The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Youth voters seek refuge in the Australian Greens > Comments

Youth voters seek refuge in the Australian Greens : Comments

By Kristian Hollins, published 21/7/2011

Now more than ever before, young voters are questioning the information they’re presented, and happy to call ‘bullshit’ when they find it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Also interesting is the swing in the youth vote to the liberals.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 21 July 2011 8:23:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess we have different perspectives Kristian.

Having watched my own kids, & their friends from primary school kids, through uni, & on to high school parents, I must say it is most obvious how easily kids are conned by a smart slogan. They appear incapable of looking to what an organisation really mean, & assume their own idea of what the slogan stands for.

Many of them are later horrified when they find the ideas they were supporting are not what they thought.

It is hard to say which, but either a mortgage, or parenthood that brings some of the necessary wisdom to see through the hype to the reality of life.

Which ever is most important, both combined often lead to a quite hard landing for some of the fairies who venture out of the bottom of the garden. Most of them shed those rose coloured glasses, along with their fairy wings.

Some of course, flutter into academia, where like Hogwarts castle, reality is never allowed to intrude.

Hopefully Kristian, you will enter reality before you are too contaminated by those that are there.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:38:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ointment: meet fly. Every argument has one, and this is it.

"Youth voters are broadly limited as those between the ages of 18 and 25, although should perhaps be extended 16 to 30 years of age with regard to future voting trends."

Wrong.

Youth voters will forever be "broadly limited" to those under 25. As Hasbeen points out so cogently, something happens to people around their mid-twenties, as their righteous enthusiasm for "causes" simmers down into a more sober assessment of cause and effect.

Protesting is the absolute right and prerogative of the young.

In fact, it is almost a duty.

Let's face it, it would be disastrous if they all suddenly became conformists - us oldies would have to rebel instead, and I'm not sure my Zimmer frame could take it.

But the begetting of wisdom is as inexorable as puberty a decade earlier. Slogans and blind idealism are perfect when worn by the young, but look merely ridiculous once youth ceases to be an excuse. It's like trying to dress like your kids.

Embarrassing. And a little sad.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:30:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't Stalin call them the Useful Idiots?
Posted by Bruce, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:51:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would love to think that our young people are politically astute but I am yet to be convinced. I have found, in talking to young voters, that they have a minimal grasp of the policies of the party for which they vote. This is particularly true of Green policies (chosen as this is the topic of the article). When I ask voters, "Why do you vote Green?" their answer rarely goes beyond, "for the environment" with an occasional, "'cause I won't vote for the big parties." To be fair, I suspect I would get similar answers if querying about any of the parties.

Even scarier is the responses I get from people handing out how to vote cards. They can barely articulate policy beyond the above examples. I challenged a Green representative at the recent state election about a policy concern and he knew nothing about it at all. Again, I dare say most party reps would be in the same (leaky) boat.

It's great to be enthusiastic about democratic rights, to be excited about various causes, but please be informed enough to know the whole package you are voting for.
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 21 July 2011 12:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kristian, it's interesting that you say the Greens have 'status as a major party'. How do you define 'major party'. I believe it's based on membership base, percentage of vote...maybe even comparison to the other parties that attract more members and votes?

just curious as most would still define the Greens as a minor party?
Posted by vivienne wynter, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:29:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would say its a lot more than just the youth vote;

Considering that Gillard running Labor and Abbot being in charge of the Liberals is sure to turn off anyone from voting either party (including people that really DO want to vote for either of the two parties) and of course that I imagine many Australians wanted either nicer treatment for refugees, neutral foreign policy and/OR anti-privatization policy, they of course turn to the next party that might seriously offer these, knowing that both Liberal and Labor stand for the opposite.

I would say Liberal and Labor are ONLY safe so long as they keep up their border-control policy (as only a minority of Australians likely turned to the Greens for this reason).
Of course, it's not going to protect them if the other two policy areas keep becoming a problem- as the decision of being ripped off and losing my infrastructure access, and/or dragged into foreign conflicts will eventually outweigh a few extra scimitar-waving crazies being allowed to move into our rougher neighborhoods.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am truly amused by the thread and the subject in general.
Not taunting Friends who happen to be greens, just saying what I think.
Until about 25 I was Socialist, it has been said Costello Abbott and Turnbull had intentions to join Labor.
Tell me, any one understand that single lower house green won on Liberal voters preferences?
How did the greens go in Victoria.
What about the NSW I hate the ALP [even its members] Election, surely the greens got 20%? no?
Now lets get the goat out get it killed and look at the entrails.
Federal election, next month or 30 months away.
Labor will be thinking deeply about greens infestation , conservatives riding high, may just not preference them again.
So is 12% defensible? will greens gain, or find 9% or less the new reality?
If that election or one soon after is DD? get you money on one soon, what?
After a Double Dissolution election its all down hill for the greens.
Unpalatable? but out here in real Australia? be aware understand, Brown speaks in an unknown language to average Aussies.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 July 2011 2:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In generations gone by, a likely indicator of how a young person would vote was how their parents voted"

I'm sorry to tell you , but the above statement is complete Rubbish.You will find that the reverse ia actually True.

You are obviously looking at and trying to justify your current belief in the GREENS by making such a statement.
Posted by Aspley, Thursday, 21 July 2011 2:29:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I was young I was very much in favour of the forcible redistribution of property. Then I acquired some property. Once the 'youth vote' acquires some property, the same thing will happen to them.

In fact the only way Labor and the Greens can prevent their support falling away as people get richer is to try and head off every opportunity for that to happen.

Which explains a lot.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 21 July 2011 3:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kristian, I am sorry, but out in the sticks in rural Victoria where I live, I get the distinct impression that the under 25 voters couldn't give a stuff about the greens, and only slightly more about the other two parties. The young males seem more interested in either getting drunk, or getting laid, or both, while their female counterparts mainly seem to be just getting drunk or generally having a good time. It is only the ones who are into acadaemia like yourself who have any interest in politics. You really should get out and about a bit more and talk to your country cousins.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 21 July 2011 7:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kristian,
Your observation clearly tells me that there shouldn't be a youth vote in the first place. In my opinion the voting age should be 25. How can we ever get on top of things when plans drawn up by people who know get torn up by people whose only expertise is idealism.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 July 2011 8:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Now more than ever before, young voters are questioning the information they’re presented, and happy to call ‘bull....’ when they find it."

This needs to be qualified. Young voters have been brainwashed into believing in AGW, but they fail to question it, resulting in more being misinformed than ever before.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 21 July 2011 11:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, perhaps it is you who have been brainwashed into disbelieving in AGW by people who are misrepresenting the science, but that is another topic.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 22 July 2011 9:47:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Oldies don't seem to get it. They have had their time. They are, on the whole, far wealthier than young people who have their whole lives in front of them, so why can't there be some redistribution of all that unused stuff and wealth and property that oldies aren't even using, sheds and garages full of it ?!

'As they age, oldies obviously focus on just themselves, and lose feeling for other people and interest in politics, so it seems completely reasonable for the voting age to be set at fifty or sixty - once someone reaches this age (and after all, they don't much more to contribute), their power to vote is, if anything, harmful to the political activity of society. Perhaps, at first, the voting age should be cut off at sixty five, we can work out the finer details later.

'And surely there are too many old people on TV ? There are too many old people's TV programs, like Midsummer Murder, and D'lile and Pascoe and Helen Mirren. Let's face it, young people are far more beautiful, so deserve much more attention - and not just on TV, but in real life too. So bling shops should be publicly subsidised, and wine cooler too.

'If the wealth of society was properly distributed, so that young people could actually START OUT with their proper share of wealth, then their lives would be so much happier and more exciting, and surely the world owes that much to them ?'

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:23:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[contd.]

'Clearly, once you get in conversation with young people, they are much more in touch with what is going on in the world. They are dedicated to ending world poverty, for example, starting with their own. They are passionately concerned that Fiji might disappear due to sea-level rise, that the entire planet could be baking in barely 100 or 1000 or 1m years - and who caused that ?

'The oldies had thirty and forty and fifty years to do something about all these problems and what did they do instead ? They just enriched themselves with no care whatever for the Mother Earth, mining it and growing food on it and producing stuff on it, causing pollution - which future generations, us, will have to deal with. So how dare they think they are entitled to any voice in what to do about the very problems that they have caused ?'

Yeah, right.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:26:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Bruce, it was Lenin who had his “useful idiots”

Stalin was fair, he executed them just as soon as he executed anti-Bolsheviks or anyone who looked at him for too long.

Churchill, who dressed in cloth of different political hues, through the progress of his life, said this on the matter

“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

I see Belly “is amused”

At least both Belly and I agree (I bet that annoys him) and see the Greens in a state of imminent demise

JonJ yes… equal distribution will always favour the “have nots” over the “haves”

What the “collectivist” forget is:

It is the individual right to acquire what the haves have which stimulates the economy to produce the taxes used to pay welfare to the have-nots

Loudmouth “' They (the oldies) are, on the whole, far wealthier than young people who have their whole lives in front of them, so why can't there be some redistribution of all that unused stuff and wealth and property that oldies aren't even using, sheds and garages full of it ?”

I was once a young student with all my life ahead of me.

And I was also broke

I have since worked for what I have since acquired (3 houses etc)

I also earn a bit too, based on developed abilities which other people are prepared to pay for.

if you want to rent out one of my garden sheds… hey… make me an offer

But never expect anyone to surrender their property to suit your sense of entitlement

Like Margaret Thatcher said

“People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

A fact of life is:

The “young” have yet to meet the “obligations” which the “olds” have spent a lifetime making.

My revenge on the young is

If you are lucky, you too will be old one day
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 12:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

To which a young person may reply:

'Well, how much room does an old person need ? Clear out one of your garden sheds and live in that, I'm entitled to a nice house as much as anyone else, and yours will probably do.

'This just shows the complete greed and unreasonableness of old people, concerned only with themselves and their comforts.

'And they may have a much smaller carbon foot-print now than a young person, but just look how much carbon dioxide they have used throughout their working lives. Disgusting ! All that poison gas pumped into the environment and they couldn't care less !'

...... but I couldn't possibly comment.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 22 July 2011 1:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth “'This just shows the complete greed and unreasonableness of old people, concerned only with themselves and their comforts.”

You lack the authority to judge me….

Indeed, when it comes to judging, I have the necessary experience to suggest that

Loudmouth by name, Loudmouth by nature.

If you are fortunate, you will live as long as I have

and my revenge on you will be

You will suffer stupid, mindless abuse from young, inarticulate and useless “Loudmouths”, who wear slip-on shoes because they lack the ability to tie up their shoe laces without the assistance of their mummy.

As for “carbon footprints”

Who cares… I drive two cars, one a V6 4WD and the other is a turbo-charged SLK 320…

But I pay for the petrol I buy.

I do not go around demanding people older than me deprive themselves of things simply to help me afford the petrol

I call your sort of attitude “co-dependent” and

“Co-Dependency” is a very undesirable mental ailment

http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/80/Codependency.html

Loudmouth, I suggest you seek help to fix yourself before you come here to criticize your betters
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 3:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Notice the quotation marks ? Sorry, I've just been stirring the possum :)

Surely there aren't any young people who believe and say such things ?

Yeah, you're probably right :(

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 22 July 2011 4:54:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come in, Spinner!
Posted by morganzola, Friday, 22 July 2011 4:59:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Winston Churchill never said that, despite the fact that the quote is often attributed to him.

Having come from Britain yourself, I would have expected you'd know that.

Indeed, had Churchill actually said that, he would, effectively, have been referring to himself as a heartless youth who grew to be a brainless adult. As you yourself even said: "Churchill, who dressed in cloth of different political hues, through the progress of his life..."

Only you appear to have had it the wrong way around.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 22 July 2011 5:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a note, AJ Philips, there's no point trying to correct Col Rouge.

>>Col, Winston Churchill never said that, despite the fact that the quote is often attributed to him.<<

He will bully and bluster for a while, then pretend he hadn't heard you. Then he will jump into his "Mercedes" and take his "stunningly attractive" "wife" to the casino.

You and I know it was originally François Guisot, on being a "republican", and that everyone+dog has claimed it in various forms since.

But you can't teach an old dog.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 22 July 2011 6:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth you have a particular skill in personifying the pointless...

I suspect you will succumb to your inner desires to procreate (rather than doing the right thing for humanity and carbon footprints)

..... and them suffer the taunting torment of your own little Loudmouth

AJ Phillips and Pericles

you both demonstrate excellent muscular control of the fundamental orifice

- verging on the obsessive

Pericles - I will defer to your much wider experience of old dogs....

anyway the mercedes awaits
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
have you ever had work for a day to feed yourself ?
Posted by individual, Saturday, 23 July 2011 7:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funnily enough, when I characteised the Greens as a party that appeals principally to young professional women, such as the author, I was told by Morganzola that I was quite wrong and that in fact it is a party that is predominantly older people and that i should stop believing propaganda. I was further told that I would "not last 5 minutes" due to my "attitude to women". I suspect that it's more my attitude to feel-good "bullsh!t" to use the author's delightful term (which she is allowed to use, but I am not, says the filter) that would be the problem.

I recommend this article and the comments that flow from it to my friend Morganzola. Greens functions may be a great place to go to pick up young chicks from well-off families, but it's hardly a party that represents the practical aspirations of the majority.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:03:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Antiseptic:

Heh - sorry I didn't get back to you on that, but the anti-Greens bulldust contingent here have been busy, and I've been busy refuting some of the most obvious lies. From what I can tell I was wrong, in that support seems to be bi-modal - strongly from young people and also a good proportion from ageing baby boomers like me, who grew up in the 60s and 70s and acquired our interest in social justice and environmental matters back in those heady times.

It appears that much of the new support picked up at the last election was from young people, so I stand corrected to that extent. However, like any other political party, most of the senior internal positions and tend to be occupied by middle-class, middle-aged ideologues.
Posted by morganzola, Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:23:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Morganzola “….ageing baby boomers like me, who grew up in the 60s and 70s and acquired our interest in social justice….”

Ah the great “social justice” justification for failure by those who FAIL on their own merits

Social justice was the excuse given by Lenin when he dispensed summary “Social Justice” on the necks of the kulaks -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Hanging_Order
Re “Lenin's Hanging Order" was discussed during a controversy about the BBC documentary, Lenin's Secret Files (1997) based upon Robert Service's findings in Soviet archives. This is Service's English translation of the Russian original:
"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.
• 1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
• 2. Publish their names.
• 3. Seize all their grain from them.
• 4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
• Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: "they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks".
Telegraph receipt and implementation.
Yours, Lenin.

Yep, them Bolsheviks knew how to hand out “Social Justice” like few others

I much prefer natural justice and individual merit…

Social Justice is too subjective to risk…. Especially when people like Lenin pop up so often in positions of leftard authority
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 23 July 2011 3:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, in the interest of balance, I post the following article from that great protector of other people's interests, the Guardian.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8655106/Im-starting-to-think-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html

"The greatest capitalist country in history is now dependent on other people’s capital to survive."

Hard to argue against, I'm sure you'd agree. Does this represent the triumph of the command economies, or is it a natural progression in the inevitably triumphal march of Capitalism, blind to the purveyors of the creed?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:40:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Antiseptic:

Thanks for that - a good article that does indeed look like it should've been in the Guardian, rather than the UK Telegraph. Don't I recall Col informing us that the Tele is one of his preferred news sources?

As for Col's intemperate and typically dishonest rant - yes, it is well known that Lenin was responsible for all sorts of heinous crimes against humanity. However, what on earth has it to do with 'Social Justice', which is one of the better contributions made to our culture by some forms of Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

I suppose Jesus was a Bolshevik too?

He really doesn't do his argument any favours by posting such easily-refuted lies, does he?
Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 24 July 2011 7:25:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thnk I may possibly have been a little tipsy last night.

I'm sure I was looking at the Guardian...

I don't disgree with Col on the social justice issue. The growth in Australia's redistributive spending from 30% to 45% (and that's without the maternal leave scheme) of revenue in just 20 years is a good indication of the way in which such issues become political vote-buyers rather than genuinely striving to overcome structural disadvantage.

When we have such lacklustre politicians at every side, it's only to be expected that the next election will see still more such spending and what's worse the voters, many of whom have effectively become dependent on their welfare handouts despite being in work, will fall for it.

It's one of the aspects of Green politics that most disturbs me and one of the reasons I characterise them as a party of people who've never had to pay their own way. If they had, they'd understand that spending your capital on lifestyle is a sure way to end up poverty-stricken. Unless, of course, you know that someone else is going to pay your way.

America is discovering now that spending too much Government revenue on Defence is another way of doing the same thing. China will have to pay America's way: are we expecting them to pay ours too?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 24 July 2011 7:49:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have a look at this:
http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/#chooseVidcallMailWin-coming-soon
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 24 July 2011 9:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am well familiar with UKDT

Thanks for the specific article, Antiseptic

If you care to look in the Delingpole and Hannan blogs in the Daily Telegraph you will see Col Rouge pop up frequently… I had seen this blog tag but had not, to date, read it.

I can understand the sentiment but with capitalism you have to remember, everyone is free to strut their stuff. Some will fail and other succeed..

Under collectivism, the notion of success is sneered at as it imperils “equality”

Equality has never seemed much of a goal to me. if you want to accept that from the very genes which direct our ability as well as our height, some will grow tall whilst others are dwarfs.

Yet, politically, the left insist that since we cannot all be tall, we must all be leveled and limited to becoming no more than dwarfs.

That is why I hold the left and the leveling greens in complete contempt because, to ensure “equality” they would see individual “opportunity” to succeed abandoned because it will produce inequality.

Regarding the left ever being right (in a correct sense) the problem with the left is this

Whilst the resources of news and production remain in private or corporate (private by way of shares) hands, government can always regulate those private / corporate operators.

When assets are owned and controlled by government, government faces a moral dilemma between operating versus regulatory imperatives eg using excessive profits of a public monopoly

Antiseptic, concerning the greatest capitalist country…. It reminds me of something Robert Stigwood said many years ago

To be successful one requires two things

PMA and OPM

Positive Mental Attitude

and

Other People’s Money

Stigwood was a pretty successful individual…

I would suggest, the capacity of USA for inventive ingenuity is what will underpin their future success, regardless whose money they use to finance it.

Morganzola.. you are too boring to bother responding too

You dare criticize me for supposed dishonesty, whilst actively supporting the greatest CON of the last 100 years… CAGW…

Your actions disqualify you from judging anyone’s honest
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

Sorry for the delay, I've been away working. I first earned money working back in 1955, then after school in Wagga and Darwin, then in the public service, then teaching, then ten years in factories and on farms, including four years at an Aboriginal community (while I tried to set up a voluntary vegetable garden), five or six years of holiday fruit-picking, then twenty-odd years at universities. My last paying job was working in a dairy in an Aboriginal community, me and my late brother-in-law, a couple of middle-aged graduates, while the young guys slept on, down in the village. Self-determination and personal autnonomy have positives for some. On my 61st, I planted 61 trees around the dairy, and over four months, probably a thousand or so others.

But apart from that, you might have a point, none of it was particularly hard.

But as many young people might say, Col,

'Look, you might have earned all that and amassed assets, but let's face it, you aren't going to last much longer, so why not give your wealth all to young people who need it desperately now - they could make use of it for far longer.

'And that's one reason why we support voluntary (and otherwise) euthanasia, especially for those in terrible pain and who can't expresss their own wishes clearly - their pain distresses us immensely. I'm sure they would be happy to see their assets being used by young people here and now, instead of having to wait until the oldies die naturally.'

Just stirring the possum, Col :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 5:03:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a keeper, Col.

>>You dare criticize me...<<

Says it all, really.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 8:19:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fortunately, most young people mature as they experience the reality of the world, so the Greens' support base is unlikely to be maintained as the current crop of young Green voters get older. In my own case, I voted for Whitlam in 1972 and again in 1974 when I was young and naive but three years of Labor government was enough to make me see the error of my ways. Mind you, the Hawke/Keating years were mostly good for Australia and Australians, but that's another story.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 6:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth "'Look, you might have earned all that and amassed assets, but let's face it, you aren't going to last much longer, so why not give your wealth all to young people who need it desperately now - they could make use of it for far longer. "

Nice pot stirring, Loudmouth... but easily answered

I feel the lessons gained from working for a living will, in the long term, be far more valuable than using my own resources to provide temporary welfare and charity to the indolent youth who might, if they are lucky, eventually grow to be as old as I am.

But this is the same old story....

give a man a fish and feed him for a day,

show him how to fish and he feeds himself for the rest of his life.

I had to work hard to gain the advantages I have and as we both know, their is dignity in working than living and noting in off handouts.

as for lasting much longer... I am married to a multi-disciplined medic who knows how to keep me going (for her own selfish reasons :-) ) for around another 30 years or so. Which means I will probably out live many of your youthful folk, addicted to high-fat diets, morbid obescity and whoses exercise effort extends to clicking a computer mouse button

Later, in retirement, we plan on moving north, where life is easier, warmer days etc... and running our business interests via internet...

I am not sure if we can get free (council paid) home help and meals on wheels.... I will have to look into that.... (maybe a council paid pot stirrer too)

Of course... cruise ships beckon for some of that wealth.

Loudmouth... at least my "philanthropy" will ensure the dignity of paid work for the sailors and officers of the ships crew

mmm Pericles... I see you manage to keep yourself busy, using words of one syllable to say nothing...

keep it up... pointlessness becomes you
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 28 July 2011 12:30:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Never greatly in favour of accuracy, are you Col? Remember all that blather of yours about how Maggie cut back government spending... as if!

>>mmm Pericles... I see you manage to keep yourself busy, using words of one syllable to say nothing... keep it up... pointlessness becomes you<<

Y'know, it's not that difficult, counting syllables.

A psychologist friend of mine explained to me a while back, about people who spend their time telling the world how wonderful they are.

Fascinating.

(That's four syllables for fascinating, in case you are still counting).

Have a great day. Hope the surf 'n' turf at the Casino is up to scratch.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 28 July 2011 2:50:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Col,

Honestly, I don't think you owe younger generations anything - what you have worked for and sweated for should be yours, pure and simple. If you want to sell it off and blow the proceeds on a constant world trip, that's your right. If younger generations want to do the same, then they can emulate you and work for a few decades to save for themselves.

And I wonder what size the carbon footprint of the younger generations might be - one thing about the older generations, depression babies and baby boomers, is that they don't spend all that much on consumer goods or electronic goods. They might go on their round-Australia trips but even so, they probably use far less energy per year than the average younger person. On those grounds, perhaps we should be thinking about saving the planet by thinning the ranks of the younger generations ?

No, I don't think so either. Pump money into renewable energy research, subsidies on solar panels (individuals) and wind farms (local councils) if they work, and plant millions of trees/year, rather than wring your hands and pick on some scapegoat group. No more whingeing, we know what to do.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 28 July 2011 5:46:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, thankyou for your response... I did catch on to your "pot stirring"... hence my suggestion ... seeing if I could get one paid for like meals on wheels :-)

I think investing in renewables is excellent, provided the renewable is economically viable, which means self financing, rather than funded through government subsidy. Same applies to recycling, from scrap metal to scrap PET bottles, glass, paper, even expanded polystyrene.

Regardless the output, any commercial enterprise which relies on government subsidy or government ownership (invariably a monopoly) of any kind is bad news. Commercial enterprises must compete openly or they will become bastions of stagnation and corruption.

To thinning out the younger generation.

Having experienced the joys of youth and older age, I think the young deserve to bring their own children into the world.

Ultimately the revenge for every grand parent, on their own children, is the impact of a grandchild.

So, I do not believe we should "thin out" any generation..

I think each person should decide, for themselves, how many children are they prepared to sacrifice their lives for (including opportunity and financial sacrifices).

Each generation should value the gift of life their parents gave them and that inheritance of the world, which so many seem to think is their entitlement.

It may not be in a pristine state and it may not have ready supplies of easily pumped oil...

but I remember some kids of my generation struck down with polio and a few other diseases which have been largely eradicated

so younger generations will inherit something... some of it subjectively worse and some of it better

the important bit, from my perspective, is to try to ensure the next generation are at liberty to enjoy what they "inherit" -

rather than be the slaves to some authoritarian government which regulates peoples every thought, every action and rations / limits their access to every resource, based on some stupid notion of "equality". -

Because such is not "living"

it is merely "existing"..

and a miserable existence at that.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 28 July 2011 8:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy