The legislature probably didn't think a reasonable person would be confused about the fact that prepping shipments and actually handling distribution are two separate things, so they didn't get too worried about the punctuation (though they should have, because some lawyer is looking for a way to make a bunch of cash off of the difference in the punctuation, never mind the obvious intent).
So if shipping is part of distribution (we'll call them collectively shipubution for clarity), what would packing for shipubution be? That's correct, a specific step that is not being included in shipubution. So the packing is exempt, the shipubution is not.
What? The entire sentence is providing a list of the activities that are exempt. The don't list the activity of distributing the products as an exemption from the exemptions. Are you even listening to yourself?
Nonsense. In a serial list, the OR ahead of the last item means that you are looking at an entire LIST of "or" items. The lack of the comma doesn't change that. More specifically, shipment IS distribution. You don't do one or the other. You pack for shipment, and THEN YOU DISTRIBUTE. How are you foggy on this?
You're exactly wrong. Shipment IS part of distribution. Distribution is the act of distributing, not packing. You know, like driving things to the places to which they are distributed.
Yeah, you're right. The US Constitution is only the most important chartering document second to the Magna Carta, and the greatest guarantee of freedom of speech ever crafted in history. No reason anybody would know about.
it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism
It isn't "left-wing countries," it's lefties in general over the last few decades. There is no greater group of speech-muzzling little tyrants to be found. Try saying something out of alignment with the dictatorial left on a college campus like Berkeley - and get literally beaten bloody and unconscious. And then watch the lefty columnists in the school paper cheer it on! It's astonishing. Or would be, if we hadn't been seeing the liberals/progressives patting their brown shirts on the back for some years now. Today's left is all about power and silencing others, violently when they're in the mood to be that way, in order to get and secure it. And the left-leaning press cuts them all the slack they need in order to carry on that way.
The fact the native Americans believed you could no more own the land then the sky...
What nonsense. First, describing "Native Americans" as if they were one homogeneous culture is just silly. For that matter, describing them as "Native" in the first place is just silly. They were migrants, from Asia. Regardless... many of those tribal sub-cultures most certainly DID consider physical stretches of land to be owned, controlled, occupied by their tribe. Enough so that LONG before the eeeeeeevil Europeans showed up, those tribes had - for centuries - gone about developing, polishing, and highly ritualizing warrior classes specifically in existence to defend the land they considered theirs, and some cases to go forth, kill people, and take land belonging to others.
The strange contemporary delusion in which American Indians were more like an Occupy Wall Street sit-in where everybody loved everybody else and shared everything is preposterous. They had highly evolved skills surrounding the killing, kidnapping, torture, and just overall fighting over specific spots of land, some of which were home to one group or another for hundreds of years.
So, you're opposed to judges looking at evidence and doing things like issuing warrants, injunctions, etc., as they have for centuries. Because judges are goofs (did you really use that word?) and it's pontificating to be aware of history and of how these things can, do, and should work. Gotcha! Carry on.
You're referring to the business entities that were set up to make money pirating other people's products? Yeah, that's bad. That's why a judge agreed with you and shut those guys down.
What? I suppose you're also in favor of law enforcement taking time to send a friendly postcard to the home address of someone who's in the middle of committing a bank robbery. You know, so they have some advance notice that the crime they are literally in the middle of committing is about to be stopped. After all, the bank robber hasn't been convicted of anything yet, so even though a judge has reviewed what's going on and ordered the action, it's just not nice to stop the crime from continuing. Criminals are people too, and if their world view says it's OK to, say, kidnap someone or steal things, well, it's totally uncool to stop that in progress without first inviting their mom over for coffee to talk it through, first.
Do you REALLY think that the operators of these sites didn't get numerous notices from all of the parties involved, telling them to knock it off with the rampant piracy operations? Do you really think it's unconstitutional for a judge who has reviewed ample evidence to order steps to stop an obvious crime in progress? Let me guess: you consider the problem to be that the judge only did this when some private-sector parties made a stink about it, right? You know, sort of like when you - a private person - call law enforcement about something you see happening, especially when it impacts your home or business.
And yet... still no addressing of the matters at hand! Why? Because when I refer to Hillary Clinton as having lied repeatedly about what she did, it squares directly with the evidence of that presented by the FBI. When you call that made up bullshit but don't explain why you think the FBI was lying when it explained it to you, you're essentially confirming every stereotype of the Fake News liberal take on things. Hurl ad hominem, and avoid reality at all costs.
So, correct the situation, with specifics. Did the FBI provide us with a long list of untrue utterances and assertions by Hillary Clinton, or not? If you say they did not, are you suggesting that the video of the FBI director presenting that information was somehow doctored before it was broadcast by every major new outlet? If you think that, can you explain why you think saying that makes you sound at all rational on the subject?
So, you're using the Standard Liberal Response to anyone who points out that their political champion is a corrupt liar who got away with things that would have landed any of her federal underlings in jail. One can always tell that's the truth with the best counter-point a Democrat can come up with is a foul-mouthed little tantrum that shows contempt for women and people with developmental problems. As usual, it's the liberals who actually do have the real, active hatred for other people that they pretend to accuse others of having. Thanks for demonstrating that once again - well done!
So, what you're saying is that you have no understanding, whatsoever, about the things you're ranting about. You are so upset that your designated queen who you wanted to see back in power where she and her husband could continue to enrich themselves at the public trough... lost the election because she called millions of women deplorable racists, and exhibited so much contempt for voters outside of her comfortable couple of large coastal zones that she couldn't even trouble herself to set FOOT in places that she was later shocked, SHOCKED! to find didn't vote for her. Yeah, that was all Republican scheming! The convinced her to run her official State business off an internet-facing server in her house, destroy tens of thousands of records while under subpoena, fail to produce documents - even years later - that she was obligated to hand over on the day she left office, and then lie repeatedly about ALL of that... yes! It was the crafty Republicans that talked her into doing all of that with their special mind control rays. You should be safe from that, of course, with your special hat on.
Please, though. Carry on. Do as much ranting like this as you possibly can for the next year and a half, so the Democrats can lose even more of their dwindling minority of seats in the legislature. Thanks for your hard work to that end. Your entire bearing on the matter is exactly why liberals lost a thousand legislative seats under Obama, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton lost because she was blindly wishing all of that away, and then demanding that people she falsely called irredeemable racists and homophobes vote for her anyway, because of her genitals. You need to get over your complete lack of understanding about what happened - not just in November, but for the last eight years. Hilarious that you talk about things like "exploding deficits" (as Obama added more debt to your tab than every other president in history COMBINED).
Your juvenile need to call people... inbred, shitstains, etc., while actively ignoring the fact that you supported a corrupt, serial liar who did things like deploy people paid with your tax dollars to go out and smear the reputations of the women her predatory husband abused... never mind. You know all of that. Your childish ad homimem is a perfect measure of how much you know it - because that's all you've got. Otherwise, you'd have to address the substance of the matters, and anything you'd say in that area would be too funny, and you know it. So, keep it up! Especially through 2018's elections. Thanks! It really helps.
So they're a felony for Pence then, is what you're saying.
No. Because the two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Which you know.
President Trump communicates about governance related issues using his unsecured Android phone.
Citation based on something other than a whiny liberal fake news blog, please.
The whole email affair was a mountain made out of a mole hill
No, it was an example of one of the most senior people in the federal government deliberately conducting official business on a poorly secured internet-connected mail server she kept in her house. And then failing to turn over all of that data on the day she left office, as required by law. And deleting thousands of federal records while under subpoena, and then repeatedly lying about the entire process for months on end, as pointed out by the FBI director in specific terms. Any other federal employee would lose their job. Nobody conducting themselves in that way with classified material could EVER get or keep a security clearance. Nobody doing those things could secure a federal job in the first place, let alone in connection to more handling of sensitive information.
someone who wants f*cking corporations to have the right to demand genetic testing of employees
Really. Who would that be? Are you referring to people in the legislature, where that is being talked about but hasn't even faced reconciliation or voting of any kind? Or are you referring to the president, who has said exactly zero on the matter at all?
So, you response to someone who is telling the truth is to wish they were dead so you don't have to grapple with the fact your preferred politician is a corrupt liar? Which part was the lie... the part where the entire Clinton apparatus stonewalled and foot-dragged on FOIA requests for years? The part where she and her husband raked in millions of dollars selling influence while she was in office? I know, it's painful if you were rooting for her, and you know that she was looking you in the eye and lying - over and over and over again - so you're trying to wish it away. But why the venom aimed at the people who simply point that out? What are you, 12?
No, the emails would be a felony for anyone else but Hillary Clinton. For anyone whose politically connected (at the time), presumed-about-to-be-back-in-the-White-House husband didn't have a friendly, spontaneous visit with the country's chief law enforcement officer on her private plane while his wife was the subject of a federal criminal investigation by her. If anyone else with the Secretary of State's level of access to sensitive material acted in as cavalier a way and then deliberately, knowingly, and repeatedly lied about essentially every aspect of their conduct, as Clinton did - they'd lose their job, any prospect for future federal employment, and quite possibly their liberty. You know this, but you're pretending you don't so you can cling to the myth that Clinton was just... what, misunderstood? As she and Bill made personal millions as they sold political access to foreign dictators for cold cash? Yeah, keep wishing she had the power she craved.
And lefty fascists lazily calling everyone they don't like racists (and completely mis-using the term "fascists," which they should be reserving for their own hateful, violent, speech-muzzling, flagrantly corrupt, anti-constitutional ways) is a sure example that they can't muster the intellectual integrity to actually address the substance of the matter. Thanks for being so predictable.
We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency
Right. Obama's last month as president was with the business and investing world, and the economy generally, being aware of the results of the election and knowing that the economically toxic Obama policies that Clinton promised to continue would not be continued. Of course you know this, but you're the one who is completely ignoring that. Investors began making big bets on renewed prosperity the moment the stock market opened after election day.
Slashdot Mirror
The legislature probably didn't think a reasonable person would be confused about the fact that prepping shipments and actually handling distribution are two separate things, so they didn't get too worried about the punctuation (though they should have, because some lawyer is looking for a way to make a bunch of cash off of the difference in the punctuation, never mind the obvious intent).
So if shipping is part of distribution (we'll call them collectively shipubution for clarity), what would packing for shipubution be? That's correct, a specific step that is not being included in shipubution. So the packing is exempt, the shipubution is not.
What? The entire sentence is providing a list of the activities that are exempt. The don't list the activity of distributing the products as an exemption from the exemptions. Are you even listening to yourself?
Nonsense. In a serial list, the OR ahead of the last item means that you are looking at an entire LIST of "or" items. The lack of the comma doesn't change that. More specifically, shipment IS distribution. You don't do one or the other. You pack for shipment, and THEN YOU DISTRIBUTE. How are you foggy on this?
You're exactly wrong. Shipment IS part of distribution. Distribution is the act of distributing, not packing. You know, like driving things to the places to which they are distributed.
Yeah, you're right. The US Constitution is only the most important chartering document second to the Magna Carta, and the greatest guarantee of freedom of speech ever crafted in history. No reason anybody would know about.
it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism
It isn't "left-wing countries," it's lefties in general over the last few decades. There is no greater group of speech-muzzling little tyrants to be found. Try saying something out of alignment with the dictatorial left on a college campus like Berkeley - and get literally beaten bloody and unconscious. And then watch the lefty columnists in the school paper cheer it on! It's astonishing. Or would be, if we hadn't been seeing the liberals/progressives patting their brown shirts on the back for some years now. Today's left is all about power and silencing others, violently when they're in the mood to be that way, in order to get and secure it. And the left-leaning press cuts them all the slack they need in order to carry on that way.
in general nothing of use is lost by banning hate speech
Yeah, just the First Amendment. Nothing important.
Yup. "By a robot" will be the new "with a computer."
The fact the native Americans believed you could no more own the land then the sky...
What nonsense. First, describing "Native Americans" as if they were one homogeneous culture is just silly. For that matter, describing them as "Native" in the first place is just silly. They were migrants, from Asia. Regardless ... many of those tribal sub-cultures most certainly DID consider physical stretches of land to be owned, controlled, occupied by their tribe. Enough so that LONG before the eeeeeeevil Europeans showed up, those tribes had - for centuries - gone about developing, polishing, and highly ritualizing warrior classes specifically in existence to defend the land they considered theirs, and some cases to go forth, kill people, and take land belonging to others.
The strange contemporary delusion in which American Indians were more like an Occupy Wall Street sit-in where everybody loved everybody else and shared everything is preposterous. They had highly evolved skills surrounding the killing, kidnapping, torture, and just overall fighting over specific spots of land, some of which were home to one group or another for hundreds of years.
Is that the exact same number of HAs that you used when someone first mentioned to you the idea of Trump running in the first place? Thought so.
So, you're opposed to judges looking at evidence and doing things like issuing warrants, injunctions, etc., as they have for centuries. Because judges are goofs (did you really use that word?) and it's pontificating to be aware of history and of how these things can, do, and should work. Gotcha! Carry on.
You're referring to the business entities that were set up to make money pirating other people's products? Yeah, that's bad. That's why a judge agreed with you and shut those guys down.
the constitution be damned
What? I suppose you're also in favor of law enforcement taking time to send a friendly postcard to the home address of someone who's in the middle of committing a bank robbery. You know, so they have some advance notice that the crime they are literally in the middle of committing is about to be stopped. After all, the bank robber hasn't been convicted of anything yet, so even though a judge has reviewed what's going on and ordered the action, it's just not nice to stop the crime from continuing. Criminals are people too, and if their world view says it's OK to, say, kidnap someone or steal things, well, it's totally uncool to stop that in progress without first inviting their mom over for coffee to talk it through, first.
Do you REALLY think that the operators of these sites didn't get numerous notices from all of the parties involved, telling them to knock it off with the rampant piracy operations? Do you really think it's unconstitutional for a judge who has reviewed ample evidence to order steps to stop an obvious crime in progress? Let me guess: you consider the problem to be that the judge only did this when some private-sector parties made a stink about it, right? You know, sort of like when you - a private person - call law enforcement about something you see happening, especially when it impacts your home or business.
Hey, look! Still not a single sentence on the subject matter - just vague hand-wavy ad hominem. Again.
And yet ... still no addressing of the matters at hand! Why? Because when I refer to Hillary Clinton as having lied repeatedly about what she did, it squares directly with the evidence of that presented by the FBI. When you call that made up bullshit but don't explain why you think the FBI was lying when it explained it to you, you're essentially confirming every stereotype of the Fake News liberal take on things. Hurl ad hominem, and avoid reality at all costs.
So, correct the situation, with specifics. Did the FBI provide us with a long list of untrue utterances and assertions by Hillary Clinton, or not? If you say they did not, are you suggesting that the video of the FBI director presenting that information was somehow doctored before it was broadcast by every major new outlet? If you think that, can you explain why you think saying that makes you sound at all rational on the subject?
So, you're using the Standard Liberal Response to anyone who points out that their political champion is a corrupt liar who got away with things that would have landed any of her federal underlings in jail. One can always tell that's the truth with the best counter-point a Democrat can come up with is a foul-mouthed little tantrum that shows contempt for women and people with developmental problems. As usual, it's the liberals who actually do have the real, active hatred for other people that they pretend to accuse others of having. Thanks for demonstrating that once again - well done!
So, you're unable to provide a citation to back up the assertion. Gotcha! Thanks.
So, what you're saying is that you have no understanding, whatsoever, about the things you're ranting about. You are so upset that your designated queen who you wanted to see back in power where she and her husband could continue to enrich themselves at the public trough ... lost the election because she called millions of women deplorable racists, and exhibited so much contempt for voters outside of her comfortable couple of large coastal zones that she couldn't even trouble herself to set FOOT in places that she was later shocked, SHOCKED! to find didn't vote for her. Yeah, that was all Republican scheming! The convinced her to run her official State business off an internet-facing server in her house, destroy tens of thousands of records while under subpoena, fail to produce documents - even years later - that she was obligated to hand over on the day she left office, and then lie repeatedly about ALL of that ... yes! It was the crafty Republicans that talked her into doing all of that with their special mind control rays. You should be safe from that, of course, with your special hat on.
... inbred, shitstains, etc., while actively ignoring the fact that you supported a corrupt, serial liar who did things like deploy people paid with your tax dollars to go out and smear the reputations of the women her predatory husband abused... never mind. You know all of that. Your childish ad homimem is a perfect measure of how much you know it - because that's all you've got. Otherwise, you'd have to address the substance of the matters, and anything you'd say in that area would be too funny, and you know it. So, keep it up! Especially through 2018's elections. Thanks! It really helps.
Please, though. Carry on. Do as much ranting like this as you possibly can for the next year and a half, so the Democrats can lose even more of their dwindling minority of seats in the legislature. Thanks for your hard work to that end. Your entire bearing on the matter is exactly why liberals lost a thousand legislative seats under Obama, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton lost because she was blindly wishing all of that away, and then demanding that people she falsely called irredeemable racists and homophobes vote for her anyway, because of her genitals. You need to get over your complete lack of understanding about what happened - not just in November, but for the last eight years. Hilarious that you talk about things like "exploding deficits" (as Obama added more debt to your tab than every other president in history COMBINED).
Your juvenile need to call people
So they're a felony for Pence then, is what you're saying.
No. Because the two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Which you know.
President Trump communicates about governance related issues using his unsecured Android phone.
Citation based on something other than a whiny liberal fake news blog, please.
The whole email affair was a mountain made out of a mole hill
No, it was an example of one of the most senior people in the federal government deliberately conducting official business on a poorly secured internet-connected mail server she kept in her house. And then failing to turn over all of that data on the day she left office, as required by law. And deleting thousands of federal records while under subpoena, and then repeatedly lying about the entire process for months on end, as pointed out by the FBI director in specific terms. Any other federal employee would lose their job. Nobody conducting themselves in that way with classified material could EVER get or keep a security clearance. Nobody doing those things could secure a federal job in the first place, let alone in connection to more handling of sensitive information.
someone who wants f*cking corporations to have the right to demand genetic testing of employees
Really. Who would that be? Are you referring to people in the legislature, where that is being talked about but hasn't even faced reconciliation or voting of any kind? Or are you referring to the president, who has said exactly zero on the matter at all?
So, you response to someone who is telling the truth is to wish they were dead so you don't have to grapple with the fact your preferred politician is a corrupt liar? Which part was the lie ... the part where the entire Clinton apparatus stonewalled and foot-dragged on FOIA requests for years? The part where she and her husband raked in millions of dollars selling influence while she was in office? I know, it's painful if you were rooting for her, and you know that she was looking you in the eye and lying - over and over and over again - so you're trying to wish it away. But why the venom aimed at the people who simply point that out? What are you, 12?
The emails were a felony only in your imagination
No, the emails would be a felony for anyone else but Hillary Clinton. For anyone whose politically connected (at the time), presumed-about-to-be-back-in-the-White-House husband didn't have a friendly, spontaneous visit with the country's chief law enforcement officer on her private plane while his wife was the subject of a federal criminal investigation by her. If anyone else with the Secretary of State's level of access to sensitive material acted in as cavalier a way and then deliberately, knowingly, and repeatedly lied about essentially every aspect of their conduct, as Clinton did - they'd lose their job, any prospect for future federal employment, and quite possibly their liberty. You know this, but you're pretending you don't so you can cling to the myth that Clinton was just ... what, misunderstood? As she and Bill made personal millions as they sold political access to foreign dictators for cold cash? Yeah, keep wishing she had the power she craved.
And lefty fascists lazily calling everyone they don't like racists (and completely mis-using the term "fascists," which they should be reserving for their own hateful, violent, speech-muzzling, flagrantly corrupt, anti-constitutional ways) is a sure example that they can't muster the intellectual integrity to actually address the substance of the matter. Thanks for being so predictable.
We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency
Right. Obama's last month as president was with the business and investing world, and the economy generally, being aware of the results of the election and knowing that the economically toxic Obama policies that Clinton promised to continue would not be continued. Of course you know this, but you're the one who is completely ignoring that. Investors began making big bets on renewed prosperity the moment the stock market opened after election day.
Woosh! That's the whole point. STILL blaming Russia for things like losing elections is laughably lame.
I dare say we know who is responsible for this, as in all things.