Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
CIA sued over 1950s 'murder' of government scientist plied with LSD
Considering its the CIA, I'd buy this story.
edited 29th Nov '12 1:11:27 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016To gather intelligence.
It's not all spies and torture, you know. Just like how Homeland Security isn't just the NSA wiretapping you.
Their work can bring about some seriously shady things, but you seriously can't just get rid of the central intelligence gathering body on foreign powers for a government. It would render that government powerless, ignorant, and far behind everyone else on foreign relations, prediction of threats, prediction of allies, the demographics of other nations, etc.
The CIA is just as important as the FBI or the FDA. They do everything from counting how many airports with unpaved runways exist in a country to top-secret high-level information about the power structure of N. Korea.
How else do you think a country would run if it knows nothing about the world around it except for information freely given out by other foreign governments?
edited 29th Nov '12 2:42:53 AM by Completion
^
Quite. Even your closest allies can (and will) lie, or not tell the whole truth. Even something like this site can be a form of gathering intelligence.
Keep Rolling OnIt's certainly within the realm of possibility, even government agents get bored.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.They also have personal lives and engage in recreational web browsing like any other human being.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What, that guy who wished death on Grover Norquist? Of course that's not okay.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Sometimes I think you guys are too politically correct.
Oh, well, I guess we'll overlook the complete illegality of the agency's existence, then.
The CIA is just one of a handful of wasteful "intelligence" agencies vying against each other for supremacy. You could very well consolidate them all into a National Bureau of investigation and lose nothing. In fact, there would probably be fewer leaks and intelligence failures, since the legendarily incompetent and fanatical CIA can never get its facts straight.
edited 29th Nov '12 10:40:04 AM by johnnyfog
I'm a skeptical squirrelEh, there are good legal reasons to avoid death threats - even jokingly - in political discussions. Regardless of whether you feel a given target is morally reprehensible enough to warrant such or not.
There does seem to be a problem with a desync between what political actors advocate and our ability to grasp the actual consequences, wherein it's okay to say you support a law that would cause immense human suffering, as long as you say it in a polite way. But I don't think that's something that can be remedied by raw bile, as it strikes me as more of a cultural issue about othering the victims so that their suffering doesn't 'count.'
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Ugh, let's just not publicly advocate the deaths of people we don't like. We can say whatever we like in the privacy of our thoughts but it creates an antagonistic environment to do it in the media. And, who knows if there's some crazy out there who will take it a little too literally?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ok, NOW this is getting out of hand. Like I said, I only liked what Simpson said because it was a play on Norquist wanting to "drown government in a bathtub" with Simpson saying that's what he wants Norquist to do. It was tasteless (but funny to me), but he actually had a play on words with that.
As for the Supreme Court thing, don't wish death on people. Considering the fact that 3 of them are in their late 70s (1 lefty Ginsberg,and righties Scalia and Kennedy)they might retire soon anyway.
Obama would have a young replacement ready if Ginsberg decides to retire, since there is no Republican president to worry about (judges shouldn't "strategically retire" as I put it, but we all know both sides do it). Kennedy might retire too, since he appears to be the least partisan (on social issues, anyway). The only person who I doubt will leave the bench alive in the next 4 years is Scalia. I have a gut feeling he will stay on the bench even if he personally wants to retire just to prevent Obama from being the one to appoint his replacement.
Which is why we should not be continually developing weapons. Suddenly killer robots no longer look like science fiction, but something that could happen in the near future...
edited 29th Nov '12 12:25:40 PM by Skatepunk

I assume.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016