Interesting poster

[steven lloyd]

... if it gets the younguns voting, the greens will win hands down. The under 25's are a bright and caring lot

Is that an oxymoron - like military intelligence ? I actually give them (the younguns) more credit than that - and suspect thinking more along these following lines from those younguns who want to be able to earn a living and raise a family, get ahead, and live in country not subject to chronic debt, underemployment and runaway levels of poverty:

We cannot afford to put "closed for business" signs up in BC. While this will raise the ire of the Greenies and the NDP under Horgan, I would dearly love to see more trade with the Pacific Rim. It is in 'our best interests' to do as much as we can to promote this kind of relationship. Sure, the Greenies want all the shoreline left pristine and untouched; however, technological advances and infrastructure can ensure we COULD develop ports to convey AB oil to the Pacific Rim countries. Without the ingrained fear of BP oil pollution disasters such as the Gulf. And the threat that the 'Greenies' would make sabotage and blow up these pipelines in order to 'make a statement'. I hope that Cummins gets the point across.

I'm "staying the course", too ... because I care about our youth and their futures in this country. I've got kids and grandkids growing up here and I want them to have jobs and to be able to live and work without inheriting the debt from this and past governments. I don't want to saddle them with the foolish spending promises and increased corporate taxation that Liberals and NDP are handing out on the election platforms. I want the budget balanced and I want the national debt paid off. To do otherwise or to increase them is irresponsible. I want the government to do what it can to put an "Open for Business" sign on our front door, so that my offspring (and yours) can have a good life in Canada.

[I Think]

Nibs wrote:
This here senior, thinks that the response to the poster is way overboard. It may not be in the best of taste, but it ain't no big deal. & if it gets the younguns voting, the greens will win hands down. The under 25's are a bright and caring lot and good on em.

Daria wrote:
You just made me wish I was one of the under 25s, but I'm happy to be one of the under 30s still!!

No SL, it is not an oxy whatsis. Have you tried talking to any of the urban 16 - 25 (or 30) year olds, they are much more concerned with the future of the world than most of the older posters here. Try asking them what they think instead of assuming you know.

[daria]

Indeed. We're concerned about what sort of environment we're leaving for our children and their children. That's why I like the Iroquois Nation's Great Law, which asks us to make decisions with the seventh generation in mind.

Shanti (Peace).

[grammafreddy]

Indeed. We're concerned about what sort of environment we're leaving for our children and their children. That's why I like the Iroquois Nation's Great Law, which asks us to make decisions with the seventh generation in mind.

Shanti (Peace).

That's all fine and dandy, but there's a whole lot more to life and to the success of each generation than just the environment - and keeping in mind, of course, that a lot of the scare mongering about said environment has been a ploy for a select few to gain power and wealth and does it by brainwashing masses of people. But, of course, the envirofreeks don't want to hear that.

There's not much point in protecting anything if the next generations are taxed so heavily they can't even provide food or shelter for their families without more and more government hand-outs - and when fewer and fewer are gainfully employed in the private sector there is less and less coming into government coffers to pay for anything - including your precious environment protection stuff.

By not looking at the much larger picture and voting purely for environmental issues, you are in fact working against your ideals. Not that I expect the envirofreeks will care about that since they are so conditioned already to their one issue brainwashing that nothing else matters.

[daria]

Did I say that I was only voting on the environment? No. I do, however, believe that if we do not have clean air, groundwater, and soil to safely sustain ourselves (note: I am not talking about climate change!), then it will not matter what is happening with the economy. We cannot drink petroleum. We need fresh water.

What's with the derogatory name-calling when someone happens to value a particular issue?

[Ranger66]

“By not looking at the much larger picture and voting purely for environmental issues, you are in fact working against your ideals. Not that I expect the envirofreeks will care about that since they are so conditioned already to their one issue brainwashing that nothing else matters.”

This is the short sighted kind of thinking that has got us where we are today. Don’t understand environmental issues dismiss them, don’t like what someone says they are a freak, and don’t agree with my opinions must be brainwashed. We really need to get by this myopic view.

[StraitTalk]

Granted it is a marketing ploy, but the inference is there that older people are not able to address the issues that younger people have and it also infers that older people are not capable to making decisions relevant to younger people.

I think it's actually inferring that older people simply will not address issues younger people have, not because they're unable to, but because they don't respect the opinions of younger people and/or just don't care. "No Johnny, you can't date Shirley because she isn't good enough for you". = "No Johnny, you can't vote Conservative because you don't even know what you're talking about."

[grammafreddy]

As in all things, there are some who will go off the deep end and become fanatics for a "cause". The environment is one of those and there are some who will take up their "cause" to the exclusion of all rational thought. Nothing else matters to them and they care not what or how the impact is when anything else comes into play. They are fanatics. It is most unfortunate that so many of our young people have been so influenced to become fanatics about the environmental cause without balancing other issues at work that also have equal importance.

No, you cannot drink petroleum ... but you also cannot feed your family on clean air alone. You can't live in the clean dirt and you can't sustain anything without people having jobs in the private sector. It is also unfortunate that ALL things cannot be viewed as a sum total without the fanatics doing their screaming and demanding legislation that damages the rights of individuals for free choice.

Most intelligent adults will recognize that yes, the environment is important but it is not the be-all and the end-all of everything. The fanatics will tell you it is. Our young people must learn that all things work in harmony and that saving the environment is just one of them. Right now, they are NOT getting that message.

Voting Green will not improve the country's economic base and will not promote smart stewardship of anything other than the environment issues. There's NO fiscal responsibility and no good workable plan for how anything will get funded. Raising taxes is not always the only way to do things and in the long run, can be very detrimental to the overall health of a country. It is important to look beyond just one issue and strive for overall balancing.

[Ranger66]

“Our young people must learn that all things work in harmony and that saving the environment is just one of them. Right now, they are NOT getting that message.”

I think that the young people today would say you are not getting the message.

[daria]

I do not know why you think that being in favour of environmentally sound legislation makes one a fanatic, GF.

I also never said I was voting for the Green party.

[steven lloyd]

No SL, it is not an oxy whatsis. Have you tried talking to any of the urban 16 - 25 (or 30) year olds, they are much more concerned with the future of the world than most of the older posters here. Try asking them what they think instead of assuming you know.

Well, if they’re voting green the first thing I’d assume is they have no idea of the underemployement and poverty that exists throughout rural BC (outside urban areas), and how everyone living outside their bubbles who are dependent on BC’s sleeping resource industry are still waiting for the boom that could result once the politicians quit playing to the “Green” game. I might also assume they have no conception of the relation between trade and export and economic growth. I'd ask them what they think, but to be quite honest if they're voting "Green" it is just not realistic - IMO. Not everyone wants to live in a bus.

[JLives]

As in all things, there are some who will go off the deep end and become fanatics for a "cause". The environment is one of those and there are some who will take up their "cause" to the exclusion of all rational thought. Nothing else matters to them and they care not what or how the impact is when anything else comes into play. They are fanatics. It is most unfortunate that so many of our young people have been so influenced to become fanatics about the environmental cause without balancing other issues at work that also have equal importance.

No, you cannot drink petroleum ... but you also cannot feed your family on clean air alone. You can't live in the clean dirt and you can't sustain anything without people having jobs in the private sector. It is also unfortunate that ALL things cannot be viewed as a sum total without the fanatics doing their screaming and demanding legislation that damages the rights of individuals for free choice.

Most intelligent adults will recognize that yes, the environment is important but it is not the be-all and the end-all of everything. The fanatics will tell you it is. Our young people must learn that all things work in harmony and that saving the environment is just one of them. Right now, they are NOT getting that message.

Voting Green will not improve the country's economic base and will not promote smart stewardship of anything other than the environment issues. There's NO fiscal responsibility and no good workable plan for how anything will get funded. Raising taxes is not always the only way to do things and in the long run, can be very detrimental to the overall health of a country. It is important to look beyond just one issue and strive for overall balancing.

You cannot sustain yourself with money alone. It is the biggest farce we have ever convinced ourselves is true. It is literally killing us.

Without the environment we have NOTHING, it is the only cause worth being fanatical about as if it's not kept in safe condition, we're dead. If we ran out of money we'd be doing totally fine. We can still provide food, water, clothes and shelter using natural resources. We've been doing it since the damn of man. Jobs are not important, sustaining life is. Our priorities are so messed up right now. We are not above the Earth, we are all connected to it. It IS the be all and end all of everything.

[steven lloyd]

Sounds idyllic jenny – but 25 million people in Canada (more than six billion worldwide) are not going to suddenly become farmers. For good or bad we have evolved. We have become specialized and like it or not jobs are very important. Without jobs people live in subhuman conditions and starve. They depend on government's that can’t afford to help them (because no one has jobs) and resort to crime to survive. Your idyllic world would be nice, but more than unrealistic it is simply impossible – unless you’re willing to figure out some way of killing off about four billion people or so we can start all over. Me? I’d rather go microwave some popcorn and rest up before heading back to work tomorrow (being very grateful I have a job). Sorry if I’m not helping your cause, but my work involves dealing with people who have to survive in the real world.

p.s. you don't have to destroy industry or stop economic growth to protect the environment.

[I Think]

The whole concept "job" is a relatively new phenomenon, 300 yrs ago there were relatively few people with jobs. People have been brainwashed into thinking that if they do not have a "job" they are inferior, they need to have a "job' in order to define who they are. Even the bank managers treat "job" as a tangible asset, and will loan you money if you have one.

Not sure who started the "job" concept, but whoever did, and the folks who jumped on the band wagon are masterful sales people, they have foisted the idea on whole countries, whole continents, in fact much of the world.

But remember, no matter how much you identify with your "job", no matter how much your credit card company treats your "job" as an asset to secure loans, there are many ways that tomorrow your "job" can end. I knew a foreman once who would fire a worker just to make himself feel better, said it helped cure his hangover.

[I Think]

p.s. you don't have to destroy industry or stop economic growth to protect the environment

Now there's an oxy whatzit!

Scrap the laws that got rid of lead in paint, lead in gasoline. Proceed against NAFTA because the US wont buy Canadian asbestos, hurting Canadian jobs.

Let BP blow up a platform & pollute the ocean large. All because the environmental laws are restricting our businesses.