Try calling the army when you get robbed. You'll see a meaningful difference!

You will never convince me that the differences are meaningful, so let's not drag this out, ok?

stop it, weasel. "international feds" simply doesn't make any sense because "international" and "federal" directly contradict one another. my point is that you obviously have no clue what "federal" even means, lol.

you could have said "domestic intelligence" and "international intelligence" (which is what they actually are), or "federal agency" and "international agency", which would also make at least some sense if you're looking at their main field of operations, but "domestic feds" and "international feds" is dumb and wrong and hilariously nonsensical. again, just look up what "federal" actually means, and you will see why it's so stupid to call the CIA "international feds", lol.

You can keep screeching but that won't stop me from calling your beloved CIA "international feds".

well, it doesn't matter what you personally feel or "think", those are the rules. the president has the final say, we can only hope he's well advised. sorry to burst your bubble, but it's literally that simple. you're wrong.

That is the sad part! Why do facts not convince people anymore?

I think my last post where I say:
"Try calling the army when you get robbed. You'll see a meaningful difference!" - should definitely make you understand the type of difference we are talking about.

So during a robbery, Police can help you but army wont. I believe this is a meaningful difference. In fact the difference can not be larger! One sends police officers to your home while the other one won't do anything at all.

i don't think you could find a person who despises the CIA more than i do. i'm merely mocking the fact that you don't know what "federal" means, and that you're too much of a coward to own even the most obvious mistake, no matter how insignificant it might be. only a fundamentally stupid person would confuse that for approving of the CIA's actions and track record, lol.

I just hope you are not gonna keep this up for 30 more posts.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any country's leader has the power for nuclear when it comes to war

too many countries have access to it now

no need to, i assume you finally looked it up and won't make the same mistake in the future. of course you will deliberately make it here again, because your tiny ego simply can't handle admitting mistakes, but you will only do it to "save face". i really hope that secretly you learned that "international feds" makes absolutely no sense, and that using that term immediately identifies whoever does so as profoundly ignorant. you're very welcome btw.