birdog1960

who were president and sec state when this happened? http://adst.org/2013/04/the-bombing-of-u-s-embassy-beirut-april-18-1983/ is their saliva on the graves of those that died that day in 1983? my opinion is that it is not. it's a dangerous world with evil people and terrorists. tragedies like this will inevitably occur.

this is bare knuckle politics. moral superiority isn't a consideration. gowdy = fail. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/28/house-benghazi-report-reveals-little-new-information-about-hillary-clinton/ The South Carolina Republican, a former federal prosecutor, insisted that former House speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and current speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) never “asked me to do anything about presidential politics” on the panel, which was formed in May 2014. “My job is to report facts,” Gowdy told reporters. “You can draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.” yeah. sure. you lose.

what hit a nerve was empowering some half wit to run a witch hunt. not that it's never been done before,. but not in a couple hundred years.

awe geez. you guys are pathetic. stock up on wisdom and smartness. i was recently heartened by a morons citation of an orwell classic. things are good! o yeah, trent, i mean tray, i mean trey. yup one of those trendy names where it's cool but it's really not cool..sorry. i still prefer "bernie". it's unpretentious. not some monkey's manufracturered, loser band drop outrageous bands joke that they're too embarrassed to acknowledge. on behalf of the realty and trayettre, trumpeters, id like to to disavow allegiance. from anyone i know still supporting trump.

you've been played, by such a fly speck as whatever-his-first name-is, gowdy. pathetic.

the economist is , you know, a british publication, and a fine one. shadow cabinet and wsj gives no recent results but i rarely read it anyway. far too much conservative bias. murdoch's dirty fingerprints all over it.

umm, google shadow cabinet results in 2 us sources in the 1st 5 pages: huff post 1st and on page 4 politico. i'm guessing you waded through the weeds to the latter. can't see you huffing. so i presume informed people all read one of those 2 sources regularly. by that definition, ill bet there are few informed posters here. when i posted the bbc link it was about 4 hours old

interesting that this isn't hitting the news here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/brexit-labour-mps-tell-corbyn-to-resign-in-uk-parliament/news-story/04c19f975315ead12f5d7d10a5e65c31?nk=ef7eb7962e56d6dfc7339f807fccb403-1467071197. parliament is a wreck. liberals in shadow cabinet resign en masse. wouldn't have known had i not gotten a call from the uk tonight. interesting, indeed. try this instead: http://labour shadow cabinet resignation

im not being held back. I would never have voted for brexit if I were an Englishman. the ones voting for exit or those most likely to be held back.

here's the real reason for brexit: http://moneymorning.com/acq/frontrunners/new-rankings-the-richest-people-in-america-and-what-theyre-doing-that-youre-not?advText=yes&ad=za1a-nrfarb-l&iris=522029 contemplate these numbers for just a minute. yes, I know it's a rip off ad but the numbers are real: 1,810 billionaires made this year’s World’s Billionaires List, with a total net worth of $6.48 trillion, down from $7.05 trillion last year. Altogether, 221 former billionaires dropped out of the rankings, while 198 newcomers joined for the first time. this much of the worlds wealth in less than 2000 peoples hands is the true lunacy.

there are no d's and r's in Europe. this is about smart versus dumb as I said before. when dumb wins, the markets justifiably freak.

This too. on economic policy it's hard to tell the cowboys from the Indians.

this. but this was the opposite of Orwellian (what ever that is..hmmm dystopia:utopia, no, this certainly wasn't utopian) anywho, we finally agree. i'd bet the house the outcome will be net negative in a big way. there's a reason stocks are tanking. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jim-rogers-on-brexit---worse-than-any-bear-market-you-ve-seen-in-your-lifetime-154317566.html# actually there are many reasons but this lunacy is right up near the top. and there are too many tone deaf elites. it's true and a valid complaint. this just wasn't the appropriate response.

so wait, a conservative pm begs people to stay eu and loses and someone at wapo calls out the masses for being stupid and you assume he's taking a liberal stance? do you not imagine Cameron privately saying "what a bunch of idiots" after the results of the referendum came back? it's certainly what my conservative English in laws are still saying.

it's stupid to commit economic hari kari in the midst of already turbulent and precarious economic times. these people apparently think things can't get worse for them they are mistaken.

Cameron was the conservative leader and he was solidly against brexit this isn't cons vs liberals. it's smart versus stupid.

ouch. the angry uk working class just screwed everyone including themselves. i get the anger but suicide is not the solution. ww2 generation would have sucked it up and pushed someone willing to buck the establishment while having an actual plan to fix the mess we are in...and it wouldn't be trump. i rarely empathize with millennials but in this case i do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/24/british-millennials-like-me-are-the-real-losers-in-the-brexit-vote/?postshare=1071466995568470&tid=ss_fb-bottom Over the course of a single night, baby boomers have rejected expert opinion and torn apart my generation’s future. Why? Because a vague notion of making our country “great again,” combined with an infectious hysteria about immigration, was enough to convince them that things have to change. They were so convinced, in fact, that they were happy to vote for Leave without any definition of what “great” looks like, and no road map to actually achieving it.

how many americans of similar intellect will be voting for trump? oh, and I think you meant "exacerbating".

ummm, let me think...George soros bankrolls good causes but his methods are pretty awful. he's not a hero to me. possibly similar to how you feel about the kochs.

I believe it is the beginning. this is what results from the concentration of wealth. there are many more have nots than haves and the have nots are getting poorer. totally predictable but the Nero's of the current world fiddled and continue to do so.

well, no. it's not similar at all.

not to benefit me you fool. to benefit the country as a whole. if I were to vote based on who would most likely benefit me personally, i'd rarely if ever vote dem.

yes, he really was an underdog. and he made a really good run. I think he'd have won California if the press didn't already anoint Hillary the winner the night before. but he has no realistic path to the prez now. if I were a superdelegate i'd give him my vote at the convention but i'm not and there won't be enough superdelegates willing to do that. I think an argument can be made to vote for an outlier with no chance in the primaries just so he/she can get their message out; to be a gadfly. Bernie was certainly that and forced Hillary towards more liberal positions on many issues. in that way, it was a benefit to vote for him despite his losing. at this point, there is no more benefit to be had.

I didn't sat that at all. I said that voting for someone that will never have a chance to win the presidency is wasting your vote. Bernie had a chance. I voted for him. now he doesn't. I won't be voting for him. I don't believe he would see any contradiction in any of this. voting conscience, morals and ideas are fine if there is some possible benefit (other than self congratulation). in bernie's case, if he were 8 years younger he might have a chance after hillary's run. walker has absolutely no chance. ever. unless...far right wingers start having babies at an unprecedented rate. even then it would be a long shot and would be 20+ years down the road.

perhaps. still it's always nice to have an excuse to see Sophia loren in her prime.