"Here's what now should be taken as an operating procedure in any discussion of the NSA..."

[Blanks]

100. Let's talk about the last article then...

It talked about the buildup of intelligence gathering resources 'since 9/11' (2001 - long before Obama became president). The article was last updated in September of 2010. The research for the article took place over a couple of years. It wasn't about Obama expanding spending on intelligence gathering - at all.

Now, my initial response was specific to the expansion SINCE Obama became president. There was a very specific slam that I was addressing.

It might seem impressive to some that you've posted a bunch of links responding to my query, but its even more impressive if you actually post links that prove (or at least address) the issue that I raised: "has top secret spending on this shadow government significantly increased under Obama"?

You posted an article that showed that spending has gone bat-shit crazy since Dubya was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. That does nothing to prove that it has increased under Obama.

Pointing out that all this spending is secret makes it difficult to prove that it has increased under Obama, and that's fine, but take a break from your chuckling and think for a second.

It's a perfectly reasonable request (anywhere, not just DU) that if you can't back up a statement (once again, specifically - that this secret spending increased under Obama) that you don't continue to make the statement.

If proof cannot be offered that the spending on this DID increase under Obama - then all I ask is that the claim that it DID increase stop appearing as though it were fact.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable request, and the response: "we'll it might have, prove that it didn't" - is childishly moronic in that it requires proving a negative.

If it ain't true, don't say it is. I think it's odd that you're amused by such a straight-forward request.