Was n't he that limp wristed hair stylist?

Norman Mailer on the other hand...

Some of the thoughtful on the left long for a day when the right actually spoke of principles and of ideas that they earnestly held to regardless whether they benefited them or not. They point to the glory days of William F. Buckley who would engage progressive thinkers.

Gore Vidal was able to show that Buckley existed on the same level as Limbaugh- that he was a bully that simple used the tools of condescension, verbal obfuscation, and a false air of urbane civility to sow his seeds of hatred. In a 1968 debate with Buckley, Vidal was able to rip away Buckley's mask and display his sentiments at their rawest:

Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered."

These ugly sentiments did not suddenly explode with AM hate radio and Fox. There were always there on the right, hiding behind of thin veneer of ideas used to whitewash them.

Vidal was like paint stripper.

Mind if I wait for veriication?

Don't mind at all but at least locally this shows me that people are willing to stand up for free speech as well.

Ah yes free speech sans the burden of letting others express their rights and freedoms.

See you at chikfulofit on August third for the kiss-in.

Chick-Fil-A isn't discriminating against anyone. To my knowledge they haven't deprived an customer or employee of that right. Stand up for what you want how you want ... as long as it's within the law.

Chic Fil A has the right to say whatever they like. And everyone else has a right to say that they are wrong for funding hate groups, and actively spending money to have their religious views turned into law. So... screw Chic Fil A's bigoted views on Gay marriage. If they can show one way 2 people in love can change their lives then show me. I can show you 1000 ways gay couples are put at a disadvantage, and difficulty because they are treated as a lesser class of people.

@DavidJames,

The free speech argument is bogus. Nobody has EVER said Cathay can not say what he wants, BUT as a consumer who is spending MY money I can say i will never support a company where I know the money is going to an evil cause. It is the same as giving money to a person who supports the banning of interracial marriage.

You really need to learn what the first amendment says as well. It says NOTHING about what PEOPLE can do, only the GOVERNMENT. It also does not say there may not be consequences for your speech.

By the way, Chick Fil A HAS discriminated against employees, because it IS within the law to discriminate against gay people. So how does this grab you, I can not say I will not hire him due to his religious beliefs, but he can discriminate against me because of my sexuality. Get a clue

No the free speech argument isn't bogus at all. Actually a number of people have said he can't say what he wants.... You have the right to vote with your wallet of course but then again so do a lot of other americans too.

You might want to contact the preachers and Cardinal in Chicago about this one too. Cause the pushback against CFA by Rahm has stepped on there toes too.

Chick Fil A HAS discriminated against employees, because it IS within the law to discriminate against gay people.

How does that grab me?? It grabs me as a BS argument. Either they have or have not. The pushback on this is going to be a lot greater than anyone thinks.

Actually in a lot of places there are laws in place protecting a person from just such discrimination. The corp supporting this isn't applicable to those laws though. Of course it's a moot point cause you wouldn't work for em anyway.

I do not frequent Chick-Fil-A a lot, but when a couple of big city Mayors and Aldermen come out and say they want to deny Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities and wards, that is crossing the line. Boycotts are OK I guess, but unless their is proof of discrimination I don't think you can ban a business based on the corportate OWNERS personal beliefs. Remember the actual stores are mostly owned by franchisees that probably do not have the same views (and remember they are just a persons VIEWS) and will be the ones hurt - including their employees that probably need every penny they can earn - and the corporate owner will not lose anything in this.

Chick-Fil-A retains ownership of the franchises. The buy-in is only $5000, so that gives you an idea what sort of relationship they have relative to the franchisees.

The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

Each class of mail is also expected to cover its share of the costs, a requirement that causes the percentage rate adjustments to vary in different classes of mail, according the costs associated with the processing and delivery characteristics of each class...http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

So perhaps the problem here is that Congress feels they must kill the postal service through over-regulating it. But then no republican congress person would champion regulating a private enterprize eh.

Keep in mind the Bill that passed in 2006, was a product of the Bush era, and it's the main reason why the USPS is in such dire straits, now.

From pbs.org:

1. The USPS is not technically "broke" — yet.

Operationally speaking, the USPS nets profits every year. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to "pre-pay" into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees. Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These "prepayments" are largely responsible for the USPS's financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead – take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.

This doesn't mean, however, that the USPS's financial situation is good. Revenue has been declining for years, and even if the agency manages to get past this year's $5.5 billion payment, it would again face insolvency next year.

The 109th Congress was Majority Republican in both Houses. George W. Bush signed the bill into law. (www.senate.gov)

What I would like to know is let's say the post office does pay the 5 billion or whatever it is to the treasury. What protects it from congress spending it or borrowing it or borrowing against it like they do with social security. I bet the motivation is congress wants the post office to help fund the rest of the government. If the money were put into a lock box and they could not get at it they might not have the requirement.

Free as in "Free with your paid subscription" or in this case "your insurance company has to provide these services without any additional cost"

If some of our health insurance companies implode by not being able to provide care with 20% overhead they don't belong in the business and the free market will fill in fitter players. In Israel, Switzerland and Germany HMOs flourish just fine with slimmer margins.

What the hell is up with 2 posts/1 click?

967,000-O'Donnell ... 936,000-Maddow

Source?

Huffington Post media page.