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.

Just wanted to point out, for accurate context, when I said:

I was referring to the ACA, AKA Obamacare, but RG pointed out that what was a prior attempt at a national health care bill did manage to get one Republican vote. But whether you want to look at the one lone jackhole case or the bupkis case, if the insurance industry includes the Republicans as part of their cronies as you say, the GOP sure wasn't a very good crony on this issue.

No one said it was. But being for anti-discrimination laws only for PC-recognized groups is part of being PC.

Two thoughts for you:

The Conservative experience is that one learns to get real good at extracting the facts out of a piece (or sets of pieces, as in this case) and not putting much faith at all in the balance of the piece where we're told what to think about it.

If there wasn't legal precedent for the maximization of shareholder value, none of these cases would've been taken up by the courts. I could try to sue you for eating lemon drops, but there's no legal issue in eating lemon drops, so no court would hear my case.

What passed on Nov 7, 2009 with this one GOP vote was the House's precursor bill, that never went anywhere.

The legislation that passed both houses and was signed into law, Obamacare, received the following votes (from the linked wikipedia article):

Senate vote by state.
    Democratic yes (58)
    Independent yes (2)
    Republican no (39)
    Republican not voting (1)

House vote by congressional district.
    Democratic yea (219)
    Democratic nay (34)
    Republican nay (178)
    No representative seated (4)

It's subtle what's been "ditched" in later case law. And it's not what you're assuming.

I have to wonder why. That's the environment that fosters the maximum in human diversity, where everyone is the most free to find and do what is their own thing.

So you like an existence of more uniformity and degree of being controlled. I don't. I think even HOA's are frickin' nazis. As if the squeezing every last dollar of resale value is The One True Goal that everyone should have. Fuck that, I bought a home as a place to live, not something to flip, I want to customize it. If someone wants to paint their place Pepto Bismol pink, they ought to be able to.

My problem is I'm a city boy (or rather a suburbs boy) so I wouldn't be content to go live in some remote place just to be let be. That's why I wish the U.S. was split up geographically, for the two political sides.

I would never even give away a program binary, let alone source, because even patents and copyrights aside, someone could use your code in their business and if something goes wrong, they could claim it's your fault and you cost them x thousands of dollars and then try to recover it from you in a lawsuit. I don't need patent reform, I need legal immunity; something like a good samaritan law for software.

.NET is dominant on the Windows platform. After over a decade doing C/C++ on Win32, I finally had to switch to it several years back. Except for specialized stuff where the extra speed actually matters, no one is developing applications on Windows at this low level anymore.

Yes there is; case law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

The courts have only wavered in willingness to second-guess corporate officers' judgment in executing this primary pursuit.

People shouldn't have to do the right thing. Life is for each person to decide how to live. There should be just enough laws to keep society from totally breaking down, and no more.