no such thing as 'ex-CIA' eithter

spook is a spook

Putin is def a bad dude. But he is probably the lesser evil compared to any system that comes about due to his ousting

Just because the name changed doesn't mean anything else did, especially considering the kind of shit we know. Which shouldn't surprise me considering our own CIA

Oh absolutely.

Putin will do what is best for his country

He is calculating, and mostly sane

Russia is just jews and mafia

Spooks have some shitty fuckers in their ranks

you cannot have democracy work just anywhere

Unlike most of his predecessors

https://youtu.be/F5QWUOAcg_Q

Oof.

Should have given the adl their blood money

I see him as ex-KGB only in the sense that has climbed beyond that org on the power ladder. So hes above them and thus not beholden to their whims, but still loyal to them

weakness at the wrong time is a bad idea

Guys. I think my best friend is a colt fag

Take note, I think CIA should be shut down

if that's not clickbait, I'll be surprised

me too; and the FBI

I am not defending them. Nor KGB

the CIA still has more value than say the ATF

American gov doesn't function per design with alphabet agencies

All alphabets soups violate the Constitution so yeah they have to go

Both CIA and FBI seems to be filled with mostly bureaucratic boomers

Yeah, CIA is better at arming the cartels

It was clickbait, he spent the first half talking like a cuck about Pepe and then breaking down into incredulity when getting to the OK symbol

Literal boomers*

like Daddy Bush

And thats not even getting into H Walker Bush and what his CIA did to this nation

> fuckers... what gives them the right to specify their OWN statute of limitations?

@ManAnimal That's pretty standard, actually. Look through other ToS and they have something to the effect of: "Action must be taken within X years of whatever" and you agree to it when you sign.

Contract is the highest form of manmade law. "To one consenting, no injury is done." ~ Legal Maxim

lol; we think alike @D Two Hands

yes, yes. i know the theory

> "Severance : If it turns out that a particular term of this Agreement is not enforceable for any reason, this will not affect any other terms."

Severance is basically boilerplate. It basically means that if part of this contract fails, it doesn't mean the whole thing fails.

Good to know some people still get it. Most people my age think im talking about Dubya whenever i screetch about Bush

so why can't you do that in say a home improvement contract and why isn't such a clause standard in EVERY contract?

something doesn't add up

So far as I know, you can

if you could do that legally, everyone would do it as a matter of course

Whether you're smart enough to include that is another matter

and i know for a fact they don't