such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.

But I think that's wrong.

You and I may not agree with this, but I think that MOST people are quite happy to trade-away their civil liberties for the illusion of security. Particularly those who are convinced that since they "do nothing wrong", they have nothing to fear from such violations.

It's a very sad commentary on our democratic peers, but unfortunately, factual, and consistent with pretty much everything else that's gone on since 9/11, (and more-or-less, since the McCarthy era - with regard to "communists").

We're not going to unite in this country. Period. It's like Morpheus said, in The Matrix: "Most people are not ready to be unplugged from the system, and will fight to protect it." Cliche, but true.

While I think that Jackson is an opportunistic jackass, resorting to racial epithets is completely unnecessary and only serves to undercut your message. Be better than this. You owe it to your society and yourself.

AND you can leave with a receipt for your returned equipment, plus the names of people you dealt with face to face. That could be extremely useful if they want to play the common game of "we never got your stuff and you still owe us monthly payments".

What's funny, is that I remember for DECADES, fans bemoaned the lack of a good LOTR/Hobbit adaptation, because the special effects weren't good enough. We had the Ralph Bakshi atrocity, then the Rankin-Bass embarrassment. (and for the hipsters, the little-known black-and-white Russian adaptation). Then. . . Nothing. No studio was going to invest their good money into such a farce. Then Peter Jackson came along, with some contacts who had a CGI technique that could maybe make human actors look like Hobbits - then, we finally got LOTR.

And there was great rejoicing among the FANS. But if you really want to look at LOTR with a critical eye, step back and take a look at it, and yeah, it was pretty stretched-out (and at the same time, weirdly had the feeling of being tightly compressed; like months of road-travel and hiking crammed into a 30-minute TV episode compressed.) (I hike. And I don't know how you make a long hike "interesting" to a cinema audience. But that experience, of long day-after-day exposure to nature, that absolute breathless awestruck feeling when you behold the spectacle of pristine wilderness, the deafening silence, the overwhelming feeling of "letting-go" of your personal safety in the face of insects, weather, predators, rough terrain, homesickness, isolation, struggle, confusion, physical exhaustion, was all very deftly conveyed in Tolkein's prose, and totally absent from the movies). But, overall, still better than the Bakshi version of the movie.

Hobbit takes that to the next extreme. I think it's obvious that the Studio wasn't going to fund Hobbit unless they could milk it to the same profitable extent that LOTR was milked. Only, it's like 1/10th the literary material to work with. I think it's also apparent that the creative team had a difficult time making that requirement work. My guess is that everybody was all geared up to accept this new whizbang 48 fps 3d technology, and that they were hoping that this would make these movies so visually engaging that the audience wouldn't care about the pacing and story and plot problems. I think that they almost certainly fell into the groupthink trap, and bought into their own bullshit, and somehow, anybody who had any nagging doubts was just never in a position to say; "fuck, this is awful, we need to back up and fix this shit." because, by that time, it was probably too late, and the only impact of speaking-up would be to end one's career in the industry. I've been on projects like that. I know that feel.

what are you talking about? Visual Basic is totally portable!

I can run it on Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows CE, Windows 7, even Windows 8!

That's terrible advice. If you want the big bucks, get into Python, Node.js, or Go and find a startup that just received VC and has tons of money to shove at developers. C++, Java, and C# are great for long-term "comfortable" jobs, but that's not where the seriously good money is.

"Staticness" and "strongness" are orthogonal properties. Python, for instance, has strongly typed values (you can't convince an int that it's a str), but dynamic variables (a=123;a='foo' is valid). And while C++ is statically typed, I'd be hard pressed to describe something with void* and unions as strongly typed.

TL;DR: Words have meaning. It's OK to disagree about whether a particular language is strongly or weakly typed, but it's not OK to claim that two different concepts are the same thing. When you make a fundamental mistake in the third paragraph, I'm likely to ignore anything else you have to say in the rest of the article.

However, he can't order the next President to continue his policies. There's a lot to be said for pinning these things down so that they can't be changed on a whim.

But there absolutely is a right to know the full details of the bargain. If EA isn't telling you that the game comes with OS-damaging (by definition) software, then they're not giving you the information required to make a considered decision.

The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.

I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.

And I agree with that.

I find your understanding of it to be wanting.

No, it's not.

Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?

I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).

We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in reference to Lily Ledbetter -- that you cannot punish a company under the law, unless it actually breaks the law. Not to mention the case that said the federal legislature cannot restrict political speech by a person or group of persons, just because they are organized a certain way under the law, that also got massive opposition from liberals.

Time and again, the left just demonstrates a very clear and palpable hatred for the rule of law. They would have us ruled by enlightened people who would be free to make up rules as they went along.

Impeachment is a stupid idea. It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency, and generate massive animosity that will increase the liklihood of another law-hater being elected.

This.

I think you're missing my point.

The article I linked to said Hitler was bad, but at least he meant well, unlike that evil Bush.

I was being mocking, parodying leftist idiocy that will mitigate -- at least, by comparison -- the most dishonorable acts if we can pretend that they were done with noble intent.