American citizens.I appreciate democratic Americans for their virtues. his regime is mixed with good and bad but after great depression he might be only president who faced economic crisis. By stimulus offering to giant US corporations he saved many jobs.
      I do not know what qualities Americans expected from him and governance too.
      If he is first black president in history then he is certainly great president.

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The mindset represented in this single statement probably best explains how it is he ever became president in the first place, as well as how he could be re-elected with such a horrible performance in his first term.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent comment!

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "If he is first black president in history then he is certainly great president."

          Saying somebody is great simply because of the color of their skin seems exceedingly wrong.  I understand that you might believe that the election of a black person was a great, groundbreaking event, but that doesn't mean that the candidate is good simply because of the color of his skin.

          Saying somebody had an excellent comment when they praise a person's performance based on his skin color and the erroneous "fact" that he was the only president to have to deal with an economic crisis in the last seventy years seems to be wrongheaded, to be euphemistically pleasant.

      3. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "his regime is mixed with good and bad but after great depression he might be only president who faced economic crisis. "

        The Great Depression did not occur under the Bush or Obama administration; many economic crises occurred between the end of the Great Depression and the beginning of Obama's term.  No economist would ever agree with your statement about this being the first economic crisis in roughly seventy years.  The POTUS was certainly not the only president who faced an economic crisis.  Your statement is factually as far from reality as it can be. 

        Before a liberal, progressive, or socialist pipes in on this issue, please note that I am not trying to detract from how significant the economic crisis is/was.  That, however, does not mean that other presidents, both republican and democrat, did not have to deal with real, serious economic issues too.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Nah, he's just mediocre, and that's how he'll be remembered. The major things that will go in the history books is that he ordered the mission that killed Bin Laden and he's black.

  3. donotfear profile image89
    donotfearposted 3 years ago

    Could Barack Obama turn out to be one of our greatest presidents?

    Only in the eyes of his beholders......


    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So true!
      Some will believe he's great, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

      Well..........I think he's "great" too.    I call him the Great Misleader.     "Great" doesn't always mean "good".

  4. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    Odd, how none of these answers engages the question at all.

    Try looking at it from a strictly objective perspective. The man took office when the country and the economy was in terrible shape and he's mostly turned that around. Whether you credit him or not, it's generally the President who gets credit for such things. The country has prospered greatly under his presidency despite a complete lack of cooperation in Congress. If you want to argue that he won't go down in history as a great president, you then have to ascribe the improvement in the economy to something else.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What improvement would that be?
      In what area has America "prospered greatly" under Obama??
      How is the economy any better?

  5. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    Are you kidding?

    Job growth has been consistent. Housing market has rebounded. Stock market has doubled.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That can't be...

      I could swear that Fox News labeled him as a socialist. Aren't they the thought leaders in this country?


    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I must've missed those stats on how much everything has improved!  wink
      I haven't heard anything about job growth being consistent!    Well....hmm.....I reckon it has IF you count all the new appointees of Obama's!   I'm trying to remember how many people he's hired or will hire to enforce his infamous "healthcare" bill.

      Part of the point is------things haven't changed in my area that I can tell, and I've heard no good news about job growth like you're suggesting.    And the housing market looks no better from here.   
      As far as economy boost,  I think it's more that people just have decided to try to deal with their finances and are trying to cut down expenses while they pay on their new credit debt from having to buy new cars since Obama's succeeded in getting the older more- affordable models off the road.
      And I wonder if you're calculating in the number of people who've been added to the government assistance programs.   And the number of people who've filed bankruptcy!

    3. 59
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. crankalicious profile image88
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good sources!

  6. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 3 years ago

    you make valid points Crank.... in the long term as this plays out over time, he may well get a more favorable rating in historical terms,... those who despise him will always despise him,... all presidents have thier haters and lovers,...

    truman was a personal favorite of mine, coming from my home satate and having that "buck stops here"... no bulls**t  attitude, but his handling of the fledgling cold war was abysmal in hindsight,... 

    everybody and i mean EVERYBODY liked Ike, but he had the blessing of presiding over a booming economy in a time of relative peace, through no doing of his own (unless you count silly little things like forming international aliances and winning wars, trivial things) .....

    johnson had the nerve to pay more than just lip service to kennedys vision for fairness and equality, but there will always be those who judge johnson solely on his stance on vietnam, and those historians who mock the bully he was on a personal level, while his fan base will always see the bully as a "giant of a man" with bravado....

    to be brutaly honest the best thing kennedy did for his long standing reputation was get shot.... escalating vietnam, the bay of pigs, his handling of moscow, his handling of hoover and the FBI,... and lets not cover other things,... he's dead,... its tragic,... and magic,... he's instantly great.

    all presindents get evaluated in real time, but the evaluation 20 years after the fact are often very different,.... and sometimes it can take half a century or longer for even the historians to let go of the mystique and examine the reality of the man (or woman) in office.

    to give you a shorter answer,.... as much as it will set my fellow republicans on FIRE,.... yea,... i think the economics alone if nothing else will get him high  marks.

    1. 59
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      egregious and woefully inaccurate

      1. stclairjack profile image78
        stclairjackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        explain please which points were inacurate?... and which ones were woefully so,... and which were agregious

  7. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago


    Thoughtful analysis, sir. Much appreciated. I agree on much of what you said. Judging Kennedy solely on his accomplishments doesn't yield a lot. He is mostly judged on his vision and what he talked about doing rather than what he did. After all, he destabilized Vietnam by allowing regime change and is largely responsible for Vietnam. Also agree about Johnson - a hugely interesting figure, but a bully for sure. My question is largely based on the assumption of continued economic improvement. If that doesn't come, well, then things will likely be different.

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      indeed,.. the math needs to hold out for him in order for historians to be kind to him,.. on many internal social issues he has at least tried, but at times it seems like the runt trying hard for the football team,... he still drops the ball.... thier is an entire cross secction of the nation that not only doesnt connect with him, they are intentionaly, near violently dissconected from him,... many because of his color, just be honest about it.

      and another large section of the nation that connects with him despite reason and logic, inspite of thier own intuition that tells them otherwise, embracing him as thier standard bearer, even if they have to force the staff into his white knuckled hands,...

      and yet one more cross section of the nation that is dissconnected period,.... they dont care, they dont know,... and they dont care to know.

      myself, i couldnt care less if he were purple with green dots in a rash about his cheecks and neck,.. ive watched enough star trek to be cool with that, and in reality, i think thats an apropriate refference,.... hes not really from my planet.

      stick with me, theres a point to this besides revealing my secret treky status,... hes like a strange hybrid beeing that just cant quite belong in any one place,... hes not black enough for some, not white enough for others,.. too educated for some,... too elite and too gheto all at the same time,.... its as if he were enginered to please all peoples at all times, and cannot be blamed for trying so very hard to do as he was designed,.... but in the end he has pleased none of the people quite enough,... least of all himself.

      i pitty him,... he has become an icon while still breathing, and smothering under the weight of it,.... i suspect that the nation will not truly begin to know the real Mr Obama as a person until he leaves office,... and has the freedom to let the world get to know him,.... that is, if he has had the chance to figure that out for himself yet,.... he appears, to my untrained eye, to be a living breathing identity crisis.

  8. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    crankalicious, I love history, and I understand your caveat about the objectivity of distance in time to evaluate a president.

    I'm afraid your take is entirely BS. Why?

    Most importantly, Obama has committed treason on numerous occasions and most of it has not appeared in the Corporate Party news media. And why would that be? Because the Corporate Party has bought and paid for the government (the government belongs to the Corporate Party; not the people). The government has increasingly been doing the bidding of the Corporate Party.

    Let me give you an example:

    Obama promised to restore habeas corpus (a key tenet of the founding documents he swore to protect, as did Bush). Was habeas corpus fully restored? No! In fact, the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been further eroded by the legislation Obama signed -- NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses (no charges, no hearing, no attorney, no trial, no phone call), HR 347 which gives the government the ability to arrest someone and lock them up for 10 years for speaking out or for wearing an offensive t-shirt.

    But not only that, Obama has his "Kill List," which is about the most unAmerican thing any president has ever done. He even has Americans on that list! And Obama said last year that of the Gitmo prisoners, they should be kept there indefinitely, even if found innocent! And this silver-tongued devil was going to close Gitmo immediately upon entering office in 2009. Guilty even after being found innocent?

    Obama attacked Libya without provocation and against the Constitution! Again, treason! He bypassed Congress. He said he wouldn't use signing statements, but he continues to do so, effectively creating law and bypassing Congress.

    When a judge blocked Obama on the indefinite detention clauses in the NDAA, the White House fought back. Why?

    These are just a few of the examples of what Obama has done. Pure treason!

    Osama bin Laden killed during Obama's watch? You are deluded. You believe the government because they told you? They showed no photographs or video. They disposed of his body in the ocean. They didn't even take the time to interrogate the supposed mastermind to get more information that could help us. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb! And many of the special team that raided Bin Laden's compound subsequently died in a freak helicopter crash. Every video of Bin Laden since 9/11 shows him with a slightly different face and getting younger and younger (different look-alikes?).

    Bin Laden said repeatedly, after 9/11, that he didn't do it! The US government's so called "proof" was a mistranslation. And we based policy on this lie. We also did other things because of lies.

    Also, there is insurmountable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Don't look to the Corporate Party press for details on this. They're too happy to paint any disagreement with the dismissive term "conspiracy theorist," as if facts are "theory" and as if there has never been a real conspiracy in the history of humanity. How quaint.

    Mayor Giuliani committed a felony by having the largest crime scene in American history cleaned up -- over a year before any investigation could be carried out. And the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," according to one of the co-chairs (Hamilton).

    And there have been many whistleblowers about the government's crimes besides Snowden. Check out Lindauer and Drake, both of whom were imprisoned without due process -- with charges that were so secret even they didn't know what they were. And Obama wants to paint whistleblowers as "traitors." Manning is still in prison and he is a national hero -- a true patriot.

    crankalicious, if any true history survives this tyranny, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter and likely others will be labeled as traitors, selling out to the globalist (not American) corporations.

    Perhaps it's telling that when Nelson Rockefeller was being vetted for the VP job, he pleaded ignorance when asked about his company's treasonous sale of materials to the enemy in North Vietnam. His family is behind much of the war in the last century. His family (as well as the Bush family) contributed to the Nazis. I suppose they wanted their testing ground for tyranny. They learned a lot from the Gestapo and the death camps.

    Now, we've had our own Reichstag fire (9/11). The public has reacted to that manufactured "problem," and they had a pre-packaged solution (unPatriot Act, which Obama renewed, contrary to his promises). We've had our Sudetenland and our Poland (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya).

    A year before 9/11, Nick Rockefeller told the late Aaron Russo what the Rockefeller family and others had planned. A big event would allow them to take Iraq and Afghanistan for their oil possibilities (oil fields and pipeline right-of-way). Ultimately, they planned to have us all microchipped so that we could be controlled. Our identities, our bank accounts and our lives would be in those microchips. And they would have the power to turn off any microchip.

    This group of Corporate globalists bought the elections. They own both parties. And Obama said to ignore any talk of "conspiracies." This is exactly what a tyrannical and secretive government would say. Jack Kennedy said the opposite.

    And even in the last election, voting died. There are YouTube videos which show motions being made and voted upon, but the votes were ignored in favor of the script. In the Republican presidential convention, the speaker completely ignored the audience. In the Democratic convention, the speaker (mayor of L.A.) became confused, because the script did not match what the voting had turned out to be. He took the vote 3 times -- each time inconclusive by voice, normally demanding a count. No count was done.

    crankalicious, don't take my word for it. I hope you will investigate these things. Find the YouTube videos and dig deep. Yes, there's garbage out there, but there's also hard hitting, investigative journalism that has not made the mainstream. For instance, check out Ben Swann, formerly of WXIX and his Reality Check. Check out Judge Napolitano (not of DHS).

    1. MC Rocks profile image60
      MC Rocksposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Its pointless. The more you tell these people the truth the more retaliation you'll get. Talking of retaliation, last night I was watching G.I. Joe: Retaliation. It started of good but 20 minutes into it, it just got ridiculous.  It had me laughing. Not even 20 minutes in and they start hammering the reason why they spent millions to make that film. I am sure, a man like you who obviously likes to form his own opinions and base judgement after viewing both side of the story from alternative outlets, would also realize the extent TV, movies and music are used to not only dumb down but to pre-expose people to a planned event so that the brainwashing would allow them to easily accept a given future happening like they did with 9-11. 

      The word has been out a long time. In order to have complete globalized dictatorship, the goal is to leave no rival nation with the capability to cause serious damage to Israel when the curtain of self-engineered wars comes down.  After-all Israel will be the torch-bearer once America collapses at the hand of its traitors.  However, there is only one country in the Islamic world that would be a problem and that is Pakistan.  Even though Pakistan is poor economically and has been prostituted by corrupt leaders for mere dollars for decades, its nuclear threat still makes it a formidable enemy. Thus it must be curtailed and up-rooted. Which is the next big step and is now really starting to show with a franchise such as G.I. Joe pushing the agenda forward.  If they've started spending millions already to promote and push that idea globally that Pakistan's nuclear assets are in danger of being landed into terrorist hands then it makes you wonder how long before the actual execution of the plan is triggered.  Its no secret just like all the other pre-planned invasions "to save democracy" (brainwashing people to think democracy = freedom when it don't), they manufacture these wars for various reasons, not just for oil or economic reasons or for military field-testing of newly developed weapons during war, although these are the short-term goals.  But the real reason is long-term. That is to finance the dying American economy through continual war and expansion. Established military bases in strategic locations throughout the world, especially the Middle East & the subcontinent which will be vital for upcoming major wars. Force countries into debt and pass global laws so that they control the banks, the oil, the military, the healthcare, and not only countries but also their laws and their people.  A complete circle. But this is nothing to fear like people on social media and Youtube making these people look invincible. Plans can be derailed at the slightest of hindrance and these people are no exception.  Btw also check out Ted Gunderson on Youtube if you have not already. He was a former FBI chief and is a great source of inside knowledge.  He was poisoned in 2011 and died. RIP. So do check him out.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ted Gunderson was crazy:
        "(Gunderson)also investigated a child molestation trial in Manhattan Beach California. In a 1995 conference in Dallas, Gunderson warned about the proliferation of secret Satanic groups, and the danger posed by the New World Order, a shadow government that would be controlling the US government.[9] He also claimed that a "slave auction" in which children were sold to men in turbans had been held in Las Vegas, that four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year, and that the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was carried out by the US government.[9] Gunderson believed that in the US there is a secret widespread network of groups who kidnap children and infants, and subject them to Satanic ritual abuse and subsequent human sacrifice.[10][11]"

        1. MC Rocks profile image60
          MC Rocksposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You copy pasted a reply. I thought you were actually looking of ways to express what you had in mind.  I thought you actually knew something.  Anyways, Ted Gunderson's research is probably one of the most authentic sources of inside information out there since he backed his every claim through 100s of documents and high level governmental testimonials. The man died for exposing such sensitive data and all you can do is call him crazy? Whose payroll you on?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Gunderson is a cretin conspiracy nut. He must have been one of J. Edgar Hoover's favorites.

            1. MC Rocks profile image60
              MC Rocksposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              God save us from old age.

  9. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 3 years ago

    these kinds of questions, no matter how you phrase them, always seem to bring out the kool-aid dwillers..... so sorry crank, it would be nice to have the kind of discussion you seem to be wanting, it just doesnt seem possible.