NationStates

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:56 am**

Ameriganastan wrote:
New haven america wrote:No, I was pointing to your lack of experience with them yet claiming they suck is ironic or a silly belief.

Especially since union states can make so many jobs that get paid shit in right-to-work states (Like trade jobs) 6 figure jobs.

A union going on strike cost me a job I was pretty much set to get. So they can all go rot.

Boohoo.

This is why other jobs exist.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:57 am**

New haven america wrote:
Ameriganastan wrote:A union going on strike cost me a job I was pretty much set to get. So they can all go rot.

Boohoo.

This is why other jobs exist.

And you can go on ignore for a while.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:59 am**

Ameriganastan wrote:
New haven america wrote:Boohoo.

This is why other jobs exist.

And you can go on ignore for a while.

If that's all it takes then I wonder what would happen if I talked about the joys of taxes and why they should be raised?

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:51 am**

New haven america wrote:
Ameriganastan wrote:And you can go on ignore for a while.

If that's all it takes then I wonder what would happen if I talked about the joys of taxes and why they should be raised?

Move along New Haven, your progressive self righteousness is by far annoying in other threads, leave it out of this one.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 am**

Fight fight fight

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:36 am**

Tarsonis wrote:
New haven america wrote:If that's all it takes then I wonder what would happen if I talked about the joys of taxes and why they should be raised?

Move along New Haven, your progressive self righteousness is by far annoying in other threads, leave it out of this one.

It's not his progressive self righteousness that's annoying here.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:38 am**

Juristonia wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Move along New Haven, your progressive self righteousness is by far annoying in other threads, leave it out of this one.

It's not his progressive self righteousness that's annoying here.

Its his regressive selfless lefteousness.

Sorry im recovering from drinks last night, ignore me.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:40 am**

Juristonia wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Move along New Haven, your progressive self righteousness is by far annoying in other threads, leave it out of this one.

It's not his progressive self righteousness that's annoying here.

It really is. Ameri hasn't attacked anyone for liking the union episodes or FBTS, simply said he doesn't like them to which NHA (As well as wallenburg) has all but called him a spoiled sack of shit for not buying the party line. Where Ameri has been arrogant and brash has really only been in his own defense. That's why I told NHA to keep it out of this thread. You're allowed to disagree with Star Trek, and have your own opinions on the episodes, it doesn't make anyone a bad person, it just means they disagree with a fucking TV show.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:43 am**

Earthbound immortal squad wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:Kim’s rank freezing is more to do with his predicament than anything else. He’s low man on the totem pole, non of the other Bridge officers died or were demoted, he’s stuck in Ensign due to circumstance, not because she doesn’t perform.

But Paris got demoted and then re-promoted and Kim never got anything in that time.

yeah I forgot about that one. The writers aren't always consistent.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:53 am**

Wallenburg wrote:There's nothing out of character about it. Quark is a greedy and abusive employer, and a sexist to the n-th degree. It's simply putting 2 and 2 together to realize that of course he would try to obligate his employees to ridiculous demands.

I don't disagree, necessarily, but Ameri also has a point. Up to that point we hadn't seen that level from Quark on the show, and then suddenly he goes from like a 7 to a 15. There's a bit of a whiplash in that episode that makes it feel disingenuous. Unlike Ameri though I think the episode was entirely merited and foreshadowed Rom's ascension to Grand Nagus. Quark represents the old Guard Ferangi, Rom represents the new. It's more of an allegorical episode about the change in Ferangi culture than a real propagandish piece about Unions and what not.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:52 am**

Tarsonis wrote:Kim’s rank freezing is more to do with his predicament than anything else. He’s low man on the totem pole, non of the other Bridge officers died or were demoted, he’s stuck in Ensign due to circumstance, not because she doesn’t perform.

Kims rank freezing has more to do with Garrett Wang pissing off the writers, but having somehow developed a fan base that prevented them from just killing him off. So they settled for making Kim the whipping boy of the series.

Officers staying on the same ship for ages isn't unusual in Trek and doesn't seem to affect their or anyone else's promotion prospects.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:27 am**

Myrensis wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:Kim’s rank freezing is more to do with his predicament than anything else. He’s low man on the totem pole, non of the other Bridge officers died or were demoted, he’s stuck in Ensign due to circumstance, not because she doesn’t perform.

Kims rank freezing has more to do with Garrett Wang pissing off the writers, but having somehow developed a fan base that prevented them from just killing him off. So they settled for making Kim the whipping boy of the series.

Officers staying on the same ship for ages isn't unusual in Trek and doesn't seem to affect their or anyone else's promotion prospects.

That’s because there’s presumably many more officers than the A team. Plus you’ll notice there’s only 1 Captain, 1 Comander, and then a smattering of the other ranks. While in the federation there’s more upward mobility on your ship as other officers get cycled off or you hold a ship billot that elevates you faster than others, In the case of the voyager, they’re frozen in place due to their isolation. Wang might be the real reason, but conceptually it’s not all that out there that he’d be stuck in ensign for the whole cruise, with no officers cycling out to other ships.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:05 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Juristonia wrote:It's not his progressive self righteousness that's annoying here.

It really is. Ameri hasn't attacked anyone for liking the union episodes or FBTS, simply said he doesn't like them to which NHA (As well as wallenburg) has all but called him a spoiled sack of shit for not buying the party line. Where Ameri has been arrogant and brash has really only been in his own defense. That's why I told NHA to keep it out of this thread. You're allowed to disagree with Star Trek, and have your own opinions on the episodes, it doesn't make anyone a bad person, it just means they disagree with a fucking TV show.

Yes they have and so have you so get off you high horse now~

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:57 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
It really is. Ameri hasn't attacked anyone for liking the union episodes or FBTS, simply said he doesn't like them to which NHA (As well as wallenburg) has all but called him a spoiled sack of shit for not buying the party line. Where Ameri has been arrogant and brash has really only been in his own defense. That's why I told NHA to keep it out of this thread. You're allowed to disagree with Star Trek, and have your own opinions on the episodes, it doesn't make anyone a bad person, it just means they disagree with a fucking TV show.

Yes they have and so have you so get off you high horse now~

No they haven't, and neither have I, especially in the current conversation. I've only criticized you for attacking him, and I'll do it some more. You're the last one who should be talking about high horses.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:05 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
New haven america wrote:Yes they have and so have you so get off you high horse now~

No they haven't, and neither have I, especially in the current conversation. I've only criticized you for attacking him, and I'll do it some more. You're the last one who should be talking about high horses.

In the current conversation: No. In past conversations: Yep!

I never claimed to be morally superior, you're the only one here who's claiming such~

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:09 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
No they haven't, and neither have I, especially in the current conversation. I've only criticized you for attacking him, and I'll do it some more. You're the last one who should be talking about high horses.

In the current conversation: No. In past conversations: Yep!

I never claimed to be morally superior, you're the only one here who's claiming such~

viewtopic.php?p=35288471#p35288471

We'll add liar to you list of titles then.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:12 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
New haven america wrote:In the current conversation: No. In past conversations: Yep!

I never claimed to be morally superior, you're the only one here who's claiming such~

viewtopic.php?p=35288471#p35288471

We'll add liar to you list of titles then.

Tis not a claim of moral superiority, and if you actually took the time to read the points after that, then you might be able to understand why.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:25 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
viewtopic.php?p=35288471#p35288471

We'll add liar to you list of titles then.

Tis not a claim of moral superiority, and if you actually took the time to read the points after that, then you might be able to understand why.

Morally shaming someone for contradicting your stand point is absolutely a claim of moral superiority. You're claiming your positing to be the morally superior one and therefore they're morally inferior for not agreeing with your position. You claim the moral high ground like you're bloody Meade at Gettysburg. And I did read down, and again he's still just disagreeing with you and you're shaming him for doing it, and not agreeing with your progressive, pro-union stance.

So once again, take your politicking out the fucking thread.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:12 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
New haven america wrote:Tis not a claim of moral superiority, and if you actually took the time to read the points after that, then you might be able to understand why.

1.Morally shaming someone for contradicting your stand point is absolutely a claim of moral superiority. 2. You're claiming your positing to be the morally superior one and therefore they're morally inferior for not agreeing with your position. 3. You claim the moral high ground like you're bloody Meade at Gettysburg. 4. And I did read down, and again he's still just disagreeing with you and you're shaming him for doing it, and not agreeing with your 5. progressive, pro-union stance.

So once again, take your politicking out the fucking thread.

1. Wasn't morally shaming someone
2. Nope, tis not what I'm doing
3. Yet again, never did.
4. I'm not shaming, simply point out that just because 1 union at 1 job did something doesn't make all unions terrible or that there aren't other options out there.
5. You don't even know what I am (conservative, liberal, progressive) and it's been proven to you that I'm not doing this out of a position of morality, so get out of here with your assuming and buzzword bullshit, please~ It seems like you're just taking things you're generally angry at, painting me as supporting those from only 1 interaction or misunderstanding, and getting angry when I deny those points or don't live up to your expectations. Learn to focus whatever your angry at elsewhere or get over it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:17 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
1.Morally shaming someone for contradicting your stand point is absolutely a claim of moral superiority. 2. You're claiming your positing to be the morally superior one and therefore they're morally inferior for not agreeing with your position. 3. You claim the moral high ground like you're bloody Meade at Gettysburg. 4. And I did read down, and again he's still just disagreeing with you and you're shaming him for doing it, and not agreeing with your 5. progressive, pro-union stance.

So once again, take your politicking out the fucking thread.

1. Wasn't morally shaming someone
2. Nope, tis not what I'm doing
3. Yet again, never did.
4. I'm not shaming, simply point out that just because 1 union at 1 job did something doesn't make all unions terrible or that there aren't other options out there.
5. You don't even know what I am (conservative, liberal, progressive) and it's been proven to you that I'm not doing this out of a position of morality, so get out of here with your assuming and buzzword bullshit, please~ It seems like you're just taking things you're generally angry at, painting me as supporting those from only 1 interaction or misunderstanding, and getting angry when I deny those points or don't live up to your expectations. Learn to focus whatever your angry at elsewhere or get over it.

Oh please you all but called him a spoiled sack of shit just because he doesn't like unions. Hence "

New haven america wrote:
Ameriganastan wrote:Oh, I do hate unions. But that doesn't change my point about them ratcheting up his douche level for propaganda purposes.

Coming from someone who's barely worked a week in their life...

Don't play dumb.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:18 pm**

Uh, guys. Star Trek? Maybe get back on that...

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:19 pm**

Ameriganastan wrote:Uh, guys. Star Trek? Maybe get back on that...

Don't go being an adult now Ameri, I was just staring to like you

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:23 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
New haven america wrote:1. Wasn't morally shaming someone
2. Nope, tis not what I'm doing
3. Yet again, never did.
4. I'm not shaming, simply point out that just because 1 union at 1 job did something doesn't make all unions terrible or that there aren't other options out there.
5. You don't even know what I am (conservative, liberal, progressive) and it's been proven to you that I'm not doing this out of a position of morality, so get out of here with your assuming and buzzword bullshit, please~ It seems like you're just taking things you're generally angry at, painting me as supporting those from only 1 interaction or misunderstanding, and getting angry when I deny those points or don't live up to your expectations. Learn to focus whatever your angry at elsewhere or get over it.

Oh please you all but called him a spoiled sack of shit just because he doesn't like unions.

Projection~

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:24 pm**

Ameriganastan wrote:Uh, guys. Star Trek? Maybe get back on that...

In a minute, we're busy

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:30 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:Oh please you all but called him a spoiled sack of shit just because he doesn't like unions.

Projection~

It’s not projection. Everyone knows what you mean when you use that condescending phrasing

NationStates

Scifi TV Discussion Thread