Let's take the issue of AGW as an example.

Abbott voters have selected short term self interests over what is in the highest intent for Australia and Australians, working for world action on carbon pollution through example.

Are Abbott voters anti Australians.

I chose none of. First of all it's nationalistic nonsense, but mostly I would have say that most people choose a party they believe will benefit Australia the most. They may not have evaluated all the policies, they might have strange ideas of what is beneficial, but I don't think you can accuse many voters of being against Australia.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

Excuse me for my bluntness but that's  absolute bullsh it. Conservative voters do not care about what's best for Australia they care about what's best for themselves. If they thought about what's best for this nation they would care about social issues and climate change issues and our children's future, they don't, they only care about their own selfish hip pockets.

skippy. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:23am:


Excuse my bluntness but I call bullshit on your bullshit. 

It seems to me that Kyrto was making a very valid and astute point and, further to this, your response actually highlighted the accuracy to some degree of Kyrto's analysis.

Your point above indicates that you have insight into what these people are actually thinking, psychic much? Don't worry, I see this all of the time from all political perspectives.

It seems that those holding strong, black and white ideological view points;

• are incapable of realising that an alternate view point could be anything but self interest driven
• are incapable or unwilling to review and reflect upon their own actions/choices or policies in any clear, open or honest way.
• have an unreasonable need to denounce and/or defame their political opponents on a personal level - seemingly as a justification or "proof" of why they hold the ideology they do.

From my perspective, a dedicated and strong ideological position may well be seen by an individual as in the countries best interests, as such could not be described as Anti Australian. Ignorant, selfish and superficial they may be, but anti Australian is not a given. That, even if their policies are not necessarily good for Australia in the final wash up.

However, also as I see it, people who are rusted on to any ideological perspective without question are, by virtue of their unquestioning status, not actually for the best of Australia. We are never ever going to have Government that works for all of the population (you can please some of the people etc....). Currently, I don't believe for a moment that our political animals engaged in the act (yep, they're acting alright... politics = acting for uglies) of looking out for their own place at the public trough - no party can deny that with any voracity, nor can any individual party rusted on with any degree of validity.

This is the problem. Possibly it would be more apt to ask the question are our political choices to vote for Anti Australian? Of course, I already know the rusted ons will highlight that every other choice except their own is flawed, whilst their own choice is a beacon of hope.... That isn't Anti Australian though, that is simply rusted on apathy, ignorance and laziness.

____ wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:28am:


Troll.

skippy. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:23am:


While I am sure some people do vote purely in their own self interest, this isn't confined to any particular political group.

Like I said, many conservatives (an even others) don't accept climate change. I think they are wrong, but it's not evidence they are trying to damage the country.

Conservatives also believe in many cases that social security makes people weaker, and government assistance ends up creating dependence. Once again, I don't believe this is really the case either, but these beliefs are real.

If you can't understand how people think, you will misconstrue their actions.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:05am:


Do they? Or do they vote for the party that will benefit them personally the most?

Remember how John Howard would always announce handouts before an election?

John Howard was a cunning snake. He knew that many, if not most, vote with their wallet in mind, not the national interest.

Quote:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:


Quote:


I am quite certain my Old Man who was one of those Diggers you refer to is quite happy with the way Australia is evolving.  He never did have much time for the Brits.  He reckoned he had even less after Singapore.

Quote:


All those Chinese, Lebanese, Greeks, Germans, Italians, Vietnamese etc?  What was incompatable about them and their religions.

Quote:


Both major parties are great fans of multiculturism, and so was my Old Man (he'd make an exception in the case of Poms, but you weren't referring to them, were you.)

Quote:


When did this happen?  Both were still there in the 60s through to the 80s.

Quote:


Was that some rabid extreme right wing bunch of neo-nazis?

Quote:


Monstering?  That Digger to which you refer was quite happy to see the end of the Brits arriving with their notion of self importance.

Quote:


Yeas, it did take us a while to work out that, just like they did in WW2, the Brits cannot be relied upon to help us in need, and we have finally realised that we are in Asia, a very long way from Buckingham Palace.