i dont like the CIA after the whole torture scandal was uncovered (cia were flying terror suspects through british airports "under the radar" so to speak in order to take them to "ghost prisons"

i dont like the CIA after the whole torture scandal was uncovered (cia were flying terror suspects through british airports "under the radar" so to speak in order to take them to "ghost prisons"

Why do people criticize only the CIA? Do you approve the ways of the "Al Kaeda", or whatever you want to call the terrorirsts?
What is a terrorist anyway? Aren't we all?
Smoking in public, driving fast, eating too much, drinking too much - in one or other way whatever one does, it is an act of oppression or terror to another person. You smoke - the non smokers get oppressed. You don't smoke - you are oppressed! You don't smoke and you're nervous because you need a smoke, you get angry, still you can't have a smoke, so your anger reflects on the others, and you become a terrorist for them and they become for you! Who has right in this case? Who is the terrorist?

Both the CIA and the terrorists have their ways - ones fly "below the radar", others board the bus with an explosives belt...everything is ballanced.

Guys,

Don't you think that the CIA is just a decoy for the real 'secret service' in US? I mean - the CIA is so popular already that it is not secret anymore. In my opinion they were most active during the cold war and the mid 60's early 70's. Now CIA is a face to show to the masses, that keeps the attention away from the real 'secret' agency.

Okay, so in your opinion, who are thereal secret agenc(y|ies) we ought to be worrying about?

And besides, about the recently opened archive and published malicious intentions - there is much that goes on behind the back of the masses. The big players on World's political scene play a game, that has been planned ages ago, we are all just part of the scene and we cannot change a thing.

Are you certain there's no way to change things? Not even by coordinated planning along RFC 1149 transmission networks? That type should still be valid even if other transmission networks get compromised. You believe you're free...that's what they want you to believe, that's what will keep you from asking the questions that shouldn't be answered. So, in case you ask the wrong questions, ok - find your answers in the CIA archive, be glad that you were right the CIA are the bad guys and keep on believing in what they want you to believe in.

The 'bad guys' from whose perspective? And which 'they'? The CIA? Or your hypothetical 'real' agency?

Wow, I really like the kind of stuff you say. It's good to have someone that questions the norm and isn't just a mindless follower of the government/party/bureaucrcy/etc.

Does the /etc. value include the white-coated priests of the lab?

Hmm...possibly. There's a lot we don't know. Some of these scientists serve the pharmacies which have plenty of problems in themselves. For example here's something to think about. The purpose of pharmacies is to get and keep people healthy yet they make their money from people getting sick. It's a paradox.

.. the same is true of many professions: doctors, police, firefighters, etc. Just because a particular profession has a paradoxical purpose doesn't mean they are inherently evil or that they purposely try to harm us.

Universal healthcare is not really a good idea.. it really screws a lot of doctors and medical professionals.. but then again, it does provide all of us with heathcare.

If by universal healthcare you mean government controlled healthcare, no thanks. Nothing the government touches works out good. Unless of course you think veteran and military hospitals are run well.

Social Security good? LOL Maybe in concept. But not in implementation, along with welfare and public education. The US government is horribly inefficient. All this does is give more control to the government. Once the government gets hold of healthcare it will not give it back. Just another step towards socialized America.

It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

This half-hour audio presents much of my point of view.

What's so bad about nationalized social security as opposed to privatized social security? You fail to even provide evidence or examples. And what do you mean "give it back"? After receiving health care for free, why would I want them to take it away? Nations like Canada, and France, along with others seem to be doing just fine in this respect.

I will tell you what's wrong with it.
I hope you will remember that I told you I am originally from Spain.
Over there that's what we have. Exactly like France.
You need to get in a schedule list to be considerate for an operation necesary for health and for you to function. You know how long do you have to wait for it. Think a year if you are lucky. Most people end up paying what we call `private' doctors to get attended correctly.
I know how terrible it is. And it boils my blood just to talk about it.

Kinda figured you'd say that, being republican (no offense), but I'm glad you presented both sides of the argument. I think if you become a doctor you can't get so far in the profession if you are doing it only for the money. I think many of them feel they are helping people and they probably feel pretty bad when patients die on them. That just means, they care about the people they are trying to help. And I think they wouldn't mind the inconvenience too much if they would be able to help more people than they already are. But, I want to know how it is doctors and medical professionals get screwed? (And just if it counts I'll throw it in. My mom is a registered nurse and she supports universal healthcare. She believes in will benefit her patients and/or potential patients)

haha none taken. And actually, I know a few doctors.. and they really couldn't care less if a patient dies or not.. so long as they are not held responsible. There are many out there who are only in it for the money. I truthfully don't know much about the affects of a nationalized health plan, but I do know that it means less pay for doctors.. and more control for the government. The doctors would be providing care for all patients, and thus wouldn't receive their usual big time checks. The waiting would also be unconceivable.. A waiting list out the ass to see a doctor, and get an operation.. I can also see most of the good doctors converting to the private sector.. I really don't think it's a good idea, but I definitely need to do more research on it before I truly make up my mind.It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.Yea, social security was good in theory, but once the baby-boomers bankrupt the system then what? The younger generation will probably never see a penny of social security money.

The younger generation will probably never see a penny of social security money.

That's not the whole picture. You keep paying the system.