If I understood your previous writings correctly, I thought you had a “no-politics” policy on the threads. I thought that was a good policy, because the threads can deteriorate into almost completely non-Star Trek (see above).
Did I understand your policy correctly, and if so , what has happened?

A brief reply to #41: I greatly appreciate the reasoned and reasonable reply. I disagree with the specifics – while I suppose Gill’s speech could bear a superficial resemblance to some of the “patriotic” speeches the administration has offered in recent memory, the context and content are vastly different. Is national pride really that bad of a thing in a time of war? But anyway, your point about the political overtones is accepted.

I’m left to wonder how Altman’s remark really addressed such topics, but I’m going to drop it and move on to bigger and better things. I’ve got Shore Leave recorded and I’m sure there’ll be no end to the controversial topics to be found there. =)

Methinks there are hair-trigger people out there who are simply itching for a fight and wanting to take offence over anything that comes past!

No, #52, I am not derenged and when I was speaking of “US” I was speaking of anyone not a fanatical muslum extremist. I’ll let the rest of your post slide and consider the source.

Anthony, it was never my intention to spam, merely reply to the left and give another oppinion.

You know, IDIC.

Understood. I’m curious to read his response since I tried to engage more than denigrate, but I know I’ve violated the semi-moratorium on hardcore political discussion in the comments sectiosn, so I will gladly leave my end of this to rest. I actually kind of feel dirty for having done it to begin with, and I do apologize for contributing to the stray.

I still think John Gill was watching Hogan’s Heroes instead of going to class, though.

I was going to try and answer the verious points that you made in your diatribe but I won’t since it’s completely irrelevant to Star Trek and also I suspect from the tone of your polemic that you’re not open to reason.

I’ll refrain therefore to merely stating that, in my opinion:

1. “’I’ve served overseas and I’ve been to these countrys, these people want to kill us and they are not playing games.” – If you’re an example of the quality of American military personnel then it’s hardly surprising that “those” people want to kill you; and

2. You appear from your post to probably be incapable to reasonable debate and possibly quite deranged. My apologies but there you are…

Meanwhile back to this episode. – what amused me was that our Federation historian used the Nazis as an example of an ‘efficient’ system to base a society on. Amusing simply because the Nazi state was in fact vanything but efficient, the government comprising a multitude of overlapping organisations whose leaders were continually struggling with each other for power and which viewed each other’s operations with a great deal of suspicion. Presumably what’s known of pre-WW3 history got a bit-mangled byt the time of the 23rd century :)