"I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." - Rand Paul

Apparently he's already forgotten about that whole filibuster thing where he said this:

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Hypocrite :rolleyes:

Such a meaningless politician seems to really rile up the liberals. :) There is no doubt that he aint his dad but here is the whole quote (which was in the context of the Boston incident)...

"“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

I still don't agree with it but weird that the liberal blogs seem to cut the end of the statement off especially when his sentence had not even ended. Hopefully its because they agree with it (which used to be the biggest selling point of the Democratic party to me) but they probably mock that statement as well. Terrorism the reason of course.

He was right the first time. No American citizen should be killed without a fair trial. He's a lot more of a politician than his father.

Of course I'm anti-death penalty, but you know what I mean.

You're right. It certainly seemed like a trap question... "So you wouldn't use drones against the terrorists in Boston" but you are right his dad wouldn't have taken the bait. It really does test my integrity because outside of Lee and Amash he is about as close as its going to get to Libertarian in a major office but its compromises like this that still give me great worry. On the other hand Ron Paul would have given them their soundbite for the next election "OMG What about TERROR!!!!????!!!!!"

House conservatives call for new vote to repeal ObamaCare - The Hill's Healthwatch

FTFA:

What a waste of time. How about they actually ya know...do something constructive.

Fucking Washington.

Congress easily approved the bill to end airport delays. While it said the democrats went along with it, they wanted all cuts to be lifted. Are they that stupid in believing no cuts should be made or do they agree with pelosi in believing nothing more can be cut? That continues to boggles the mind. I believe $85 billion cuts were a joke; not only in that being an insignificant amount (it should 5 times that), but they cut things solely to make a political point.

That part is largely untrue. Congress passed spending bills that mandate certain spending and then Congress passed an across the board cut. Under those circumstances agencies are legally bound to apply the cut equally rather than pick and chose. Congress could have given blanket authority to allow agencies to prioritize spending, but neither party wanted to set a precedent where agencies would get to decide what gets funded rather than Congress.

That is not true. prior to the sequester kicking in, the speaker offerred to let the executive branch have broader control. Obama refused, thinking he would score big trying to blame the opposing party of horrible cuts. That did not work, so he is trying to play politics with services he thinks will score him points. It is all a giant game to see who can win public perception.

Regardless, the function of spending falls under the Legislative Branch, not Executive, and it isn't clear if Congress is allowed by the Constitution to pass that authority to the President.

So why did the White House cut out tours for the public instead of staff or some of their more extravagant perks? Across the board cuts are a good place to start but they could've looked harder at internal expenditures instead of choosing some of the ones that would have a greater impact on the public. It should be more about serving the people more efficiently instead of serving the system and their domains.

Boehner offered, but when they actually discussed legislation both parties refused to support it. Congress, rightfully IMO, doesn't want to give spending authority to the executive branch.

I think the tours bit was political, that's why I said largely untrue, but the air traffic controller furloughs and the coming problems with the national parks are just a function of across the board budget cuts implemented well after the annual budget.

While White House staff is reported to have approved the tour cuts, they were actually originally by proposed by - and are savings counted toward - the budget cuts of the Secret Service, not WH admin. Annually, they would account for about 5% (approx $4m of $84m) of the cuts needed by the Secret Service.

If the choice is spending salary for the tours vs salary toward their protective services mission or their criminal investigation duties, I'm completely fine with the tours getting the ax frankly.

(And that appears to be the choice, as the explanation has been that those hours will still be worked & paid but they will prevent overtime costs in other areas ... which likely makes the savings even bigger than reported.)

I had forgotten that the WH falls under the SS.

The Democrats finally had some anti-sequester leverage with the flight delays. Some tangible thing to help demonstrate the helpful role that government plays in our lives.

So, they made sure to get rid of that leverage as soon as possible.

The modern GOP is a couple of orders of magnitude better at the political game than the modern Dems. President Obama is a decent politician, so that tends to mask the disparity a bit. I had kind of forgotten just how outclassed the Dems are at politics.

It's more than they are bad at the game, they have no spine for a fight. Few ideas and no courage isn't a good combination.

That implies they want to win the game

SI

We are back to that chemical weapons red line. I don't think Obama wants to escalate and probably regrets the threat.

U.S.: Intelligence points to small-scale use of sarin in Syria - CNN.com

And this is probably why.

Islamist Rebels’ Gains in Syria Create Dilemma for U.S. - NYTimes.com

We cannot go diving into yet another situation. It is beyond the wrong time for it.

I'm not a big fan of some the previous press correspondent's dinners when the President and press joke about wars and serious issues but this one was pretty funny from President Obama...

"I'm also hard at work on plans for the Obama Library, and some have suggested that we put it in my birthplace, but I'd rather keep it in the United States," he said.

Saw bits and pieces of it on CNN.

I think the ribbing to Gallup and Morris was great. I saw the birth place one also.

I did not like him on his joke on the Bush Library. I know it wasn't directed at Bush and made fun of himself, but the Bush Library event was just last week and I feel should have been left out of it.

Um - they don't leave anything out of these typically. That's sorta the way it is.

So it makes it right to joke about something you solemnly attended and praised not less than a week ago?

Have you not watched these before? They joke about EVERYTHING.

So yes. The answer is yes.

The one with Colbert during the Bush Administration was pretty brutal. :) you should see the video of Laura Bush cursing him out as he shakes her hand.

Yeah, I don't think Colbert will ever be invited back as that was particularly brutal.

SI

Wow.

Another 40-50 percent didn't feel it wise to speak candidly to a pollster, not being sure who they might be working for.

Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith

I'm wait and see on this, but there's very little room in reading this in a positive way.

Coming from Breitbart I think you can assume it's way overblown.

Surveys have shown a pretty significant number of truthers among Democrats.

Democrats and Trutherism

I think these kinds of polls are more about trash-talking an administration you don't like. I don't think they expose literal beliefs about anything significant. I refuse to believe that 1 in 4 Dems literally think secret explosives in the towers brought them down. These questions are always worded in a such a way that can be a little misleading - "an armed revolution might be necessary" - people who are saying yes to that aren't necessarily saying they're taking up arms, or that a revolution will happen, they just need to think armed revolution "might be necessary" in order for this country to be the way they want it to be. When in truth, they're probably right. I think armed revolution is probably necessary to say, stop the acceptance of gay marriage. That doesn't mean that it's going to happen.

An escalation? Wonder if Israel gave Obama a heads up first ... probably not.

Sources: U.S. believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria - CNN.com

Aw, geez. Israel just likes to make things tough

SI

Not in favor of this being prevented any more than sharing political views should be restricted ... however I think that article is heavily biased in the extreme .... firstly I doubt its just the 'christian' faith affected by this and I doubt someone sharing their beliefs casually would be affected - some context is required, is this aimed at preventing excessive persuasion / peer pressure being applied or using a tannoy to broadcast beliefs etc.

Looks like a storm in a teacup to me - but obviously very good and easily applied fodder for scare mongering ...

There's plenty of way to read it in a positive way. There have been pockets of aggressively proselytizing groups within the armed forces, putting pressure on others, in a quasi-official manner. It's not illegal to be a christian, it's illegal to try to force others to attend christian services.

It's been a long running problem:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ande...ons-in-us.html

Here's a more accurate story, from the Army Times:

Religion clash hits DoD | Army Times | armytimes.com

More Israeli attacks in Syria. Suspect this escalation is not what Obama wants.

Syria: Attack on military site was a 'declaration of war' by Israel - CNN.com

Good luck making that propaganda stick, lol. "Seems legit."

Don't think this should be a surprise to anyone. It was pretty clear from the start that leadership was minimizing what they knew about the situation.

Benghazi whistle-blower Hicks: Internal review 'let people off the hook' – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

Now what? Bomb both sides?

Works for me ;)

This is a conflict where there's not any good guys in sight as far as I can tell, just bad actors vs bad actors (which is a reason I'm on board with us staying the hell out of it as long as it remains within Syrian borders)

Every now and then we agree.

Have to agree with this, though I wonder how long it will stay contained inside Syria - I mean when a civil war has reached the point where both sides are using nerve gas, there's not much left to really stop it from escalating.

I think this kinda gets political catch-all stuff, so ...

Mark Sanford wins Jim DeMint's old congressional seat, beats Colbert's sister by winning every county in the district en route to a 54-46 victory.

No surprise from the standpoint of having an (R) elected in the district for like three decades running, surprising from the standpoint of just how horribly bad a candidate could be & still win.

"Hiking the Appalachian trail" is still a favorite euphemism of mine.

SI

Deficit down 33% compared to last year, but it's revenues, not austerity that's driving the reduction. Considering the large amount of squawking going on about the level of "Hardships" caused by sequestration (with such a small amount of cuts, relatively speaking) it's fairly obvious that the driver of the recovery is going to have to be revenues increasing, not spending decreasing.

Deficit down 32% so far this year - May. 7, 2013