MustHaveDS9

I'm a Republican in the United States, though as someone who is very conservative on economics and international politics, yet more liberal on *some* social issues (I don't care about gay people getting hitched or abortion, but will someone tell the Democrats to leave my f*cking video games and violent movies alone?), I do get frustrated on occasion. Republicans are slowly becoming Democrat-Lite, which will never be a good thing. But being frustrated with Republicans is better than my borderline-hatred of Democrats. As far as the United Kingdom, where I now reside, I think the major political parties here are screwed. The Liberal Democrats are completely insane, and I wouldn't trust them to govern a preschool class much less a country. The right-wing of the Conservatives have some good ideas, but are too far up their own @$$es to win elections, and the left-wing is just loony. Labour..I'm not even sure what's up with Labour. UKIP all the way.

I think it's because RDA is also one of the producers of the show, or had some managerial role later on. He doesn't just make his money from acting, like lots of other stars, they take a role in the production behind the scenes once they're established.. helps them make more dough. Could be instead of RDA's desire to make "more dough" he wanted more creative control. Not everone is out for the all mighty dollar. IMHO. c4 B) I believe that several early SG1 mini-documentaries stated that RDA was *offered* a role as producer, not demanded one as part of his contract. Either way, I think you're probably right that it had more to do with the creative department than money.

I'd laugh if the idea didn't make me feel almost as ill as a Voyager movie =X

I'm speechless.

Marriage is a state issue, and as such has nothing to do with President Bush or the federal government. Some states have exercised their right to legalize homosexual marriages, by way of majority vote of their elected representatives. To force states to legalize homosexual marriage through a federal amendment would be, as Roe v. Wade is, a violation of states' rights, and a stripping of even more power from the citizens of the United States to the all-mighty federal government. For the record, I am not against either homosexual marriage or abortion. However, I also believe that if the people of a country have to follow its laws and founding documents, so do its politicians.

http://www.jerrydoyle.com/ Who needs Chris Reeve? Garibaldi'll kick Zod's @$$!

I don't agree with everything you post, Troy, but I agree that you seem to have become an outlet for some rather intolerant behavior on these forums.

You could always walk. Last I checked, driving wasn't a right protected under the Constitution.

People who call the passing lane the 'fast lane', as if being on the inside lane entitles them to violate speed limits. Hint: THERE IS NO FAST LANE Animal rights activists who complain about humanity while chomping at a burger Vegetarians who eat fish Vegatarians period. Note: You're not better than me. You're just arrogant. Islam Chavs Charity solicitors on the high street Self-righteous liberals People who glorify foreign aid. Yes, let's feel sorry for the idiots who couldn't get it together and deal with disasters the old-fashioned way: by dealing with it. Humans survived natural disasters before there was foreign aid, you know. If you're too stupid to get out of the way of a hurricane, or too stupid to leave your stupid post-tsunami/earthquake camps and actually try doing something to help yourself instead of stand in the background of the tv cameras and mope, you're too stupid to live and nature was trying to tell you that. Do us all a favor and die. Global warming scaremongers Terrorism scaremongers (Simple solution: Destroy. Islam.) Mothers who ignore their horrible bratty kids in shopping centres People who are gay/black/etc. and think they deserve special rights for it Pansies like Bush and Blair American Democrats and Republicans (but especially Democrats) Anti-war protestors who didn't make a peep when Clinton invaded Kosovo Religious conservatives who think they're actually important Planned Parenthood (Odd name for an organization that acts as if actual 'parenthood' is a disease) Anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists (You're both nucking futs) Self-absorbed liberal celebrities who give $5,000 of their $20,000,000 worth to charity, and tell a family who gives $500 of their $45,000 income that they haven't done enough. Christopher Reeve (God, I'm glad he died) Rap 'artists' The fact that almost anything can be called 'art' these days Having my taxes spent on aid to Africa and worthless scientific studies and the like More to come, I'm sure :cyclops:

I thought the Queen was done rather well in First Contact, despite my reservations about the entire idea. I chose to see the Queen as an instrument of the collective. Something that the collective created, and could use in deceptive manners. It's obvious through TNG that the assimilation process is not perfect and doesn't completely suppress a person's identity. The Queen seemed almost like a tool to comfort and direct Picard to embrace the collective, to open his mind and gain all his knowledge that much faster. And with Data, the Queen was, so the Borg believed, able to manipulate him since they could not directly assimilate him. In that way, the intelligence of the Borg hive is highlighted. Voyager ruined the idea and turned the Queen into a megalomaniacal psycho who simply used the Borg to try to conquer the galaxy. Then again, this is also the show that said you could only travel in a straight line at warp speed. I wasn't terribly surprised.

Off topic. Please PM me directly with any issues/views you may have. I am more than willing to respond to anything people have to say, however this is not the place for those discussions. - Under Cardinal Pelladurisinchrysandathax of the Celestial Intervention Agency

Screw Silent Hill, I'm chewing my nails off waiting for the new G1 Transformers movie!

Most are party voters. I see a large contingent of Democrats and a gaggle of liberal Republicans supporting this bill, and Shrub will gladly sign it into law. Big-government types love this sort of thing.

After my move to the UK, I am unfortunately lacking a television venue for sci-fi. Thanks to this place, I'm getting my fix! I don't really know what's *new*, though.

A Supreme Court candidate should not and can choose not to answer any question that demands his/her opinion on an issue that may come up in a future case. See Ruth Bader Ginsberg's confirmation hearings. Being a Supreme Court justice has nothing to do with your own personal opinions, and those opinions should not be a part of the confirmation hearings. It is all about interpreting the Constitution as relative to the case at hand. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be about each justice voting on his/her opinion, and seeing which side gets the more votes. It's about constitutionality. A good Supreme Court justice can be, say, pro-life, but still rule in favor of what would be considered the "pro-choice side" of a case, because they have the advantage in the eyes of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it seems that a large amount of conservatives and I dare say 100% of liberals just want to get someone appointed who's on their side of the fence and will vote that way. I think people need to be educated on what the USSC is all about. P.S. If Roe v. Wade were to be revoked, as it should be as it violates States' Rights, I guarantee you every state would simply pass a law re-legalizing abortion. I don't understand what the big deal is. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both think Roe v. Wade is the key to abortion being outlawed. Not going to happen, abortion is here to stay. The only difference is simply returning control back to where it should be: the states.

I actually now live in the UK, though American-born, and I actually still don't understand the TV licence fee myself. PBS and local broadcasting channels seem to do just fine over in the US without forcing people by law to pay to fund them *shrug* I love the UK, but the BBC continues to baffle me. Every year, they cut jobs and get government emergency funds, but raise licence fees. Who the heck is running that organization? Not to mention the god-awful programming most of the day..

I have rarely seen a topic with more bias or disinformation in it.. 1 - YES, clean nuclear technology DOES exist. A nuclear facility with a fail-safe cooldown system is as safe to the general populous as a friggin windmill. The conversion to nuclear technology to create a fully self-sustaining power grid in the United States is inevitable once self-serving politicians stop blocking the efforts long enough to get things done. Unfortunately, it seems the idea's only vocal proponent is President Bush, who only ever pays lip-service to actual progress, like every other politician with presidential ambitions. And liberals and environmental activists wouldn't want the US to stop burning oil at record rates because then they'd have to clam up on the 'America/Western World/Global-Whatever is Evil' crap, and maybe get real jobs. Explains why they'll scream 'No More Oil Drilling!' and 'Stop Killing the Planet!', but will picket any clean nuclear or wind power facility that goes into planning. 2 - Nuclear reactors in cars is, at present time, a ridiculous scenario. The technology is too sensitive to microproduce at that level while maintaining adequate safety protocols. The most advanced and economically-feasible idea right now is NASA's idea to revolutionize fuel systems with naturally-replenishing Xenon gas. The battery/electric junkheaps being produced right now are barely cheaper than their regular gas counterparts. 3 - Spell. Grammar. Please. Reading this topic gave me a headache.

If I comment on that one, I'll probably be banned.

And sitting around bitching and blaming one group of people really changes the world, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, this is the hardest part isn't it? At this point in time, all socialist governments are doomed to inadequacies because inevitably, someone finds their way into a place of power in said government and begins to game the system. Thus begins the growth of an elite class, eventually leading to the entire economic system becoming corrupt and a shadow of what it was. Hence the collapse of Soviet Russia, and the difficulties going on right now in the European Union (although the future woes of the EU are somewhat more difficult to envision right now). As long as there are still people in the world who would let the masses suffer for their own personal gain, this will never come to pass. We're at a sad point in history, where today's capitalism is actually more "fair" than today's socialism. Hopefully, this will change. Until then, we're at a bit of a dead end.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't calling attention to the LACK of a character of a particular race/gender/preference be just as biased as calling attention to the existance of one? If people were really race/gen/sexpref-neutral, then the need for "type quotas" would be just as offensive as leaving some types out. Saying that a show needs a gay character to be successful would be bringing discriminatory attention towards that character. In other words, treating that character differently. How would you feel if someone was forming a group of people and said to you, "Join our group because we need a gay person"? Congrats, you've been singled out because of your sexual preference, just in a way people don't normally think about. If everyone was truely "tolerant", these things wouldn't even be discussed, much less thought about. In my opinion, both sides of the argument are too consumed by their own biases.

Personally, I'm thinking a show based on a small Starfleet strike team, trained in both covert ground operations and air combat (Anyone ever read Wraith Squadron?). The one thing that's always irked me about Star Trek is the lack of any sort of support fighter craft aside from the ones shown in Sacrifice of Angels (and if you try to mention Star Trek: Invasion to me, I get to stab you with a pick axe), and that we don't often get to see the non-naval side of the military. I think right now the newer and more unique the concept, the better. Trek needs to be revived and have a new facet added to it, and I think this would work well.

I'm not touching that. :rolleyes:

I prefer to think of it as the last day of Star Trek under Rick Berman, and I feel much happier. I will hold on to my hope that some day Trek will be revived by someone competant. A few of my favorite Trek moments: - The Nemesis battle - The 3 Enterprises meeting in All Good Things - Bashier and O'Brien drunk in Explorers - The Dominion War (all of it) - The DS9 team running into Kirk's Enterprise - The Enterprise vs. Reliant battle in Wrath of Khan (tactical goodness) - The death of the Enterprise-D (brilliant)