• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CEO of Lockheed Martin gets 82% of his income from taxation.

Are you saying he is not doing a good job running his company?
Sure it's far from ethical, although the products are of vital importance, but the purpose of a CEO is to increase the companies value to the shareholders.
If under his leadership for the calendar year they had higher net revenue the compensation is justly deserved on the basis of performance.
 
Last edited:
mikeymikec said:
Not bringing the world's current situation into the argument with this point, but I think you would consider it of vital importance if someone wants to bomb the hell out of you.
Click to expand...
These aren't defensive bombings and I wouldn't want innocents to die anyway which is guaranteed with the type of equipment LM produces. My country has had but one just war and that's its War for Independence.
 
What country are you living in?

Don't be so naive. Innocent people get hurt/killed in the defence (or war of independence) of a country. If you can figure out how to stop any sort of conflict without lobotomising the human race, I'm all ears.

If you're more interested in disputing the foreign policy of a particular country then do that rather than saying "a government is paying this arms manufacturer, this is bad!".

Every country has to take some defensive measures, always has done, always will. The bigger the country (physical/value of resources/any other metric that people want to fight over), the bigger the defence budget.
 
Anarchist420 said:
My country has had but one just war and that's its War for Independence.
Click to expand...

What about WW2? I think if America hadn't got involved it's quite easy to forecast what would have happened.

Use of the A-bombs in Japan are possibly debatable, but justified I think when one considers that the Japanese basically thought their leader was a god. What people will do when they think that a god is on their side (and/or they're doing what they think their god would want)... it takes a lot to shake them out of that mindset.

I'm British and I am ashamed of a lot of things that past British governments have done (well, I'm ashamed because they don't seem to learn from their mistakes, and try to copy other politicians instead or strip away peoples' civil rights/liberties).
 
Anarchist420 said:
http://warcosts.com/2012/04/14/not-...man-sachs-ceo-become-a-war-profiteer-instead/

Obama is ultimately more disgusting since he granted it while trying to say he's against uneven concentration of wealth.

This is particularly why Dr. Paul would beat both of those motherfuckers. Obama is a classic neoconservative elitist piece of shit, a Wilsonian mass murderer to the fullest.
Click to expand...

He made less than 50% than the prior CEO. His company provides a product that helps defend this country. And you don't paying any taxes.

So, GTFO out of this country or get a damn job.

And Ron Paul is an insignificant fool. Why aren't you in arms that he's not campaigning anymore? Thankfully, he's leaving Congress and we won't have to hear from people like you anymore about this tool.
 
Shrug, his company provides a valuable service to a lot of departments here in the states and internationally. His company competes for the contracts and wins them if they meet the objectives. If you think that company is going to do that to just break even or lose money on each job, son you got a lot of learning to do about the so called 'free market'. So what if most of their money comes from tax payer funds, do you honestly think that these devices wouldn't exist without this company? No, the government would build them all and you'd end up with an even more authoritative government.


I do find it amusing you, mr anti-government, anti-anything, is all for a dictator Ron Paul who would somehow control the entire US and shape it into his 'ideal world'. News flash, in reality if he ever did scam his way into the POTUS seat, he'd get diddly squat done since only a handful of individuals would be dumb enough to support his ideas.


And yes, I'm sure this is all harking back on your idea that the US military should have a 6 billion dollar budget. Reality check, a budget like that would have even Canada knocking on D.C's door within an hr.
 
If you feel he is war profiteering then present facts to prove it to the AG. Otherwise his company is servicing our war mongering govt and being compensated for it. Work on getting rid of the war mongers and this guys company wont make as much.
 
mikeymikec said:
What about WW2? I think if America hadn't got involved it's quite easy to forecast what would have happened. Use of the A-bombs in Japan are possibly debatable, but justified I think when one considers that the Japanese basically thought their leader was a god. What people will do when they think that a god is on their side (and/or they're doing what they think their god would want)... it takes a lot to shake them out of that mindset.
Click to expand...
What if America hadn't gotten involved in WWI?
If America hadn't gotten involved in WWII, then there would've been no Cold War and there would've been a lot fewer people killed/murdered. If that fuckass Winston Churchill had just let Hitler and Stalin kill each other, then British civilians wouldn't have been bombed. Hitler was a Lincolnite and all, but unlike Lincoln, he posed zero threat to America. He didn't even pose any threat to Britain either until Churchill tried to stop him from conquering Poland. They should've stayed with Neville Chamberlain so they could've had less reduction in liberty, peace, and prosperity. Unfortunately, Neville Chamberlain resigned.

As for dropping the A-bombs on Japan, it was not justified. It's ridiculous to think Japan would've invaded the continental U.S. if the U.S. military had just packed up and left.
 
Yeah funny things about the Atomic bombs that were used....
They killed far less than the firebombings the US were also doing to japan.

The Japanese also did invade us territory that was part of North America and even had some of their balloon bombs killed civilians in the continental US.
You really think they wouldn't have carried on to a full scale invasion if they were left to their own devices?

Also, how would have the us not gotten involved in WWI or WWII for that matter?
In both cases it was an act of aggression against US citizens that brought the US in to the wars.
 
Anarchist420 said:
What if America hadn't gotten involved in WWI?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. WW1 signalled the end of a lot of empires.

If America hadn't gotten involved in WWII, then there would've been no Cold War and there would've been a lot fewer people killed/murdered. If that fuckass Winston Churchill had just let Hitler and Stalin kill each other, then British civilians wouldn't have been bombed. Hitler was a Lincolnite and all, but unlike Lincoln, he posed zero threat to America. He didn't even pose any threat to Britain either until Churchill tried to stop him from conquering Poland. They should've stayed with Neville Chamberlain so they could've had less reduction in liberty, peace, and prosperity. Unfortunately, Neville Chamberlain resigned.
Click to expand...

Well that's errr... a certainly unique point of view, but I don't think it's very well supported by facts.

What do you suppose Hitler's objective was exactly? Because I think the general consensus is 'world domination'.

Britain could have its supplies very easily cut off, being a small island and all. If someone has successfully taken over the rest of Europe, why leave Britain alone?

As for dropping the A-bombs on Japan, it was not justified. It's ridiculous to think Japan would've invaded the continental U.S. if the U.S. military had just packed up and left.
Click to expand...

Luckily for the rest of us, the leaders of that era actually realised that stuff that goes on in the rest of the world (certainly if the rest of the world is at war) affects your country as well, whether you like it or not.
 
The funny thing is, I'm largely anti-war, yet here I am arguing essentially for it. Sometimes it is necessary (war that is).
 
Matthiasa said:
You really think they wouldn't have carried on to a full scale invasion if they were left to their own devices?
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have. Don't forget FDR was the one who made it so they had to fire the first shot.
Matthiasa said:
The Japanese also did invade us territory that was part of North America and even had some of their balloon bombs killed civilians in the continental US.
Click to expand...
Link? With details, please.🙂
Matthiasa said:
Also, how would have the us not gotten involved in WWI or WWII for that matter?
Click to expand...
If Wilson and FDR hadn't made their enemies fire the first shot then America would've been fine.
mikeymikec said:
What do you suppose Hitler's objective was exactly? Because I think the general consensus is 'world domination'. Britain could have its supplies very easily cut off, being a small island and all. If someone has successfully taken over the rest of Europe, why leave Britain alone?
Click to expand...
Hitler didn't want to conquer america and it would've been impossible for him to do so. I don't know what all of Hitler's objectives were, but I do know Stalin was just as bad, if not worse. Stalin's USSR did take over a large part of Germany. Also, like I said, Hitler wouldn't have taken over Europe if they hadn't imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany🙂 Failing that, he wouldn't have taken over Europe if Churchill had just left him alone.🙂 Nazi Germany and USSR would've killed each other while trying to conquer the territories inbetween. Even if Nazi Germany had survived, they would've been unable to continue on.
 
Matthiasa said:
For their attack on the Aleutian island, where part of the Alaska Territory.
Click to expand...
That was the AK territory and it wasn't part of the Continental U.S. where civilians were.

Matthiasa said:
For their balloon bombing kill of civilians.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget who started the war. I'll have to read more about this to comment more, but it seems like it's not as bad as murdering 500k civilians plus at least 11 American POWs. In addition, the Japanese wanted to surrender after the fire bombings and I very seriously doubt they would have had enough resources left to invade the Continental U.S. Even if they launched more balloons to America, they could've possibly been shot down, or tech could've been developed to neutralize them without neutralized people.
 
The Alaska Territory was part of North America.
If they would have succeed there they would have swept down to take as much land as they could.
All they would have needed to change for those balloons to have actually been effect was to switch out the explosives/incendiaries with biological agents.
If they would have, our use of atomic bombs and fire bombing would have looked like child's play.
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
What if America hadn't gotten involved in WWI?
If America hadn't gotten involved in WWII, then there would've been no Cold War and there would've been a lot fewer people killed/murdered. If that fuckass Winston Churchill had just let Hitler and Stalin kill each other, then British civilians wouldn't have been bombed. Hitler was a Lincolnite and all, but unlike Lincoln, he posed zero threat to America. He didn't even pose any threat to Britain either until Churchill tried to stop him from conquering Poland. They should've stayed with Neville Chamberlain so they could've had less reduction in liberty, peace, and prosperity. Unfortunately, Neville Chamberlain resigned.

As for dropping the A-bombs on Japan, it was not justified. It's ridiculous to think Japan would've invaded the continental U.S. if the U.S. military had just packed up and left.
Click to expand...

This why nobody can take you seriously.
 
Well, if America had only one war, we wouldn't have had the Civil War. If Ron Paul were to become President, he would be happy to be in charge of a nation that has slavery. 😉
 
Capt Caveman said:
Well, if America had only one war, we wouldn't have had the Civil War. If Ron Paul were to become President, he would be happy to be in charge of a nation that has slavery. 😉
Click to expand...

I thought the War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights, not slavery. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top