25 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMF(BLEEP) you ,(BLEEP).
Have there been any U.S. presidents since, say, 1947, who have been anything other than old school CIA, for all intents and purposes, to varying degrees, and I mean in terms of foreign policy and other deeds within U.S. spheres of influence? Will the U.S. ever change?
Define "old school CIA".
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoNo. You obviously didn't understand the discussion that Menace71 and I were having about Russian perspectives. Whatever.
(BLEEP) you ,(BLEEP).
Define "old school CIA".
Not one of your better sessions, generalissimo. Sometimes you try a little too hard to give it a bit of the old swagger and acid tongue, but you just can't quite carry it off
Read the posts. Read the political discussion that was being had. And then reflect on how insubstantial your whole schtick has been for the last hour or so.
Your final "(BLEEP) you ,(BLEEP)" just about sums you up. Menace71's wheels somehow remained attached.
Good night.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimodont feel bad.FMF likes to use the "victim card"when ever her back is against the wall.I believe I was accused of stalking her last week.As well as a bully, a sexual predator, you name it. it is one of ms.androgynous tactics. Cant prove a point? Lie, discredit the other person, defame their character,whatever it takes. Anything but admit she is wrong.
yes, thats what you claimed.
stalking? give me a break fMF, if only I knew you'd get so intimidated, I'd stop disagreeing with your stupid statements.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragon😴
dont feel bad.FMF likes to use the "victim card"when ever her back is against the wall.I believe I was accused of stalking her last week.As well as a bully, a sexual predator, you name it. it is one of ms.androgynous tactics. Cant prove a point? Lie, discredit the other person, defame their character,whatever it takes. Anything but admit she is wrong.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFYou're mistaken, once again.
No. You obviously didn't understand the discussion that Menace71 and I were having about Russian perspectives. Whatever.
Not one of your better sessions, generalissimo. Sometimes you try a little too hard to give it a bit of the old swagger and acid tongue, but you just can't quite carry it off
Read the posts. Read the political discussion that was being ...[text shortened]... )" just about sums you up. Menace71's wheels somehow remained attached.
Good night.[/b]
I do understand, however, labeling all presidents after 1947 as CIA old school to varying degrees can meaning anything, I could say that you're a nazi to varying degrees, etc.
I wish you could explain it properly.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIts a valid claim that every american president since 47' is cia old school? like Putin is old school kgb? thats absurd
um i don't mean to be rude, but Fmf claim seems quite valid and there as yet, has been no refutation offered, unless i have misunderstood it
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonthen where is the refutation, if its not valid? for it is a very clear and unambiguous statement, is it not?
Its a valid claim that every american president since 47' is cia old school? like Putin is old school kgb? thats absurd
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe burden of proof is on the one making the original claim. Like in a court of law.Say you claim a person is a rapist,its up to you to prove it not for the accused to prove he is not. Its the same thing here.FMF makes some wild assertion and its up to us to disprove it?! I think not.
then where is the refutation, if its not valid?
25 Jun 09
was it started by a group of kindergarden babies, get a grip, did they simply decide one day, hey we need an intelligence agency, lets call it the C.I.A., we haven't thought of that before, no? well then stop havering and scratching about like chickens in the sand, for little seeds of discrepancies, until i see a valid refutation, the statement is good!
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, no, they hadn't thought of it before. The US prior to WW2 had no intelligence gathering agency.
was it started by a group of kindergarden babies, get a grip, did they simply decide one day, hey we need an intelligence agency, lets call it the C.I.A., we haven't thought of that before, no? well then stop havering and scratching about like chickens in the sand, for little seeds of discrepancies, until i see a valid refutation, the statement is good!
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The Shamthey may not have had an agency, but there were people involved in gathering intelligence, the history of the CIA, homepage,
Actually, no, they hadn't thought of it before. The US prior to WW2 had no intelligence gathering agency.
Foreign intelligence has been important to the United States since the days of George Washington, but it’s only been since World War II that such efforts have been coordinated on a government-wide level. Even before Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about America’s deficient intelligence efforts. He was particularly concerned about the need for the State Department and War Department to cooperate better and adopt a more strategic view of operations. With that goal in mind, Roosevelt asked New York attorney and World War I hero William J. Donovan to draft a plan for a new intelligence service.