Don’t take legal advice from anonymous Internet personalities.
What he missed is the”or it’s derivatives” part…which could be interpreted to mean if the plant grown from the seed is over .3% it’s a felony (one synonym of “derivative” is “offshoot”, another is “descendant”).
Wait for official clarification before setting yourself up for a stay in club fed. Don’t rely on some random person’s interpretation of untested federal law.

@newtboy,

thanks for clarification.

So in your view, do you see the left objecting to any of the following things that kinda speak to Maher's point, and I think fits to the point of the 'left' being upset with him,

-Defending Chapelle which left would decry invoking their definition of dog whistle, transphobia...
-Pointing out a correlation between violence and Islamic extremism which left would decry as islamophobia
-Believing sports/olympics should divide competitors based on biological sex rather than gender identity == Transphobia
-(Big any famous celebrity accused of sex crimes) and suggesting they deserve a fair trial == failure to believe victims/survivors

Those are all things that have been pretty commonly defended by large groups of the left from what I've been seeing. Am I wrong?

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2021/01/19/shameka-oneils-hang-up/

From the linked article:

Later in the day, O’Neil joined Kaelin’s virtual courtroom again to ask the judge for clarification about the contempt order.

“Mark my words: If you take adverse action against me, you better be sure about it, because you made some mistakes here today,” O’Neil told Kaelin. “I will attempt to hold you civilly or however responsible that I can, and that’s my word.”

“As for that fine — straight cash homie, bottomline don’t disrespect me and try to humiliate me in front of my client and other professionals then think I’m going to sit there and take it whether you got on a robe or not I’m a person just like her I’m not her child nor do I work for her get respect and I give respect. Period.”

Before becoming a defense lawyer, it appears that O’Neil was a prosecutor in Jefferson County, Kentucky, where she encountered problems as well.

Take, for instance, Jefferson County prosecutor Shameka O’Neil, who last year resigned after falsely assuring a judge that no recording of a 911 call existed to be turned over to defense counsel in a stolen property case. She had spoken personally to the Louisville Metro police, she told the court, to confirm the lack of a recording. The problem being that, in fact, she had not spoken to the police, and there was a 911 call. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett dismissed the case, citing O’Neil’s “outrageous conduct.”

point of clarification

"lack of standing, meaning the campaign failed to show that it had suffered an 'injury in fact'"

Or in these circumstances, if there WERE a handful of people lets say 100, lets say they legit found 100 votes that were 100% fraudulent. In a space where they lost the vote by 20,000, 100 votes would not have caused injury or would not have changed anything.

Still if you look at even the numbers that they are claiming are frauds
(see below)
-----------------------
-----------------------
Here’s the breakdown of the ones they could verify and have been provided to the public.

42,000 people voted more than once
1,500 dead voters cast ballots
19,000 non-Nevada residents voted (number doesn’t include students and military)
8,000 people voted using non-existent addresses
15,000 votes were cast from commercial addresses or vacant houses
4,000 ineligible foreign nationals voted


that brings you to 89,500 votes

STILL you'd have to chop that 42,000 in half, because 1 of their votes would still count, so 89-21= 68,500 that they are even CLAIMING are fraudulent

Here's the problem
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2020-us-presidential-election-results-live-map/

even if u shift the 68,500 away - you can't assume that all of those votes that they're claiming are fraudulent are FOR biden - it's likely a mixed bag. HENCE the no injury-in-fact.


------------

But that's also assuming that the evidence they present is actually substantial and holds up to scrutiny

"[The judge] summarily dismissed its claims of voter fraud and request for an overturn of election results in a ruling on Friday, writing that the campaign’s evidence provided “little to no value” based on questionable or “unsound” methodology, adding that the evidence failed to show any “credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”





-
If the evidence is so compelling, why can't i find it anywhere? "washed away?" Can't be that washed away, there's a court transcript that's easily readable. There's bits and pieces published on news sites, but the judges in 50 different states in the USA (many appointed by trump) and the supreme court too for that matter, didnt find anything presented to be compelling.



--------
SIDE NOTE
Did u watch Lombardi's ghost or whatever speaking at the super bowl? What do you think he meant by "...the courage and teamwork to triumph" The phrase jumped out at me, because it's not very encouraging. I mean I personally find it encouraging. But i guess a lot of people don't find talk like that encouraging, it's just a weird quote that doesnt make sense. It's like how do you get to the word "triumph" with the word "courage" --- that's just not very encouraging,,,some might say. It's like, what does he even do all day, TALK to the players to get them to do things? everyone knows that's not possible. Not encouraging. pffffft sorry i can't keep it up, yeah he incited the riot through encouragement.

Thanks for the clarifications

Thanks @newtboy for the clarifications.

I think the problem is that there is not a clear delineation between the 30 or so channels listed while submitting and the Kids one.

Maybe there should be a separate submission flow for Kids such that the channel owner/owners need to approve it. If it is supposed to be that restricted then it is far too easy to tag right now.

I don't claim to know much about this, but in the audio it did sound like they were seeking clarification about the runway being on the right; I'd be curious to know their airspeed at the time of the avoided colision; would a plane coming down on top of another crush the one underneath? If they hit nose to nose it definitely would be ugly

@newtboy
hey man,thanks for giving him a shot.
this was the first video i ever watched of officer izzo,and i forgot where i even came across him.

maybe facebook?
i dunno,but i have many facebook friends who are cops and corrections officers.so probably.

i really dug how he addressed the disparity of poor neighborhoods,and the working poor to those of more privileged backgrounds.how he,as an officer,is forced to further compound their struggles by:tickets/racial profiling and as he pointed out..arrest arrest arrest.

from what i gather (because i couldn't find the original) he had posted a video that many of his fellow officers had found offensive and controversial.this video appears to be a clarification directed towards his fellow officers who could not understand why he was criticizing his own profession,and therefore criticizing THEM.

it appears he didn't go the "hey guys,i am sorry" but rather doubled down by clarifying what he felt law enforcement SHOULD be and not what it had become.

he blames the command staff,and in many of his videos he repeats that accusation.i remember even here on the sift we had a cop explain that many of the things we were all bitching about,and being offended by,were actually due to the command structure and not the patrol officers themselves.

which has a ring of truth to my ears being ex military.

i love how he directly speaks of how some patrol officers are forced to do unethical and immoral acts,while the command staff ignores those officers with the most facile of justifications:hey,it's legal.

that puts the officer at risk.just like a bad command staff in the military puts the enlisted man at risk.i mean,just look at the suicide stats for todays military..twenty two military men commit suicide daily,and how does the military brass respond?

those men had mental issues.

oh really? EVERY single one of them?
either there is a suicide epidemic or maybe..maaaaaybe...those who are in command,and whose responsibility it is for the well being of their men,are a gaggle of incompetent fuckwads.who do not have the courage nor integrity to own up to their own epic failures as commanders.

listening to officer Izzo,i suspect there are many parallels between military service and law enforcement.

i respect how he states he is doing this for the everyday patrolmen,even the ones who disagree and are criticizing him.

i think it is a good thing to hear a perspective from a man who does the job.to hear that even the cops are going "what the fuck".

anyways,thanks for watching man,i hope others give officer Izzo a chance as well.

http://www.9news.com/entertainment/television/programs/next-with-kyle-clark/jeremy-jojola-statement-on-fake-news-clarification/370786213

Took them only a couple of hours after running a shoddy segment on fake news that incorrectly trashed NC. WaPo on the other hand is still standing by its defamatory claims...

Thanks for the correction/clarification. I'd personally count that as cheating, but it makes a difference. Kinda still CG, kinda not, I guess.

My mistake. I conflated Syntax's comment with your defense of it, but the point still stands, just change "you" to "they" in that paragraph.
Beyond that, you simply created red herrings to attack because you don't understand my points but seem too stubborn to admit it and ask for clarification, and you are STILL incredibly naïve, by either definition, and sesquipedalianly obtuse as well.
Enjoy battling those windmills.

@Mordhaus, yeah, good points. Thanks for the clarification of what lies behind the soundbite (nobody has time to explain what they really mean these days, do they?)

However (isn't there always a "however"), I don't agree with "valid to question the integrity of the second vet." Integrity? Pretty loaded word.

It presumes that someone can be gungho about something in the abstract but when confronted with the reality, can't learn something about the world and themselves they didn't know before.

You're right that he didn't know he was CO before. He learned he was.

It isn't integrity to turn away from a learning situation. To me, it is the utmost in integrity.
There are different types of bravery. The bravery to go into battle. And the bravery to decide in the closeknit world of "band of brothers" that you can't be in that particular band anymore.

Maybe it was cowardice in the face of death or maiming that he learned and he ran away. I would say, in this particular case, he honestly came to a new understanding. Otherwise he wouldn't be speaking up, right? He'd be hiding at home? Knowing what soldiers who stayed are saying about him?

War is hell. So many casualties, both physical and mental.

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.