Google: The IE 6 of Internet search.

Maybe Mozilla could make a search engine and re-light the competition fire and user focus in this space. (Bing just seems to be a clone of the stagnating leader.)

It shouldn't be about what you want, or what you think you want, but what you need. I want (need?) a search engine that will give me that.

It never was; a bureaucracy is where individuals check their individuality, and brains, at the door, and simply become generic drone executors of ponderous, one-size-fits-all SOP's.

To me a bureaucracy is a *mindless* collective, and so, while undesirable, is much less sinister than a conspiracy. As is individuals pursuing personal power.

Nothing should automatically start making noise on a web page. It's annoying at work on a machine bogged down by anti-virus anyways to be eating lunch and ctrl-clicking a bunch of articles to load in the background, and all of a sudden your PC comes to a grinding halt and blasts a bunch of noise in the office. Then I have to furiously look thru the tabs to see which one is the offender and close it. And apologize to my coworkers.

And I don't view that content or its page. Advertisers ought to wake up to the fact that just because something loaded doesn't mean it was viewed. And if something irritates the user, it won't get viewed.

A conspiracy of one is much less worse than a conspiracy of many.

Well in this case I'd bet the only ism this legal challenge is being done for is selfism.

...with her usage of the terms "due process" and "equal protection". She's not being accused of a crime, and the new rules aren't any different for other of her fellow justices.

And one of the commenters on that blog seemed to have joined her in the I guess "throw some cool legal-sounding stuff up on the wall and see if any of it sticks (with the Liverals)" tactic, calling this a bill of attainder (the legislature convicting someone of a crime) and ex post facto law (retroactive criminal legislation).

I'd say impeachment should be considered, for not grasping the fundamentals of the legal profession, if I didn't think these terms were misused on purpose.

In case you hadn't noticed, libertarian/Libertarian views are also a (ridiculed) minority in this country. And have had a spectacular losing record when it comes to winning popular support and elections, at least in our lifetimes. You're the 80-lb pipsqueak squabbling with another pipsqueak, in a wrestling ring with two 350-lb behemoths, acting as though you coulda been a contenda, if only it wasn't for that other 80-lb pipsqueak.

Well, they already feel (morally) superior. (Just as do I over them.) I think what we're seeing now is more them being emboldened by how much success they're having and how they don't want to waste this momentum.

I'm thinking that gay marriage will, indirectly, kill off religious freedom in America. Not because gay marriage itself is a threat to it, but because Progressives have no intention of ever stopping trying for even more "progress".

I think the Left's reasons for being against the idea of a once-and-for-all, winner-take-all vote, even today as the American people (non-)think, would be two-fold:
1) What they're doing now is currently working, but even more importantly
2) It would mean acknowledging that there's another side to things.

Increasingly I've noticed that part of the execution of their strategy is to act like there is no other side. We went from "the debate is over" (i.e. acknowledging that there was another side, but that somehow they lost) to BHO often talking about some far-Left plan of his and labeling it representing "our shared values" (i.e. acting as though there are no other values left in America besides Leftie values).

Look how extra viciously they go after a Conservative woman or Black person. They don't want the people to know such even exists, and to maintain the illusion that all women and all Blacks are devoted to the Democrat party, so that subconciously women and Blacks will include as part of their identity this affiliation.

Divide us along arbitrary lines with unmerited criteria, and then conquer us piecemeal, by defining us by their groupings, and then defining the groupings as their constituents.

That's as lame as Lefties' comments under the article about Diane Feinstein saying something stupid, where they blamed the Democrat party's failure to field a more tech savy candidate on the Republican party's unwillingness to field candidates closer to their side. You can't blame others for doing what you'd only expect them to do, acting in their own interests.

Social Conservatives saw anti-Left passion that they hadn't seen since the Christian Coalition days, so of course we'd want to latch onto that. I disagreed with my fellow Religious Righties on expanding the goals of the cause, and diluting the primary goal, as I thought for anything to have any chance of going anywhere it would be best to pursue a single interest at a time.

So I disagreed, but I'm also totally unsurprised. If the Tea Party movement had enough zeal on its own, it could've sustained itself to this day (because afterall nothing's gotten better) and it could've kept itself pure. But its people lost interest, in general; they all went back to their lives, having accomplished nothing. Just like the Occupy Wall Street people.

In short, there is no hijacking. If too many people flood your group with messages that distract from the original, then you didn't have enough people, dedicated enough, to the original message. Nothing stopped Libertarians from abandoning the watered-down groups and reformulating the pure ones again. Don't blame others for what you guys failed at.

We don't see eye to eye. Cheers.