Gareth Morgan is an arrogant, opinionated clown.

Posted on June 19, 2015 by KG

And that the NZ Herald would give space to this illogical drivel almost beggars belief.
‘Should the right to vote come with a maximum age limit?’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Gareth Morgan is an arrogant, opinionated clown.

  1. Daily Media Review says:
    June 19, 2015 at 19:04

    Somebody who has paid tax all their lives should most definately have the right to vote – Gareth’s a stumbling, demented man-child. I used to think only those with a certain IQ upwards should be allowed to vote, but I suppose people like Gareth deserve to be represented as well (much as it inconveniences the rest of us).

    I try to ignore Gareth as much as possible. He exposed himself as a buffoon with his global warming nonsense, and I hear his Kiwisaver investment company was among the worst performers.

    • KG says:
      June 19, 2015 at 19:13

      I find his dumb arrogance and egotism repulsive, DMR. Why on earth he thinks we should take any notice of his half-baked opinions is a mystery.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      June 19, 2015 at 22:21

      “I used to think only those with a certain IQ upwards should be allowed to vote, but I suppose people like Gareth deserve to be represented as well”

      Yes, people like Gareth should be represented. The limitation on the franchise should be nett tax contributors. Nett takers should not have the vote – even the terminally stupid should have the vote, provided they are nett tax payers.

      As for the KiwiSaver fund … he flogged it to Kiwibank and made a tidy sum out of it. Proof-positive that a government-run, taxpayer-funded bank is a moronically stupid idea.

      • Daily Media Review says:
        June 19, 2015 at 22:47

        I agree there’s merit to the idea of only those who contribute to the tax base should be able to vote TGG, although perhaps those on the pension should be included as they’ve paid tax all their lives and fought in the wars, etc.

        • The Gantt Guy says:
          June 19, 2015 at 22:52

          Agreed. That said, over (an extended period of) time the universal pension should be phased out in favour of individual retirement accounts held privately. Then, there’d be no need for an exception.

  2. Minette says:
    June 19, 2015 at 20:09

    At a not yet creaking 70, I would agree not to vote provided that the quid pro quo was not having to pay any tax.

    Gareth needs to read more history. If he did he might see how barking his ideas are.

  3. MacDoctor says:
    June 19, 2015 at 22:28

    Clever. Disenfranchise the elderly so they can’t vote against the coming euthanasia bill. Then kill them all off thus saving billions in healthcare and removing the number one source of feral cats…

    • KG says:
      June 19, 2015 at 22:35

      Yep. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yes.gif
      Speaking of feral cats…we’re feeding a couple here. They keep the mice down. :mrgreen:

  4. Flashman says:
    June 20, 2015 at 05:57

    Morgan is a self-promoting blowhard. A classic NZ media-driven non-entity, famous only for being well-known…and with a mind in a place where the buses don’t run.

  5. Ronbo says:
    June 20, 2015 at 05:59

    I think Robert Heinlein – my favorite science fiction writer – had the best idea on the franchise – the right to vote and hold political office. It would be limited to honorably discharged veterans with at least a four year term of service.

    “The Service” in question was not limited to the military, but it was dirty and dangerous and was open to all men and women 18 to 35 years old even if they had physical defects – If they stepped forward to volunteer for “The Service” some type of demanding job would be found for them.

    These veterans were the only citizens. The rank and file of folks had all the civil rights…except for the right to vote and hold office.

    I think its a good idea, as an oligarchy is inevitable in any type of government.

    Why not an oligarchy based on Duty, Honor, Country?

    • Pascal says:
      June 20, 2015 at 07:38

      In their deranged way the current oligarchs do have a view of duty, honor and country. Only they think of themselves as citizens of the world, unrestrained by borders, the duty to restrict Draconianly the number of people in their global country in direct conflict with the notion of the sanctity of human life, whilst maintaining a form of honor among thieves. They no doubt have the anti-Sophist Plato spinning in his grave.

  6. KG says:
    June 20, 2015 at 07:03

    “Why not an oligarchy based on Duty, Honor, Country?”
    Why not, indeed.
    Because the leftist parasites in the media and academia would then have no power, since they lack the necessary to do the dirty, dangerous jobs. And they are the people who shape public opinion and corrupt the young.

  7. Cadwallader says:
    June 20, 2015 at 08:33

    I have been off-air for various reasons but am motivated by this subject. I believe that there ought be a bar on voting once one is dependent on the State. I am closing in on 65 and in the event I receive a pension, then yes, my voting rights ought be extinguished! ( I shall cease voting voluntarily.) Voting while one is a state funded person is a conflict of interest inasmuch as a voter will vote to retain/enhance taxpayer largesse. Further, voting in favour of a government policy which has the potential to pervade society after one’s death seems inordinate.None of us can or will rule from the grave hence enfranchisement for the elderly is irrational.
    If you can vote into your dotage when your faculties are threatened by the ravages of aging then why oughtn’t children be given the vote? The fact that one may have paid tax for decades doesn’t “buy” a vote as many who are able to vote are non-contributing by this measure.
    PS I am still composing my defence of the TPPA but it seems it may be dead in the water! Sadly.

    • KG says:
      June 20, 2015 at 09:03

      Good to see you back, Cad.
      The harsh fact is, although there may indeed be some ( I suspect very few) older people who are mentally incompetent to vote, effectively replacing them with indoctrinated young people is not the answer.
      The left is pushing this because their preferred voting group are remarkably ignorant, inexperienced and malleable leftist products of the “education” system and will vote accordingly.
      They’re largely a generation which has paid no dues, have invented fuck-all and built even less, living off generations before them.

      • Cadwallader says:
        June 20, 2015 at 09:31

        I agree that the Left is pushing juvenile incompetent voters towards enfranchisement and the purpose of doing so is transparent. I understand that at the time of the last general election there were reports of elderly people in care having their voting papers taken from them by unionized care-workers and then filled-in. It is not hard to conceive where their voting sympathies would lie. At both ends of the voting age spectrum the Left has potential to corrupt voting results it seems.