http://www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/business-elite-dig-deep-for-liberals-but-gina-rinehart-donates-to-labor-20140203-31wme.html

I was always under the impression that Gina was in Bed with Tony, at least that's what I've read here so it must be true.

A few things I find amusing about this Rob.

1) Your willingness to quote "the enemy" when it suits you, but bag the living [censored] out of them when it doesn't.

2) Stated within that article:

‘‘Hancock Coal Pty Ltd is controlled by Mrs Rinehart’s partners, the GVK Group, who have the majority interest and have had this majority interest for more than two years,’’ says Hancock’s chief financial officer Jay Newby.

‘‘Mrs Rinehart has not donated funds to the Labor party, nor has any entity she controls.’’

Best to read the whole thing.

3) The fact that anyone would possibly dispute Rinehart's ties to the Coalition, In particular Abbott and Barnaby, whose campaign she PERSONALLY bankrolled to the tune of at least $50K (that was what Barnaby publicly claimed but it really wouldn't surprise if it was alot more). They are very open about their "friendship". Every move she makes is backed by Abbott, including by the way her increased share in Fairfax Media. They share a very similar agenda. That isn't speculation, or Demonland hearsay, it's fact.

However H_T, we are getting into a semantic game a little I think. The stuff about how a tough border protection regime will supposedly be a deterrent has been trotted out quite a bit as rationale for these policies but we are no closer to actually knowing whether or not it is deterring anyone. Morrison is trying to cover up as much as he can and we are only getting small snippets of info. Plus, we have also heard that some boats have attempted the journey but they were turned back.

Where have we heard that Colin?

A few things I find amusing about this Rob.

1) Your willingness to quote "the enemy" when it suits you, but bag the living [censored] out of them when it doesn't.

2) Stated within that article:

‘‘Hancock Coal Pty Ltd is controlled by Mrs Rinehart’s partners, the GVK Group, who have the majority interest and have had this majority interest for more than two years,’’ says Hancock’s chief financial officer Jay Newby.

‘‘Mrs Rinehart has not donated funds to the Labor party, nor has any entity she controls.’’

Best to read the whole thing.

3) The fact that anyone would possibly dispute Rinehart's ties to the Coalition, In particular Abbott and Barnaby, whose campaign she PERSONALLY bankrolled to the tune of at least $50K (that was what Barnaby publicly claimed but it really wouldn't surprise if it was alot more). They are very open about their "friendship". Every move she makes is backed by Abbott, including by the way her increased share in Fairfax Media. They share a very similar agenda. That isn't speculation, or Demonland hearsay, it's fact.

I don't have any enemies P-man, the Age is a sad remnant of its previous self and i only have pity. It's a bit like a few of the posters on here, long on rhetoric but light on substance.

Speaking of which, a bit of fact to support your fact wouldn't go astray.

$50k, you reckon that would get political favour; I don't believe you'd be that naive, so you are really trying to pull my chain.

Where have we heard that Colin?

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-to-asylum-boats-turnback/story-fncynjr2-1226814434711

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-to-asylum-boats-turnback/story-fncynjr2-1226814434711

Thanks for being so prompt.

That sounds like a good idea, don't you think, if it stops people from attempting the perilous journey it can only benefit all. I read the story from Crikey about the 28 lives lost at sea and this would have prevented that.

I don't have any enemies P-man, the Age is a sad remnant of its previous self and i only have pity. It's a bit like a few of the posters on here, long on rhetoric but light on substance.

Speaking of which, a bit of fact to support your fact wouldn't go astray.

$50k, you reckon that would get political favour; I don't believe you'd be that naive, so you are really trying to pull my chain.

Ah, the old "you can't be that naive/gullible/stupid" line. Vintage Robert. The fact is that he's the candidate she chose to back, and 50K is certainly enough to make a difference to the campaign in ONE seat. It was actually rumoured to be up to 700K, but let's take Barnaby on his word..

You're not really going to play dumb on Rinehart are you? One of the key figures in conservative politics? The IPA agenda? The removal of carbon and resource profits tax? The reduction in environmental regulations? Do I really need to expand on something that every man and his dog who takes a passing interest knows about? You know, Rob. Don't play dumb.

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by P-man

Thanks for being so prompt.

That sounds like a good idea, don't you think, if it stops people from attempting the perilous journey it can only benefit all. I read the story from Crikey about the 28 lives lost at sea and this would have prevented that.

I think your missing the point of that article a bit. The coalition are trumpeting that no boats have 'arrived'. They aren't mentioning the number of boats who are still attempting the journey. They are moving the goal posts for political purposes.

The part of this that is the most worrying of all is this extreme secrecy and lack of accountability. Asylum seekers are now being locked up overseas in detention centres run by the private sector. I wouldn't have less of an issue with this if these companies were in the field of welfare provision but they are mostly security companies, not really the people you want dealing with vulnerable people. We are running a 'border protection regime' as well that we aren't allowed to know about either. As I said earlier, this is the kind of stuff that happens in totalitarian regimes.

I too have read about turnbacks but in this case, it lead to death. (Sorry for recycling this link as I had used it earlier). http://rac-vic.org/2014/02/01/media-release-three-asylum-seekers-dead-after-boat-turn-back-abbott-has-blood-on-his-hands/

Ah, the old "you can't be that naive/gullible/stupid" line. Vintage Robert. The fact is that he's the candidate she chose to back, and 50K is certainly enough to make a difference to the campaign in ONE seat. It was actually rumoured to be up to 700K, but let's take Barnaby on his word..

You're not really going to play dumb on Rinehart are you? One of the key figures in conservative politics? The IPA agenda? The removal of carbon and resource profits tax? The reduction in environmental regulations? Do I really need to expand on something that every man and his dog who takes a passing interest knows about? You know, Rob. Don't play dumb.

Give me some facts P show me some substance.

If you don't I won't lose any sleep but it would be nice to see where you get your info from. It wouldn't be the age or the abc would it? They are light on facts too.

I think your missing the point of that article a bit. The coalition are trumpeting that no boats have 'arrived'. They aren't mentioning the number of boats who are still attempting the journey. They are moving the goal posts for political purposes.

The part of this that is the most worrying of all is this extreme secrecy and lack of accountability. Asylum seekers are now being locked up overseas in detention centres run by the private sector. I wouldn't have less of an issue with this if these companies were in the field of welfare provision but they are mostly security companies, not really the people you want dealing with vulnerable people. We are running a 'border protection regime' as well that we aren't allowed to know about either. As I said earlier, this is the kind of stuff that happens in totalitarian regimes.

I too have read about turnbacks but in this case, it lead to death. (Sorry for recycling this link as I had used it earlier). http://rac-vic.org/2014/02/01/media-release-three-asylum-seekers-dead-after-boat-turn-back-abbott-has-blood-on-his-hands/

Correct they are trumpeting the fact that no boats are arriving. They went in to the last election with a clear policy of turning the boats around, so what's the problem?

They are doing what they said they would.

Totalitarian Regime; give me a break, if you really believe that you've lost all credibility, that's just silly.

I think your missing the point of that article a bit. The coalition are trumpeting that no boats have 'arrived'. They aren't mentioning the number of boats who are still attempting the journey. They are moving the goal posts for political purposes.

The part of this that is the most worrying of all is this extreme secrecy and lack of accountability. Asylum seekers are now being locked up overseas in detention centres run by the private sector. I wouldn't have less of an issue with this if these companies were in the field of welfare provision but they are mostly security companies, not really the people you want dealing with vulnerable people. We are running a 'border protection regime' as well that we aren't allowed to know about either. As I said earlier, this is the kind of stuff that happens in totalitarian regimes.

I too have read about turnbacks but in this case, it lead to death. (Sorry for recycling this link as I had used it earlier). http://rac-vic.org/2014/02/01/media-release-three-asylum-seekers-dead-after-boat-turn-back-abbott-has-blood-on-his-hands/

Three asylum seekers are reported to have died “while crossing a river in the jungle” in their attempt to seek assistance after coming ashore.

“These asylum seekers would not have died if their boat had not been turned back. Their blood is on Abbott’s hands,” said Chris Breen for the Refugee Action Collective

Was this confirmed anywhere other than a report by the Refugee Action Collective? They, of course, wouldn't have anything to gain by reporting misinformation; would they?

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by RobbieF

Correct they are trumpeting the fact that no boats are arriving. They went in to the last election with a clear policy of turning the boats around, so what's the problem?

They are doing what they said they would.

Totalitarian Regime; give me a break, if you really believe that you've lost all credibility, that's just silly.

The problem is their policy is working and they hate it.

Three asylum seekers are reported to have died “while crossing a river in the jungle” in their attempt to seek assistance after coming ashore.

“These asylum seekers would not have died if their boat had not been turned back. Their blood is on Abbott’s hands,” said Chris Breen for the Refugee Action Collective

Was this confirmed anywhere other than a report by the Refugee Action Collective? They, of course, wouldn't have anything to gain by reporting misinformation; would they?

I felt the same when I saw the source of the quote... but by the same token, it could be said that the govt have plenty to gain by maintaining their cloak of secrecy so no-one really knows whether the boats are still being turned back and whether lives are still at risk.

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by hardtack

Correct they are trumpeting the fact that no boats are arriving. They went in to the last election with a clear policy of turning the boats around, so what's the problem?

They are doing what they said they would.

Totalitarian Regime; give me a break, if you really believe that you've lost all credibility, that's just silly.

You were basing your last argument on boats not setting out on the journey to Australia due to the turn-back policy. However, as the previous article showed, even the Abbott government itself has admitted that boats have headed to Australia but have been turned around. So which is it? Is the aim here to stop people making sea journeys (which as I have noted earlier in this thread can be done and has been done in the past utilizing policies that don't leave people high and dry at sea or in out of reach detention centres)? Or is it we just don't want asylum seekers here full stop? If it's the latter, then I ask why?

As for the totalitarian regime stuff, I won't Australia is a totalitarian regime (if you saw my post earlier, you will know my feelings on that). However, the lack of scrutiny, the extreme secrecy and the disrespect for human rights that is part and parcel of this policy is something I would expect from some banana republic dictator and I won't back down on that. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, why don't we get even a smattering of information to justify the logic behind this policy?

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Three asylum seekers are reported to have died “while crossing a river in the jungle” in their attempt to seek assistance after coming ashore.

“These asylum seekers would not have died if their boat had not been turned back. Their blood is on Abbott’s hands,” said Chris Breen for the Refugee Action Collective

Was this confirmed anywhere other than a report by the Refugee Action Collective? They, of course, wouldn't have anything to gain by reporting misinformation; would they?

You will find a link to the original article that was provided by news.com.au within the RAC article itself.

Bias works both ways as you will see in the Newscorp article. They did their best to hide those three deaths deep within the article and not ascribe any blame to the current policy. If there were ever any drownings during the Rudd/Gillard years, they couldn't wait to sink their fangs in and cling on for grim death.

You were basing your last argument on boats not setting out on the journey to Australia due to the turn-back policy. However, as the previous article showed, even the Abbott government itself has admitted that boats have headed to Australia but have been turned around. So which is it? Is the aim here to stop people making sea journeys (which as I have noted earlier in this thread can be done and has been done in the past utilizing policies that don't leave people high and dry at sea)? Or is it we just don't want asylum seekers here full stop? If it's the latter, then I ask why?

As for the totalitarian regime stuff, I won't Australia is a totalitarian regime (if you saw my post earlier, you will know my feelings on that). However, the lack of scrutiny, the extreme secrecy and the disrespect for human rights that is part and parcel of this policy is something I would expect from some banana republic dictator and I won't back down on that. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, why don't we get even a smattering of information to justify the logic behind this policy?

I'm a bit distracted at the moment and getting a bit old so I can't recall saying that the boats weren't setting out for Australia; perhaps you can refresh my fading memory.

As for your totalitarian regime I'll just put this down to your trying too hard to show that Abbott is a bastard and that anyone that supports him a member of the storm troopers.

Just remember your credibility disappears very quickly if you make really stupid statements and on an internet blog that can be fatal.

You will find a link to the original article that was provided by news.com.au within the RAC article itself.

Bias works both ways as you will see in the Newscorp article. They did their best to hide those three deaths deep within the article and not ascribe any blame to the current policy. If there were ever any drownings during the Rudd/Gillard years, they couldn't wait to sink their fangs in and cling on for grim death.

Yes but we're the three deaths confirmed or just reported? If they were confirmed, then by whom and where?

Did news report this as a fact or a possibility?

I felt the same when I saw the source of the quote... but by the same token, it could be said that the govt have plenty to gain by maintaining their cloak of secrecy so no-one really knows whether the boats are still being turned back and whether lives are still at risk.

Refugee Action Collective, Crikey, both credible sources.

What do the left say when the right quote Bolt?

Back at you.

BTW how's Sarah Hanson-Young' s credibility; Sea Patrol factual series? Wow what an idiot, talk about unprepared.

Not that this is anything political,but I'd give all Tony Abbotts girls a good rogering given half a chance.Big nosed chicks are hot.

Those crucifixes in the cleave could make you feel like you are in Rome.

Give me some facts P show me some substance.

If you don't I won't lose any sleep but it would be nice to see where you get your info from. It wouldn't be the age or the abc would it? They are light on facts too.

Rob, all I'm telling you is that they have a publicised association, with shared agendas (I've given you examples of three key policies) and she is a contributor to their cause. Those are the facts. You posted that article in an attempt to paint Rinehart as some sort of balanced individual, which could be shot down by quoting from the very same article.

You accuse others of being naive. I know you have your established hatreds but for gods sake man. If you can't even acknowledge that Rinehart is an Abbott sympathiser then whose being naive here? I've never met anyone who denies that, not even staunch Lib supporters.

Refugee Action Collective, Crikey, both credible sources.

What do the left say when the right quote Bolt?

Back at you.

BTW how's Sarah Hanson-Young' s credibility; Sea Patrol factual series? Wow what an [censored], talk about unprepared.

RF... I was agreeing with you on the source. I just added that the govt also have plenty to gain by maintaining their cloak of secrecy.

As for Sarah Hanson-Young... who is she? I am not much of a FTA TV viewer.

RF... I was agreeing with you on the source. I just added that the govt also have plenty to gain by maintaining their cloak of secrecy.

As for Sarah Hanson-Young... who is she? I am not much of a FTA TV viewer.

She's a greens senator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01yNq8BJ2JA&list=UUsvZxvUY9C_eHxfbyjtnCjA&index=1

This ones even better, and she represents the Greens, wow indeed.

Edited February 3, 201411 yr by RobbieF

Rob, all I'm telling you is that they have a publicised association, with shared agendas (I've given you examples of three key policies) and she is a contributor to their cause. Those are the facts. You posted that article in an attempt to paint Rinehart as some sort of balanced individual, which could be shot down by quoting from the very same article.

You accuse others of being naive. I know you have your established hatreds but for gods sake man. If you can't even acknowledge that Rinehart is an Abbott sympathiser then whose being naive here? I've never met anyone who denies that, not even staunch Lib supporters.

When you are a liberal supporter you are subject to scrutiny and when you make a statement you are asked to provide 3 or 4 sources to back up your allegation; all I'm doing is asking the same of you. It's not good enough to just say everyone knows it and they have shared agendas give me a source.

Not that I care but you know what I mean. BTW I can't stand the woman and would much prefer she was one of yours so when I read she had donated to the Labor party I was very happy.

Oh! that's right you aren't a Labor voter are you.

For Coliny, Hoody, Hardy and P'y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFhL5cjzFhU&list=UUsvZxvUY9C_eHxfbyjtnCjA&index=5

For Coliny, Hoody, Hardy and P'y

Great to see whatever low life (liberal?) that put that together was happy to gloat on the tragic deaths of those people off Christmas Island in a cyclone for a cheap shot at Bill Shorten. Thanks for that Robbie!

Great to see whatever low life (liberal?) that put that together was happy to gloat on the tragic deaths of those people off Christmas Island in a cyclone for a cheap shot at Bill Shorten. Thanks for that Robbie!

You can read anything you like into it, if you want to.

Pathetic hoody.