[Contest] Guess when Kim Davis relents and leaves prison!
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
As if that's a reason to back away. Stay and fend for your conviction, you worm! RARE OR MEDIUM RARE! FOR THE HORDE!
No, no, I like my steaks bloody, but I prefer my space-station operas to be well done.
fade
Staff member
Oi, I recently went through all the Star Trek on DVD. My opinions:
DS9 was nowhere near as enjoyable as I had remembered.
Voyager was better (though Kes was as irritating as ever).
TNG was still mostly good.
Enterprise's theme was just as catchy and non Star Trekky
TOS was still corny but good.
And the Search for Spock outgoods any of the TNG movies. Who'd've thunk?
See, I did the same thing...
DS9 was by far the best because of it's focus on character arcs and long form stories.
Voyager is much, much worse. Janeway is flipping on her positions week to week and Chakotay was still a sniveling token.
TNG... doesn't hold up as well as it used to. It feels a lot more preachy than it did in the 90's and is still somewhat backwards at times.
Enterprise picks up in the last few seasons. It could have been great but it suffered the same problems as Voyager in the early seasons and paid for it later.
TOS is still pretty good.
GasBandit
Staff member
One night in sickbay and your show gets cancelled. The fans are trekkies but their praise ain't free. There's fan service in every other teaser. And if you're lucky it's Tucker-free. I can see a vulcan sliding up to me.
DS9 has fairly weak earlier seasons, and only really gets going later.
Voyager has some really cool ideas, but the way they're worked out is a mess, tonally and as far as consistency goes.
TNG...I agree with Ash. I really loved it back when it aired, but, well, I was 10 at the time. It's probably one of my most formative shows...But it really doesn't hold up all that well, and it shows its age - what was "modern" or "enlightened" in the '90s isn't anymore.
Enterprise, honestly, never watched beyond the first season. Maybe I should give it a new try.
TOS actually does hold up better. When I first watched it (again, as a kid) I didn't like it much - TNG was so much "better". In retrospect, though, TOS manages to talk about more lasting issues, where TNG liked to shove your face in progressiveness that wasn't. I dunno.
Voyager has some really cool ideas, but the way they're worked out is a mess, tonally and as far as consistency goes.
TNG...I agree with Ash. I really loved it back when it aired, but, well, I was 10 at the time. It's probably one of my most formative shows...But it really doesn't hold up all that well, and it shows its age - what was "modern" or "enlightened" in the '90s isn't anymore.
Enterprise, honestly, never watched beyond the first season. Maybe I should give it a new try.
TOS actually does hold up better. When I first watched it (again, as a kid) I didn't like it much - TNG was so much "better". In retrospect, though, TOS manages to talk about more lasting issues, where TNG liked to shove your face in progressiveness that wasn't. I dunno.
It felt preachy to me back then. Especially near the end. It also seemed far too Troi/Worf heavy at that point, but my re-watch showed that to be only a couple episodes. Huh.
I also wonder if DS9 getting so Worf heavy turned me off this second time.[DOUBLEPOST=1443832198,1443832074][/DOUBLEPOST]
Oh yes. The out-of-left-field 1984 reference. Well, maybe if I think of it as a parody?
I feel the Worf bits are actually really strong once the Klingons join the Alliance, as it lets us explore Klingon culture in a way we really hadn't yet... and it's not until this stuff happens and Worf is forced into Klingon politics (which, to be fair, started in TNG) that we really begin to understand that Worf is both nothing like his own kind and embodies the virtues that make the Empire worth saving. It's really some of the best stuff, if watched as a whole.
Six, if you check the slo-mo HD screencaps.
GasBandit
Staff member
Halforums!
From the lowest reaches of mankind to its highest pinnacle.
....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.
Yes, but he's not 100% human, is he? He's infused with Prophet DNA and so forth.
....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.
fade
Staff member
This guy has a serious misremembering of TOS. TOS was fun, but at what point did Kirk have "command presence". I also agree that Archer was poorly written, but not that he was poorly cast. Even he can't really badmouth Bakula who has shown he could play serious in other works.
But Hammy Shatner is the best Shatner. I doubt he would have left as big an impression if he played it straight.
That's what the director of Wrath of Khan said in the commentary, yeah.
GasBandit
Staff member
Terrik and I were talking last night (and boring Dei) and an interesting point came up... Kim Davis is refusing to enforce federal law, despite it being part of her job to do so. The local government officials of the so-called "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco are doing the same thing when it comes to immigration. Should not the same charges of contempt be applied to them?
I think, if you get down to the nitpicks, the violation is similar.
However, I think that denying people something that the government has held out as a right (such as, say, free speech) is a totally different animal than allowing something that the government has held out as a violation.
While both may be contrary to federal law, the first example is far more repressive to liberty.
To spin it another way, it seems a lot more repressive for a cop to ticket you for doing 45 in a 55 than for a cop to clock you going 65 in a 55 and not pull you over--though they both seemingly involve a misapplication of the same law (but not necessarily in Texas, because of the "unsafe and imprudent speed" clause in the law. You really can get legally ticketed for 45 in a 55).
Now, that's not to say that I'm totally hunky-dory with the whole idea of "sanctuary cities". I'm not. I think that a number of illegal aliens totally take advantage of the system here to their benefit and to our (meaning taxpaying citizens) harm. But I don't think it incites the same level of outrage that occurs when the government blatantly represses and prevents the free exercise of our rights and privileges.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd say Kim Steinle's liberty was violated in the most complete way possible as a direct result of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy.
Well,
I'd like to point out that I actually pointed out how pot legalizing states were also defying federal law during this conversation, and it was at least three tangents after this that I started getting really bored.