Heaton has some fun with their posturing and bureaucratic bloat.
Star Trek/Fleet has the Prime Directive so they're anti-communist.
In Star Trek the communists are the Borg.
So Star Trek is communist utopia, with hierarchy but no real wealth, right?
Heaton has some fun with their posturing and bureaucratic bloat.
Star Trek/Fleet has the Prime Directive so they're anti-communist.
In Star Trek the communists are the Borg.
Does it matter? There was a clear choice and a path was chosen. I will not likely be surprised by what comes, and while it makes me a little sad, it won't elicit much sympathy.
We could have chosen Star Trek, but we picked Blade Runner instead. In no small part because the characters looked more 'familiar'/ less 'scary'.
I'm not sure why, but people apparently wanted ants.
Look, I can't help you since this is what you think a malaprop is.
. Here, cap'n. You shoulda been a rag bagger ... they have more fun ...
Dude, give up. You got caught out, now you are just embarrassing yourself. Go back to waiting on the messaging you can champion over your team's latest gaff.
I know / knew the origin of the phrase. Considering what I was replying to, the analogy seemed appropriate, even if it is a malaprop. It was intentional.
Oh well. Sue me. ;)
sure buddy, it's okay, I see you.
Look, I can't help you since this is what you think a malaprop is.
. islander wrote:
Here, cap'n. You shoulda been a rag bagger ... they have more fun ...
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 25, 2025 - 12:16pm
One suggestion unlikely to see the light of day: I would increase the House terms to 4 years. At 2 years, they are running all the time. It would help at least a little if that were alleviated a bit. It also would help if terms could be staggered so that the entire body is not up for election at the same time.
The phrase was essentially that "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich", from a judge lamenting the sway prosecutors can have over grand juries because the defense cannot present evidence or cross-examine witnesses to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges. A conviction is very different from an indictment.
I know / knew the origin of the phrase.
Considering what I was replying to, the analogy seemed appropriate, even if it is a malaprop. It was intentional.
The phrase was essentially that "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich", from a judge lamenting the sway prosecutors can have over grand juries because the defense cannot present evidence or cross-examine witnesses to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges. A conviction is very different from an indictment.
What we have in this case is the conviction of the ham sandwich.
Oh well.
I guess you missed this part of my post.
Oh well.
You realize that you're now talking to yourself.
Haven't heard your spin on the whole sharing classified info on a public network with a reporter in tow. I realize FOX is looking more at who to blame than the overall ineptitude of the group...but who should get fired for such stupidity?
Here, I'll help you out regarding these convictions that you have a strong conviction for keeping them in the fore as much as possible. It has long been said that you can indict a ham sandwich. What we have in this case is the conviction of the ham sandwich.
Sure. But in addition to indict, he was convicted, by a jury, on 34 (out of 34) separate counts.
I guess you missed this part of my post.
kurtster wrote:
What we have in this case is the conviction of the ham sandwich.
