Drones are to be used this way. It is in the Bible.
Genesis 5:33 "God said to Adams 'Behold, for the Angels will belong to America. They shall bring fire to those who wish to harm her.'"
And
John 3:14 "Jesus the pointed to the sky saying 'America will have God's Angels, the Drones. They will set the sands ablaze, and keep oil flowing.'"

That just proves that we can't pass this law.

I mean if we can't even say the pledge of allegience, how can we follow other aspects of the Bible.

BTW, don't you guys love how the presidential inaguration has been adding "So help me God" since the beginning, even though its not a part of the actual oath.  Would have thought with all this seperation crap these days that they would have dropped that already.

All Presidents work for God though. President is Latin for "American Pope".

Oh my fucking word:

"I was going to vote against him until the filibuster, so he picked up one vote," Graham said, laughing to reporters in the Capitol.

"I thought Brennan was arrogant, a bit shifty," he said, but added that he was going to vote for Brennan because the vote had become a "referendum on the drone program."

"Where were all these people during the Bush administration? I never remember anybody accusing President [George W.] Bush of 'We're going to kill someone in a cafe,'" Graham said. (Paul, of course, was not in office during the Bush administration.)

What a toad.

I fully understand the next president can strike down the bill, but if no one really makes it an issue during his term, then no one will ever care.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...................

Well Germany right now has one of the most successful economies in the world right now despite having to pretty much hold the entirity of Europe on it's back.

It's worth noting the main economic influence of libretarinism economics was Hayek.  Who's idea wasn't "Complete anarchy" but simply... "Government makes simple and fair rules and regulations, and then stays out of the way."

In general, countries who have followed that advice have been the ones who have succeded economically.

The problem with government spending is... it doesn't really promote growth, because everybody knows that said spending is being caused by the government, and will stop and some point, and need to be paid for later on.  Usually in the form of higher taxes.

It's the same reason the Bush and Obama tax cuts were failures.  Most people saved that money because they know their tax savings won't be around forever.

This is partly why Keynsian economics was discarded by pretty much all economists.

Including Keynes for that matter.  If you knew what Keynes generally suggested for a stimulus, you'd consider him a huge  poor hating rightwinger. (to be fair, some biographers have suggested Keynes did have a lot of contempt for the poor.)

Keynes essentially wanted stimulus specifically geared towards getting the rich to spend their money and create investments.  

You are right in that growth gets you out of a recession.  The only problem is... government spending doesn't actually create growth.

Can you imagine if McCain had won and did exactly what Obama has done?

Because it's Obama, and he's better looking and better at reading the teleprompter, we let him get away with it.

Also... for people defending Obama and the Justice Department essentially saying they can kill anyone who they suspect is a terrorist on US soil... (but won't because it's bad policy).

Remember this.

At some point... another George W. Bush WILL be president.

Are you comfortable with the precedent Obama is setting that if you are labeled a potential terrorist... he has the right to kill you. (Even if he personally won't, because he'd lose the democrats votes.)

Oh and for a Cliffnotes on what Rand Paul said....

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/cliffs-notes-for-the-filibuster-rand-paul-in-his-own-words/273787/