From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:57:08 GMT


>-I don't use my car much, but if I want to use it, then dammit, get the hell
>-out of my way.
>-LOCKHEED

>The last line says it all. What can we expect from someone who works for one
>of the major military contractors?

Ahh...resorting to personal attacks, and guilt by association on my part.  I
plead guilty to being gainfully employed.  Some people want to make working a
politically incorrect reality these days.  Some people want to expand the
welfare state and unemployment benefits.  Me?  I want to work.

I can attack too, you jerk.

Get a clue, Vandeman.  Lockheed is not a way of life; it's a roof over my head
and food on my table.  I don't believe we need to keep military spending where
it is.  It can be reduced by a large amount, though I'd argue that our economy
would be in a *huge* mess if we try to cut it all at once.  Does my employer
want to hear me admit that defense can be significantly cut?  By your assess-
ment above, they apparently DO.  Because you said it yourself--what can you
expect from someone who works for a defense contractor?  Nice try, bozo.

What can we expect?  Obviously, working for a military contractor makes me
evil.  It makes me a warmonger.  It makes me have *no* compassion for humans
or for society.  It makes me want to nuke baby seals and spotted owls.  Is that
what you want to hear?

Look here--get me a comparable job with comparable pay at Greenpeace, and I'll
take it.  Okay?  I know that you're upset that Lockheed F-117s were so
successful in Iraq (I'll bet you were rooting for Saddam), but that's not my
problem, and I'm not about to give up my job because you think my company is so
heinous.  Too bad.  Your tax dollars are paying my salary.  I'll bet you just
loooooooooove the thought of that, huh?

You're not giving any good arguments anywhere.  In addition, by equating the
automobile with an atomic bomb, you are showing how your emotional hatred for
the auto (and the American way of life?  hmmm) is obscuring any objectivity you
may really possess inside.  All you can do is make this personal.  I attack the
ideology and the agenda, and you resort to attacking the person.  Real class.

Would you prefer I *stop* using the bus?  You're acting as though I commute 100
miles each way in a gas guzzler.  I often use public transportation.  And I
have switched to a 4-day work week which reduces my commuting by 20%.

I, too, consider myself sensitive to the environment.  But unfortunately,
environmentalism has become the new home for socialism in America.  Too many
socialists and Marxists are using the environment as an excuse to implement
their agendas.  I'm not saying that you or any other individual are guilty of
this, but it happens.  And more often than not, claims by eco-freaks (as
opposed to reasonable environmentalists) are inflated or just plain untrue.
Remember Dioxin?  How about Love Canal?  About as harmful as a mosquito bite,
it turns out.  Yet as usual, it was the "beginning of the end" to the radical
tree-huggers.  We can't just continue to accept the status quo, but we can't
just change for the sake of change.  Changes have *consequences*, believe it
or not.

Go buy a vowel, Vandeman.  You're sick.  Go get some help.