cogman10

Yeah, they were super capitalists on episode 1.

Honestly, I think the main reason they were hard to sell as the series villains wasn't the capitalist part, it was the fact that they were scrawny and unintimidating. They were just sort of dorky rather than scary. The writers learned well to lean into that dorkiness in later appearances and DS9.

What made the borg intimidating was you actually felt like they were a threat. I mean, pretty early on they captured and converted picard.

Well once I saw it wanted episode names, I was like "Nope, not for me".

I can't recall a single name of any episode, except for maybe measure of a man and inner light. But I could tell you exactly what will happen within 5 seconds of watching an episode.

> The latter episode hasn’t aged well because of one unnecessary romantic/sex scene.

Meh. I give huge passes for media based on when they were filmed. Stuff that doesn't age well is mostly just "well, it was ok at the time" and move on. TNG has very little in it that isn't really timeless.

Now, for stuff that was bad even for the time, that's the stuff that should rightly be condemned. For example, Code of Honor.

How dangerous caffeine is. You can also buy a bottle of Tylenol from Walmart, that doesn't mean it's particularly safe to OD on.

Lower dosages of caffeine kill you than the water dosages that kill you.

> And easily achieved through energy drinks?

Yeah, once you start pushing 1000mg of caffeine, you are getting into areas where if you have heart problems, you could be putting yourself in danger.

> Most energy drinks

But not all. So why strongly doubt it?

There are plenty of energy drinks which are fairly popular with huge amounts of caffeine and there's little labeling requirements to let people know that. Bang energy drink is a good example of that. 300mg per can, meaning 3 cans is putting you in dangerous territories.

I don't think there's long term evidence for negative problems. However, high dosages of caffeine are dangerous and have killed people. Those dosages are easily achieved through the likes of energy drinks.

The point of bring all this up isn't to expect the trump admin to do anything, it's an expectation of a (hopefully) future democrat admin to change forces and stop framing the ICE problem as a training or lack of body cams issue.

For sure, my point is that there's no way you can slice this as being justifiable. Even if you are pro surveillance and anti-leftist. ICE shouldn't be doing this, it's the job of the FBI.

At least you know I'm not using AI for my comments :)

Spying on political enemies and arresting citizens? That's completely outside of their statutory powers.

ICE is rogue* agency. They need to be disbanded. Fine if we still have an agency doing ICE work or whatever, but every single person employed by ICE needs to be fired, potentially prosecuted, definitely black listed from federal government work, and their funds returned for the blatant unconstitutional and dangerous use they've been put towards.

Put them back under the DoJ and have the FBI handle criminals, not ICE. Bring back the INS.

* Misspelled initially

Let's put aside whether or not surveillance is necessary.

The very big problem I have here is that ICE is not the agency that should be doing this sort of surveillance. Their role is immigration control, not leftist or citizen control. If they suspect there's some dangerous criminal problem going on, then that's the role of the FBI to investigate.

The specific reason they are doing this is because ICE doesn't use traditional courts for most of their actions. As such, they are fairly unaccountable.

ICE also isn't even technically criminal law enforcement, they are civil law enforcers. They are supposed to involve local law enforcement or federal law enforcement when going after criminals. Their roles are, instead, to dish out tickets. The fact that they've been militarized is a major problem. CBP is the only agency under the DHS that is supposed to have any sort of military equipment and general detention powers and those are only supposed to be exerted at a border.

Rulings are interpretations of the law.

2 parties bring up what they believe is the legal justification for their position in dispute and a judge rules on which is the correct position. If a party thinks the judge got the ruling wrong (interpreted the law wrong), they object and appeal.

There are also several exceptions to the hearsay rule.