"The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11 (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/01/top-defense-industry-ceos-earn-combined-1-billion-since-911/)...."

*

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/golfanyone.jpg

....the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11...."

Of course.

That was (and is) the entire purpose of the "war on terror" scam; to vastly increase "defense" spending, so as to transfer the wealth of common Americans into the pockets of the owners of the military/Industrial complex.

Truth in advertising clearly isn't an issue on the internet.

Your headline should read 34 CEO's, some from the defense industry, have made $1bln over the last few years.

Truth in advertising clearly isn't an issue on the internet.

Your headline should read 34 CEO's, some from the defense industry, have made $1bln over the last few years.
I'll make every effort to proof-read their articles, prior to publication. :rolleyes:

Your headline should read 34 CEO's, some from the defense industry, have made $1bln over the last few years.

?!?!

What part of ----

""The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11""

-- is it that you cannot grasp?

All 34 were from the defense industries.

Lockheed Martin has reaped a 22 percent increase in profits since 9/11; Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics increased profits by 62 percent and 22 percent since 9/11; Boeing’s profits have jumped 61 percent since 9/11.

The 34 CEO's in question have reaped $1 billion in blood money since their greatest benefactor, OBL, gave them the green light they so desperately desired.

?!?!

What part of ----

""The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11""

-- is it that you cannot grasp?

All 34 were from the defense industries.

Lockheed Martin has reaped a 22 percent increase in profits since 9/11; Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics increased profits by 62 percent and 22 percent since 9/11; Boeing’s profits have jumped 61 percent since 9/11.

The 34 CEO's in question have reaped $1 billion in blood money since their greatest benefactor, OBL, gave them the green light they so desperately desired.

Only if you so loosely define defense industries as to include firms involved in health care, engineering, IT, logistics....
The NYSE actually has a defense index. I think there are 58 names in that index. The Institute includes a number companies not in the defense index as part of their index. Obviously they are pimping an agenda when you look at some of the names and the businesses. Intersting as well that one guy alone took 20% of their claim. They had to scrounge around, go into other industries to come up with their targetted number.

I'll make every effort to proof-read their articles, prior to publication. :rolleyes:

Just your publication would be nice. Otherwise we might beleive you to be pimping for liars. :eek:

Just your publication would be nice.
My publication??

You do understand the concept of word-for-word.....right? :rolleyes:

I understand it perfectly. And you have a choice of what you're going to pubish/post in the forum. If you choose to publish/post fraudulent material then you're going to be called on it. This thread is merely a case in point.

I understand it perfectly. And you have a choice of what you're going to pubish/post in the forum. If you choose to publish/post fraudulent material then you're going to be called on it. This thread is merely a case in point.
Fraudulent material (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WarMeansAWindfallForCEOs.aspx), huh? :rolleyes:

Does someone always have to lead-you-by-the-hand???? :rolleyes:

There's GOLD In Them Thar' Body-Bags!!!

And, judging by that picture you posted, political humor as well.

And, judging by that picture you posted, political humor as well.
I guess that's pretty-much unavoidable (http://www.mystolennation.com/images/site/2004/sneeze_brain.jpg). :rolleyes:

I guess that's pretty-much unavoidable (http://www.mystolennation.com/images/site/2004/sneeze_brain.jpg). :rolleyes:Actually, using a picture of soldiers' coffins in a political attack is quite avoidable.

What part of ----

""The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11""

-- is it that you cannot grasp?

All 34 were from the defense industries.

Only if you so loosely define defense industries as to include firms involved in health care, engineering, IT, logistics....

You seem to have located some info sunstantiating your claim that some of the 34 CEO's that the Institute for Policy Studies report refered to were from industries such as health care, engineering, IT, logistics.

I can't locate it.

Only if you so loosely define defense industries as to include firms involved in health care, engineering, IT, logistics....
The NYSE actually has a defense index...


You seem to have located some info sunstantiating your claim that some of the 34 CEO's that the Institute for Policy Studies report refered to were from industries such as health care, engineering, IT, logistics.

I can't locate it.

You seem to have located some info sunstantiating your claim that some of the 34 CEO's that the Institute for Policy Studies report refered to were from industries such as health care, engineering, IT, logistics.

I can't locate it.

I'll "sunstantian" that you are a hack. I have tried to discuss issues with you before... and have come to the conclusion that you are an semi-educated moron.

I'll "sunstantian" that you are a hack..

Wow.

I hit the "n" key instead of the "b" key when typing the word *substantiating*.

(BTW....I notice that you misrepresented the word itself, in leaving the *g* off the end of it as I posted it. Some would call you a dishonest motherfucking prick for doing so. But not I.)

You offer a superb refutation.

:rolleyes:

BTW....the correct usage would be ***a semi-educated moron***...........and not "an semi-educated moron".

You know.

If a fucking clueless puke like YOU would ever want to get into a detailed discussion of proper grammar with me.

Actually, using a picture of soldiers' coffins in a political attack is quite avoidable.
Ah, yes......you prefer the Glory-years of 'Nam (http://www.vietnampix.com/bilder/life1a.jpg), instead......huh? :rolleyes:

I'll "sunstantian" that you are a hack. I have tried to discuss issues with you before... and have come to the conclusion that you are an semi-educated moron.
In-other-words, you're outta-ammo......as if some thinking-person couldn't have predicted that. :rolleyes:

Whatsamatta......"Everybody knows....." ain't workin' for you "conservative"-clowns, anymore? :rolleyes:

Fraudulent material (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WarMeansAWindfallForCEOs.aspx), huh? :rolleyes:

Does someone always have to lead-you-by-the-hand???? :rolleyes:

Occasionally i do need it. Based on what we've seen from you thus far it sure wouldn't be you.

The problem with that comparison is that while the headline's are similar, the nuts and bolts of the article are different. Your first article is so inaccurate as to be fraudulent.

Perhaps you can explain why IT, Health, and Engineering companies are included in their categorization of 'defense'. Thus far the only explanation is that they've provided services to the gov't. By that standard you could include virtually any company in the country.

You seem to have located some info sunstantiating your claim that some of the 34 CEO's that the Institute for Policy Studies report refered to were from industries such as health care, engineering, IT, logistics.

I can't locate it.

The list of companies in the IPS report is at the back of the report. All you have to do is compare those names to the list of names in the spade index or the look at the GICS classifications for these companies.

http://www.spadeindex.com/

Occasionally i do need it. Based on what we've seen from you thus far it sure wouldn't be you.
Agreed! My babysitting-services do have their limitations. I don't have the patience of (or a sense of The Divine Right to) The Republican Party's life-long commitment to the same. :rolleyes:

The list of companies in the IPS report is at the back of the report. All you have to do is compare those names to the list of names in the spade index or the look at the GICS classifications for these companies.

http://www.spadeindex.com/
Gee......great-examples you've offered (on-your-own). :rolleyes:

It appears you've had no luck.

The list of companies in the IPS report is at the back of the report.

Yep.

Sure is.

And the amount of money each of those companies had in Defense contracts is clearly listed.


Listed below --taken directly from the IPS report-- are some of the IT, health and engineering companies (out of the 34 in question) you're whining about and claiming have nothing to do with Defense contracts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Company Name


1 Alliant
Techsystems

Value of defense contracts in 2005--$1,274,541,046

Defense as % of 2005 revenue --45.5%


2 Anteon
International

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$938,637,452

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 62.9%


5 CACI
International

Value of defense contracts in 2005 -- $764,655,418

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 47.1%


6 Computer
Sciences

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,827,726,732

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 17.8%


Cubic

Value of defense contracts in 2005--$289,395,317

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--36.0 %


Health Net

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,031,991,411

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--17.0%


ITT Industries

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,493,318,283

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--31.8%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now.

Here (http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf) is the link to the report.

I implore you. Go through the entire list line by line.

The come back here and name for me some company --ANY company, from any of the various fields listed, whether it be health or IT or engineering or whatever-- that you do not think had any of their revenue from defense contracts.

(p.s. ---- I'm not holding my breath)

Agreed! My babysitting-services do have their limitations. I don't have the patience of (or a sense of The Divine Right to) The Republican Party's life-long commitment to the same. :rolleyes:


Not a question of whether you have any patience. It's about what you have to offer. So far it's all rhetoric.

Gee......great-examples you've offered (on-your-own). :rolleyes:

It appears you've had no luck.

Don't need to be lucky, just good. And with this item i don't even need to be good, merely observant.

Yep.

Sure is.

And the amount of money each of those companies had in Defense contracts is clearly listed.


Listed below --taken directly from the IPS report-- are some of the IT, health and engineering companies (out of the 34 in question) you're whining about and claiming have nothing to do with Defense contracts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Company Name



1 Alliant
Techsystems

Value of defense contracts in 2005--$1,274,541,046

Defense as % of 2005 revenue --45.5%


2 Anteon
International

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$938,637,452

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 62.9%


5 CACI
International

Value of defense contracts in 2005 -- $764,655,418

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 47.1%


6 Computer
Sciences

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,827,726,732

Defense as % of 2005 revenue-- 17.8%


Cubic

Value of defense contracts in 2005--$289,395,317

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--36.0 %


Health Net

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,031,991,411

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--17.0%


ITT Industries

Value of defense contracts in 2005 --$2,493,318,283

Defense as % of 2005 revenue--31.8%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now.

Here (http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf) is the link to the report.

I implore you. Go through the entire list line by line.

The come back here and name for me some company --ANY company, from any of the various fields listed, whether it be health or IT or engineering or whatever-- that you do not think had any of their revenue from defense contracts.

(p.s. ---- I'm not holding my breath)

Becaue a company does busniess with DoD does not make them part of the defence industry. By that standard a company supplying part-time help to DoD is part of the defence industry. The same for paper companies, office furniture companies, computer hardware, telephone....... That flies in the face of reason.

14 of the companies in the IPS report are not part of the defence index. 14! Clearly they're shading their report to achieve a desired impact.

Becaue a company does busniess with DoD does not make them part of the defence industry. By that standard a company supplying part-time help to DoD is part of the defence industry.

The 34 companies listed have contracts with the Defense Department ranging from $289 million dollars to over $18 billion dollars.

Here's the link again ---- http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf

Now. I think a company pulling in $289 million dollars in Defense Department contracts --much less the ones reaping BILLIONS-- can fairly and correctly be said to be profiting from this nation's Defense spending.

Again, I invite you to go through the entire list line by line and come back here and name for me the company --ANY company among the 34 listed-- that you do not think had millions in revenue from Defense Department contracts.

In-other-words, you're outta-ammo......as if some thinking-person couldn't have predicted that. :rolleyes:

Whatsamatta......"Everybody knows....." ain't workin' for you "conservative"-clowns, anymore? :rolleyes:
Just a simple question there Mr. Sham, what makes you think I'm a Republican hack? (is it because the world is either Dem or Rep to you?)

FT is a Socialist. I am not. Try again Mr. "color-my-posts" man.

Not a question of whether you have any patience. It's about what you have to offer. So far it's all rhetoric.
Gee.....first, it's fraudulent-material....and, now it's rhetoric....yet, still you're unable to provide any examples? :rolleyes:

Move on, Skippy. Your sophomoric-responses offer zip. :rolleyes:

Don't need to be lucky, just good. And with this item i don't even need to be good.....
Obviously.

Becaue a company does busniess with DoD does not make them part of the defence industry.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......it makes them part of the pharmaceutical-industry, right? :rolleyes:

14 of the companies in the IPS report are not part of the defence index. 14! Clearly they're shading their report to achieve a desired impact.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......more great-examples, without detailing your opinion.

Does anyone (under 12-years-oild) value your opinions? :rolleyes:

*

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper337/stills/8bbw435e.jpg

"Becaue a company does busniess with DoD does not make them part of the defence industry."

Just a simple question there Mr. Sham, what makes you think I'm a Republican hack?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......let's seeeeeee.......

Nope!! I never called you a Republican hack.

(Great effort at avoiding requests, to defend your allegations, though. :rolleyes: )

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......let's seeeeeee.......

Nope!! I never called you a Republican hack.

(Great effort at avoiding requests, to defend your allegations, though. :rolleyes: )

What, pray tell, allegations doest thou need me to defend?

What, pray tell, allegations doest thou need me to defend?
Whoops! Sorry-'bout-that.

I was thinkin' I was (still) responding to Waldo Claven.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/emily-litella.jpg

"Never mind."

BTW....the correct usage would be ***a semi-educated moron***...........and not "an semi-educated moron".

You know.

If a fucking clueless puke like YOU would ever want to get into a detailed discussion of proper grammar with me.

Haha, I got to this post in this thread and just decided it wasn't worth it to continue reading.

The 34 companies listed have contracts with the Defense Department ranging from $289 million dollars to over $18 billion dollars.

Here's the link again ---- http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf

Now. I think a company pulling in $289 million dollars in Defense Department contracts --much less the ones reaping BILLIONS-- can fairly and correctly be said to be profiting from this nation's Defense spending.

Again, I invite you to go through the entire list line by line and come back here and name for me the company --ANY company among the 34 listed-- that you do not think had millions in revenue from Defense Department contracts.

The original contention by wee willie wizard was that these companies were part of the defence industry, not whether they had contracts with the DoD. That's why i gave you the GICS classification. They provide the criteria for determining what companies go in what industry.
If the authors of your article really wanted to make their point they could've merely taken the companies in the index and illustrated their point. That they had to go outside the index and drag in companies from other industries merely because they did business with DoD indicates they've had to massage the numbers to get a result. Cheap journalism

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......it makes them part of the pharmaceutical-industry, right? :rolleyes:


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......more great-examples, without detailing your opinion.

Does anyone (under 12-years-oild) value your opinions? :rolleyes:

*

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper337/stills/8bbw435e.jpg

"Becaue a company does busniess with DoD does not make them part of the defence industry."

Clearly you don't read either the material you post or research the info offered to you. The detail is in the GICS classification. Try googling it. GICS isn't something i've made up for your amusement. It's a standard accepted world-wide with specific criteria about which companies get slotted into which industry.

Gee.....first, it's fraudulent-material....and, now it's rhetoric....yet, still you're unable to provide any examples? :rolleyes:

Move on, Skippy. Your sophomoric-responses offer zip. :rolleyes:

Defending a c/p you can't explain doesn't improve your credibility. You can't explain why health care companies or engineering companies have suddenly become part of defence industry, other than pointing to your article.
You'll have to do better than that.

If a fucking clueless puke like YOU would ever want to get into a detailed discussion of proper grammar with me.

Yeah FT is the king of grammar...
http://th189.photobucket.com/albums/z3/raecxnt/th_c.gif
cant touch this...

Clearly you don't read either the material you post or research the info offered to you. The detail is in the GICS classification. Try googling it. GICS isn't something i've made up for your amusement. It's a standard accepted world-wide with specific criteria about which companies get slotted into which industry.

And there goes the participation of Mr. Shaman in this thread.... See boys and girls he comes out with flashy C/P kinda like truth,only with non flaming fonts... but as soon as a single line of his link is disputed he dissapears... Tis true I am willing to bet it all that he doesn't have a clue of the material or info he posts... it just looks good on a site or blog and he pastes away.... at least truth has a 5973 article archive he knows in and out that he can rely on

The original contention by wee willie wizard was that these companies were part of the defence industry, not whether they had contracts with the DoD.

The one with the least amount of business with the Department of Defense does $289 million dollars in contracts with them. In one year. THAT qualifies them as ***a company doing business with the Defense industry***. Hence the statement in the first thread concerning the top 34 CEO's of Defense industry companies.

Period.

And nothing you have said or can say is going to refute that.

Again, I invite you to go through the entire list line by line and come back here and name for me the company --ANY company among the 34 listed-- that you do not think had millions in revenue from Defense Department contracts.

The one with the least amount of business with the Department of Defense does $289 million dollars in contracts with them. In one year. THAT qualifies them as ***a company doing business with the Defense industry***. Hence the statement in the first thread concerning the top 34 CEO's of Defense industry companies. There is a difference between "a company doing business with the Defense industry" and a "defense industry company." A company like Lockheed Martin, which supplies aircraft to the military, would easily be classified as a defense industry company. A company that sells pool tables to a military base most certainly would not.

Having said that, there are a lot of people making a lot of profit from the military and the Iraq war. That is a clear fact. The morality of that is a matter of opinion.

And there goes the participation of Mr. Shaman in this thread.... See boys and girls he comes out with flashy C/P kinda like truth,only with non flaming fonts... but as soon as a single line of his link is disputed he dissapears...
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh......there's some kind o' dispute, huh? What.....you're tryin' to convince people War isn't profitable?????? :@@:

I don't give a flyin'-fuck which, or HOW many CEOs are in The Top 5, or The Top 10, or WHATever!!!!

The POINT of my post was the sheer MAGNITUDE of INDIVIDUALS' PERSONAL-profit$, from the ONLY thing that defines the Bush-Presiduncy....WAR!!!!!!! :mad:

Hit the skids, Rook. :rolleyes:

The one with the least amount of business with the Department of Defense does $289 million dollars in contracts with them. In one year. THAT qualifies them as ***a company doing business with the Defense industry***. Hence the statement in the first thread concerning the top 34 CEO's of Defense industry companies.

Period.

And nothing you have said or can say is going to refute that.

Again, I invite you to go through the entire list line by line and come back here and name for me the company --ANY company among the 34 listed-- that you do not think had millions in revenue from Defense Department contracts.

This is very obviously a distinction that is far too sublte for you. If you think Health Net or Humana, companies whose line of business is running hospitals, are part of the defence industry because they provide health care for military personnell there is little we can do for you.

My suggestion is that you should write the people at Standard & Poors and explain to them how and why their classification methodology is completely wrong. Do let us know the results of that endeavor. Best of luck :thumbs:

And there goes the participation of Mr. Shaman in this thread.... See boys and girls he comes out with flashy C/P kinda like truth,only with non flaming fonts... but as soon as a single line of his link is disputed he dissapears... Tis true I am willing to bet it all that he doesn't have a clue of the material or info he posts... it just looks good on a site or blog and he pastes away.... at least truth has a 5973 article archive he knows in and out that he can rely on

Nah he's a stand-up guy. He's just doing some research, wrapping his head around the issues. :eek: And once he's got them firmly in hand he'll be back to speak to the subject. Right? Right?

This is very obviously a distinction that is far too sublte for you. If you think Health Net or Humana, companies whose line of business is running hospitals, are part of the defence industry because they provide health care for military personnell there is little we can do for you.

The do business with the Defense industry.

Millions of dollars worth in a year.

Which does not contradict anything said in the first post.

My suggestion is that you should write the people at Standard & Poors and explain to them how and why their classification methodology is completely wrong.

ROTFL.

Standard and Poor has nothing to do with this argument that you have lost.

The do business with the Defense industry.

Millions of dollars worth in a year.

Which does not contradict anything said in the first post.

Actually it does. They don't do business with the defence industry. The article declared they are part of the defence industry. The first post said the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11...."


Clearly Humana and Health Net are not part of the defense industry. In fact you couldn't get anyone with a room temperature IQ to agree to the statement that they are part of the defense industry.


Standard and Poor has nothing to do with this argument that you have lost.
Merely citing a higher source than anything you or triple w has cited to advance their argument.
That you feel you need to declare victory sounds a bit desperate.

Nah he's a stand-up guy. He's just doing some research, wrapping his head around the issues. :eek: And once he's got them firmly in hand he'll be back to speak to the subject. Right? Right?

I shall await with baited breath

They don't do business with the defence industry.

Yes, they do.

Here's the link again ---- http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2...Excess2006.pdf

Here's a question, FT: The military buys its computers from Dell. Would it therefore be correct to classify Dell as a defense industry company?

Here's a question, FT: The military buys its computers from Dell. Would it therefore be correct to classify Dell as a defense industry company?

If Dell Computers was among the 34 companies in the world that had the largest Defense Department contracts, in dollar amounts, doing hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in contracts from the Defense Department, and further, if over 10% of Dell's profits were profits realized through Defense Department contracts (which is one of the benchmarks, as stated in the report) then yes, it would be correct to say -- "Dell is among of the 34 largest Defense industry companies".

Which is exactly the point that the following statement --

""the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11....""

-- (taken from the link provided in the first post) was making.

Read the report.

EVERY one of the 34 companies referenced is described by what their primary business is, and what it is that they supply to the Defense Department.

The LEAST of those companies -in terms of their dealings with the Defense industry- is doing over 280 million dollars of business per year with the U.S. Defense Department.

To deny that those companies are doing business with the Defense industry flies in the face of the truth.

Ok, I see your point, and it's a valid one. Still, I think the terminology in the article can be misleading, since the term "defense industry" is usually associated with things directly used in combat operations, such as weapons, ordnance, aircraft, etc.

I would say, however, that the category that these companies fall under is quite irrelevant when examining the issue, as it doesn't change any of the facts.

Ok, I see your point, and it's a valid one. Still, I think the terminology in the article can be misleading.......

I think it is *misleading* only to certain naysayers here that pointedly WANTED to and were determined to make it seem as if it was somehow 'misleading'.

IF the one sentence under examination here --

""the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11....""

-- had instead been written in the very slightly modified form of --

""""the CEOs of those 34 businesses which have the largest contracts with the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11....""

----even the most willfully blind dimwit here would be incapable of claiming that the 34 **companies** being spoken of were somehow not businesses with hundreds of millions to billions of dollars worth of contracts with that entity commonly known as and refered to as "the defense industry".