I have no idea what your reply has to do with mine. Mine is a direct reply to the word smug with the South Park snapshot from Smug Alert. Even TS's comment is about him looking smug. I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans are capable of looking smug.
Oh, South Park, that answers it clearly then...
I'm sure both are smug, but then why not just point to politicians rather than to Bush? Again, the fact that someone points to a Democrat and calls out a Republican's smugness is odd at best. You saying Thanks was indication that you agreed, therefore my reply.
I dunno, why did you make such a stupid comment then?
It only matters in the fact that you tried to associate Bush with smugness by pointing to a Democrat. Why did you not just say political smugness?
I was not trying to discern, but rather you made the reference to Bush rather than politicians in general. You called yourself out on that one.
He made a reference to a person which I took to refer to physical characteristics that make each look smug. I don't see how you've conceived this notion that either Republicans or Democrats can look smug but not people from both parties. I don't see how or why you'd even try to make this partisan.
Do you honestly think when people draw a comparison to Senator Mitch McConnell looking like Droopy dog that they are suggesting that Droopy Dog must be a Republican in order to make the visual comparison, they are against Republicans, or against people from Kentucky seeing similarities? Do you think if he was a Democrat that comparison wouldn't have been made?
It only matters in the fact that you tried to associate Bush with smugness by pointing to a Democrat. Why did you not just say political smugness? So it is a bit funny you were trying to make a point against Bush and him being smug while pointing to a Democrat. Typical Liberal.
I was not trying to discern, but rather you made the reference to Bush rather than politicians in general. You called yourself out on that one.
Have you honestly never heard the phrase "bush league" in your entire life, or are you just putting me on?
Were I referencing President Bush, I would have capitalized the word, anyway.
He made a reference to a person which I took to refer to physical characteristics that make each look smug. I don't see how you've conceived this notion that either Republicans or Democrats can look smug but not people from both parties. I don't see how or why you'd even try to make this partisan.
Do you honestly think when people draw a comparison to Senator Mitch McConnell looking like Droopy dog that they are suggesting that Droopy Dog must be a Republican in order to make the visual comparison, they are against Republicans, or against people from Kentucky seeing similarities? Do you think if he was a Democrat that comparison wouldn't have been made?
LOL hardly, but when you call out Mitch looking droopy then you called out Mitch, not someone else. To point to one person and to call out another is suggesting that the second person is they one the derogatory comment is being made towards. So if he said that is Carl smugness then your argument would have merit.
I dunno, why did you make such a stupid comment then?
It only matters in the fact that you tried to associate Bush with smugness by pointing to a Democrat. Why did you not just say political smugness? So it is a bit funny you were trying to make a point against Bush and him being smug while pointing to a Democrat. Typical Liberal.
I was not trying to discern, but rather you made the reference to Bush rather than politicians in general. You called yourself out on that one.
He wrote bush league not Bush league. Big difference.
- These Senators are not 'anti corporate', but merely posturing to get corporate taxes lowered from 35% (which none of them pay) down to nothing. Stick us with the bills for the infrastructure that makes their profits possible.
So you assume that the vague "infrastructure" to which you refer can only be paid for through taxes?
You also assume that businesses customers are not the ones who really pay the corporate income taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
- Rand Paul is merely railing against taxes in general... the king of the 'Free Lunch Republicans'. He wants no infrastructure investments, no taxes, no safety net, just Somalia.
The Somalia reference is straight from the anti-libertarian talking points. It is also ill-informed.
Again, though, I ask: You assume that the vague "infrastructure" (and "safety net") to which you refer can only be provided and paid for through taxes?
LOL hardly, but when you call out Mitch looking droopy then you called out Mitch, not someone else. To point to one person and to call out another is suggesting that the second person is they one the derogatory comment is being made towards. So if he said that is Carl smugness then your argument would have merit.
Even if he was referring to George W Bush he's still comparing to ONE person. ONE! No where did he mention the GOP, Republicans, or any other party. You grossly misinterpreted his comment and intent and then reacted poorly to it. Admit you you wrong or just go away, either way you've lost here. THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!
Even if he was referring to George W Bush he's still comparing to ONE person. ONE! No where did he mention the GOP, Republicans, or any other party. You grossly misinterpreted his comment and intent and then reacted poorly to it. Admit you you wrong or just go away, either way you've lost here. THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!
I'm not all that familiar with tax code in general or patent law and Intellectual Property, but it sounded as if Levin's argument at the end was that Apple is escaping taxes from the profits of IP they sold from Apple inc., to the Irish subsidiary(ies). Based on the hearing and a report airing on NPR's ATC, there was not much of a clear distinguishing of what the shifting of IP overseas actually meant. All Things Considered made it sound like Apple was sheltering their domestic profits overseas. Cook and the rest of them were rather clear that all income from domestic sales are fully taxed in the US. Am I correct in understanding that the REAL CRUX OF THE ISSUE is that the profits from royalties and other licensing of the IP (researched and developed in the US) is being collected and taxed in Ireland at 2% and not brout back to the US?
Don't worry, the world economy is going to soon sputter when the natural resources which are non re-knew able and commercialized become economically impractical to drill or mine. Then those billions, no, trillions stashed overseas will get jacked by governments real quick. In the meantime, I can't effing wait for the retina iPad mini!!!!!!
As a patent attorney and inventor, I can assure you that the issue Cook raised is a HUGE problem. Patent lawsuits are a horrible game of bury the patent holder with endless filings, depositions, summary judgement motions, expert testimony, etc. etc. etc. Most of the time spent on a patent case has no legitimate purpose other than to waste money and delay. There are rules that are intended to prevent abuse of the legal system, but they are very difficult to enforce.
I'm glad to see Cook addressing this issue. For Apple, the issue is delay, not cost. However, the same tactics are used to increase cost, which has the effect of preventing small inventors from enforcing their patents and results in patent trolls picking them up for pennies on the dollar. It is a huge injustice to small inventors and legitimate large companies trying to enforce a patent at a critical juncture in market development.
I take your points!
But realistically when you need a lawyer...you're already f*cked.
Job's had it right, In tech, you have to be 10 years ahead of everybody else.
To rely on gov. to protect u is a mug's game. Unless, of course, ur big oil, banking or the dairy industry! Or Goldman sucks!
It's an excellent point of Tim's. There's no point having tough IP laws if it takes two years to enforce them, and by then he has a toehold in the market.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I have no idea what your reply has to do with mine. Mine is a direct reply to the word smug with the South Park snapshot from Smug Alert. Even TS's comment is about him looking smug. I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans are capable of looking smug.
Oh, South Park, that answers it clearly then...
I'm sure both are smug, but then why not just point to politicians rather than to Bush? Again, the fact that someone points to a Democrat and calls out a Republican's smugness is odd at best. You saying Thanks was indication that you agreed, therefore my reply.
He made a reference to a person which I took to refer to physical characteristics that make each look smug. I don't see how you've conceived this notion that either Republicans or Democrats can look smug but not people from both parties. I don't see how or why you'd even try to make this partisan.
Do you honestly think when people draw a comparison to Senator Mitch McConnell looking like Droopy dog that they are suggesting that Droopy Dog must be a Republican in order to make the visual comparison, they are against Republicans, or against people from Kentucky seeing similarities? Do you think if he was a Democrat that comparison wouldn't have been made?
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
It only matters in the fact that you tried to associate Bush with smugness by pointing to a Democrat. Why did you not just say political smugness? So it is a bit funny you were trying to make a point against Bush and him being smug while pointing to a Democrat. Typical Liberal.
I was not trying to discern, but rather you made the reference to Bush rather than politicians in general. You called yourself out on that one.
Have you honestly never heard the phrase "bush league" in your entire life, or are you just putting me on?
Were I referencing President Bush, I would have capitalized the word, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Have you honestly never heard the phrase "bush league" in your entire life, or are you just putting me on?
Were I referencing President Bush, I would have capitalized the word, anyway.
Nope, had to look it up. Sports, not into it, sorry.
If that was the case, I apologize
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He made a reference to a person which I took to refer to physical characteristics that make each look smug. I don't see how you've conceived this notion that either Republicans or Democrats can look smug but not people from both parties. I don't see how or why you'd even try to make this partisan.
Do you honestly think when people draw a comparison to Senator Mitch McConnell looking like Droopy dog that they are suggesting that Droopy Dog must be a Republican in order to make the visual comparison, they are against Republicans, or against people from Kentucky seeing similarities? Do you think if he was a Democrat that comparison wouldn't have been made?
LOL hardly, but when you call out Mitch looking droopy then you called out Mitch, not someone else. To point to one person and to call out another is suggesting that the second person is they one the derogatory comment is being made towards. So if he said that is Carl smugness then your argument would have merit.
He wrote bush league not Bush league. Big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
- These Senators are not 'anti corporate', but merely posturing to get corporate taxes lowered from 35% (which none of them pay) down to nothing. Stick us with the bills for the infrastructure that makes their profits possible.
So you assume that the vague "infrastructure" to which you refer can only be paid for through taxes?
You also assume that businesses customers are not the ones who really pay the corporate income taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
- Rand Paul is merely railing against taxes in general... the king of the 'Free Lunch Republicans'. He wants no infrastructure investments, no taxes, no safety net, just Somalia.
The Somalia reference is straight from the anti-libertarian talking points. It is also ill-informed.
Again, though, I ask: You assume that the vague "infrastructure" (and "safety net") to which you refer can only be provided and paid for through taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
He's a truly dispicable excuse for a human being.
Why is that?
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Nope, had to look it up. Sports, not into it, sorry.
No worries; neither am I.
Even if he was referring to George W Bush he's still comparing to ONE person. ONE! No where did he mention the GOP, Republicans, or any other party. You grossly misinterpreted his comment and intent and then reacted poorly to it. Admit you you wrong or just go away, either way you've lost here. THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
He wrote bush league not Bush league. Big difference.
Yep, and I apologized for jumping. I did not know the reference "bush league".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Even if he was referring to George W Bush he's still comparing to ONE person. ONE! No where did he mention the GOP, Republicans, or any other party. You grossly misinterpreted his comment and intent and then reacted poorly to it. Admit you you wrong or just go away, either way you've lost here. THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!
Hello! I did apologize to Tallest for jumping.
Yea I saw that after I posted. Btw whenever I hear 'bush' the ex President is the last thing I think of.
Mr. Cook hit the right notes in a civilized manner. He sent a message to Samsung and all the other copycats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the smarmiest frownsmile yet! That's the frownsmile of a man who knows he's absolutely in the right.
Do you know the meaning of the word smarmy? Is that really what you meant?
Levin has an ass-face.
In the meantime, I can't effing wait for the retina iPad mini!!!!!!
I take your points!
But realistically when you need a lawyer...you're already f*cked.
Job's had it right, In tech, you have to be 10 years ahead of everybody else.
To rely on gov. to protect u is a mug's game. Unless, of course, ur big oil, banking or the dairy industry! Or Goldman sucks!
It's an excellent point of Tim's. There's no point having tough IP laws if it takes two years to enforce them, and by then he has a toehold in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple has used holding companies, so I don't think they would criticize that specific point without acknowledging their current function.
I've always wondered why those things weren't handled by arbitration.
Arbitration is theoretically possible, but not practical in patent cases.