TheCorinthian Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 So you cant even define PC, huh? It's ok, it's not like anyone would believe you anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 So you cant even define PC, huh? It's ok, it's not like anyone would believe you anyway. It is hard to believe a great PC person like yourelf who demands the ultimate in PC quality doesn't even know what PC means. [color:white]. . [color:black]By the way, was your former name youngfarang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 No not youngfarang as far as I am aware I thought anyone with an opinion would know what PC meant Back to the weapons manufacturing it is my understanding there is no accurate figures available as the industry operates under the protection of the government. Oil and Gas in #1 I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 No not youngfarang as far as I am awareI thought anyone with an opinion would know what PC meant Back to the weapons manufacturing it is my understanding there is no accurate figures available as the industry operates under the protection of the government. Oil and Gas in #1 I believe. Good point. . Is oil and gas #1? Who knows. Some people don't even consider oil and gas products a facet of manufacturing. As for the food industry, I don't consider a slaughter house or a cannery a facet of manufacturing. Nor do I consider the tobacco industry to be 100% manufacturing. Same goes for the Automobile Indstry.. I don't consider foreign parts in a vehicle a facet of US manufacturing. I would call it assembling? And if the autombile plant is owned by a foreign company, would that be considered a US manufacturing company? . But I guess PC TheCorinthian will provide us with full detail on these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Some of the Ro-Ro (Roll On, Roll Off)ships I have been on carried $$$ billions in cargo. Spare part kits for Blackhawk helicopters went at $3M / kit and the kit was a few turbo parts and new chopper blades, not much! and on a 385m long Ro-Ro you could fit a bunch of spare part kits, plus Blackhawks and a whole lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 < Our economy is dependent on wars and the sale of weapons.>> I am probably more against the USA war machine than anyone' date=' but got any links to that?[/quote'] I think put differently there is plenty of evidence of the enormous spending of the US on war rather than weapons alone. I think alone the US spends almost as much as the rest of the world put together. Just don't get sick. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2010 the US spends about 43% or world total of military expenditure. SIPRI from Wiki But go ahead think whatever you want. TH It was actually 46.5% (almost half)....not sure of your point. Be careful about using wiki you'll have Corinthian on your case. My point was you said the US spent as much as the rest of the world combined. You were wrong. You made it up. When called on it, you attempt to divert attention away from the fact that to try to bolster one of your inane beliefs you were made up a fact that was incorrect. There is big difference between "almost half" and "as much as the rest of world combined" Do you get my point now? The Wiki article is directly linked to the SIPRI database and gives a comprehensive summary. That is what Wiki is good for. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 No not youngfarang as far as I am awareI thought anyone with an opinion would know what PC meant I defined it earlier and BKT said I was wrong. So since he seems to have his own personal definition, i keep asking for it and he keeps saying no. But that fits an uneducated personality. So again, my point it..... BKT will totally lie to you to try to make a point. Then try to duck it when called on it. BTW: The dept of labor put it like this off the top of my head (I'm iPhone posting): Textiles Plastics Minerals (non-oil gas) Oil gas Wood products food (processsed) Passanger viehicals Medicins Industrial equipment tobacco Weapons were below the top ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 < Our economy is dependent on wars and the sale of weapons.>> I am probably more against the USA war machine than anyone' date=' but got any links to that?[/quote'] I think put differently there is plenty of evidence of the enormous spending of the US on war rather than weapons alone. I think alone the US spends almost as much as the rest of the world put together. Just don't get sick. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2010 the US spends about 43% or world total of military expenditure. SIPRI from Wiki But go ahead think whatever you want. TH It was actually 46.5% (almost half)....not sure of your point. Be careful about using wiki you'll have Corinthian on your case. My point was you said the US spent as much as the rest of the world combined. You were wrong. You made it up. When called on it, you attempt to divert attention away from the fact that to try to bolster one of your inane beliefs you were made up a fact that was incorrect. There is big difference between "almost half" and "as much as the rest of world combined" Do you get my point now? The Wiki article is directly linked to the SIPRI database and gives a comprehensive summary. That is what Wiki is good for. TH The only point I get is you are not very good at maths. If the US spending is 46.5% then that leaves 53.5% remaining for the rest of the world. As for being wrong and making it up why would I? Here a little picture might help you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 At the White House website, it claims [color:red]19.17 percent of the budget goes to the military[/color]. Being the budget hasn't been approved yet, the last I knew the budget was 3.8 trillion and 2.2 trillion of that amount came from all sources of revenue. 19.17% of 3.8 trillion is 768 billion dollars. But if we compare that to what is actually brought in (2.2 trillion dollars) then it appears the USA military is about 1/3 of the money the country brings in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 No not youngfarang as far as I am awareI thought anyone with an opinion would know what PC meant I defined it earlier and BKT said I was wrong. So since he seems to have his own personal definition' date=' i keep asking for it and he keeps saying no. But that fits an uneducated personality. [b']So again, my point it..... [color:red]BKT will totally lie to you to try to make a point.[/color] Then try to duck it when called on it.[/b] BTW: The dept of labor put it like this off the top of my head (I'm iPhone posting): Textiles Plastics Minerals (non-oil gas) Oil gas Wood products food (processsed) Passanger viehicals Medicins Industrial equipment tobacco Weapons were below the top ten. [color:red]No need to flame.[/color] As a PC man, how come you can not provide links? Can you list the gross income from each of those industries? As a PC man, how can your spelling be so bad? Doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.