en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/340288 Comments by kaydoe http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2b77591c55e379cfdb5543b179328f06.d51#IDComment122547364 What is happening to Brazil is the very reason why China pegs its currency to "one less" than the dollar. Brazil should follow China's lead and cheat (economically speaking) -- it's the most effective way to go for an emerging economy. But of course, the United States is on the losing side in that scenario. Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:17:03 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2b77591c55e379cfdb5543b179328f06.d51#IDComment122547364 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7bcd94def4a124acf37f2ecca4bd572.c21&show_article=1#IDComment95061672 The only reason to repeal DADT is to clear the way for gay marriage. That's why there is such a strong push for repealing DADT right now. Reference: Scalia dissent Lawrence v. Texas, June 26, 2003 --> "The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)." Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:50:55 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7bcd94def4a124acf37f2ecca4bd572.c21&show_article=1#IDComment95061672 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979CMGO0#IDComment17948355 Maybe we can get back some of that automatic pay raises that went in effect for Congress this way. Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:15:07 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979CMGO0#IDComment17948355 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979CMGO0#IDComment17948234 Ummm.... You forgot the trade pick too ... Ron Kirk. Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:11:08 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979CMGO0#IDComment17948234 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MPJ804#IDComment16136739 The print media may at times appear too biased. But if you were to read the editorials of ANY newspaper, you will undoubtedly read disgust from both sides of the political spectrum (liberals complaining that the article is too conservative, and vice versa). However, I will take news print and dig down several inches for the whole story instead of relying on a TV 6 second soundbite for the whole picture. The main point .... and the most scary point to be considered ... is that internet "new" media DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY. At least with a news company, you are able to take the entity to trial and sue for libel and any other illegal reporting. When traditional media is gone -- Who is going to stand in long lines up at the police stations waiting for report disclosures? Who is going to follow a story several months regarding misappropriations of political funds? Who is going to follow a story around the world and travel, if necessary, to find the truth? Certainly, not the guy in his jammies blogging on his website. I don't know about all you anti-traditional news people, but I don't want any part of that Brave New World. Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:33:48 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MPJ804#IDComment16136739