You have to be utterly ignorant of history, in a state of denial, dumb as grits or

[timdog44]

100. Thanks RainDog.

Maybe we are related, being timdog44 here.

I guess I can understand not wanting to deal with some of the treads. I think, am not sure, that I do not come down very popularly on this issue. I have said that I think a level of surveillance is necessary, and people jump to the conclusion that I think everything is OK. What cali said is there are too many agencies doing this, and that we have "private companies" (I suppose along the lines of the former Blackwater and Haliburton) doing it and making a mint doing it, without any supervision and with immunity up the ole _____.

I don't disagree with her totally. I think in the big picture that $80 billion is not a lot of money, as compared to defense/pentagon budet monies, is not much to spend on surveillance if done with more discretion and sharing among the "spy" community so duplication is not done and one hand knows what the other is doing. And it should all be absolutely "government" agencies, only fewer and better.

And as far as making the party look bad, there are certainly some gray cells lacking in some of the respondents. But thanks.

And, oh, I started a thread in GD addressing my thoughts on the ignore button. It may be breaking the rules, but I wanted to get it off my chest. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987891 Funny, no one has replied. Oh well. Nice chatting with you.