P-man

But Hood, don't you think the ABC should have some affection for the home team? Where have all the patriotic hard nosed investigators gone?? It's almost like he is trying to outdo himself on the "surely he is taking the [censored] now" front. LIke this recent gem: "All we've had from the Labor Party in the Parliament is relentless negativity, and scare after scare after scare." I announce Tony Abbott as winner of the Ultimate Pot Calling Kettle Black Award. Congrats Tony.

This is actually a great idea if it could be co-ordinated. A big if, unfortunately. But even if 3 posters did it, that's 9 players with a detailed write up.

Okay Rob, it's been fun but that's enough chances. I'll put this one down to misjudgement. I thought you had a bit more going for you than your Bolt loving sidekick there but It would appear you're basically just another d-head on the internet. Have fun being an angry old tossbag.

That's your prerogative. I think your passion comes from a good place, Rob. Just maybe take a few less angry pills when you log on here. Like you've said in this thread, you can't change people's minds over the internet so why bother getting angry over it?

He bores you, you have no interest in his opinions, yet you continued to engage him and ask questions of him. He presented his opinions, backed up by facts, and you've torn his head off. Then when he stops, you continue your snide comments which frankly are becoming stock standard. I get that you believe you have the world sorted out and everyone who doesn't align with your views is naïve or stupid. That's absolutely fine. But sometimes you go too far and need to be told to pull your head in. This was one instance of that.

When he joins in a discussion or responds to your questions, he gets "blah blah blah more useless opinion that I'm not interested in". When he doesn't do that, you know he's got nothing. Perhaps Colin should send you his posts for you to clear first? That should solve the problem. You're fast becoming a caricature of yourself. There's being an old crank, and then there's just being an overly antagonistic git.

A win is a win, Roberto.

Deal, if you abstain from making requests that require me to go and hunt down things to back up something that I already know to be true, and you know to be true, and that you apparently have no interest in. It wastes both of our time, and I know how much you hate having your time wasted..

lol Honestly, it's like debating with a teenage girl. "I don't care! Leave me alone!" Learn to acknowledge points raised by others, Rob. You'll look alot less silly. I won't put you on ignore mate. You're too entertaining. You can put me on there if I'm annoying you by having the gall to respond to a post of yours and meeting your request for facts and sources.

Deadset, are you effing kidding? This is what you posted Rob: So, I do that. And your response is a sarcastic "well done" as if I've proven something that's obvious (which I don't disagree with but you were the plonk who was questioning it) with a follow up about a completely separate matter that you hadn't yet questioned me on. This is what I"m talking about with failure to acknowledge. Jesus Christ, you'd almost make a good politician the way you divert and seemingly blank out to things you say. I said it was rumoured to be up to 700K. I also said let's take Barnaby on his word. So you're asking me to prove a rumour that I have dismissed, is that right? I"m not going to do that. I can provide you to links of the rumour if you would really like. The rumour I've dismissed. Discussion is not usually quite so pointless with you. I'm going to put it down to you attempting to carry on a few at once. You probably shouldn't, on this evidence.

Rob - I can't let the absurdity of refuting that Gina Rinehart is a Liberal sympathiser rest. I just can't. You could always google, "why would a mining magnate support a party that will repeal a mining tax?", because apparently that isn't blatantly [censored] obvious. Or you could look up Abbott's speech at the IPA dinner where Rinehart sat at the head table, and he confirmed a "big yes" to many of their of their 75 policies, including: Repeal the carbon tax - Number 1 on the IPA list Abolish the Department of Climate Change - Number 2 on the IPA list Abolish the Clean Energy Fund - Number 3 on the IPA list Develop northern Australia - Number 42 on the IPA list Repeal Mining Tax - Number 43 on the IPA list Create a one stop shop for environmental approvals - Number 44 on the IPA list A happy coincidence that these policies stand to directly benefit Hancock Prospecting. When Gina stood on a flat bed truck shouting "axe the tax!", she could have been channelling Tony himself ffs. When you ask me about similar agendas, these are the agendas to which I prefer. But failing all that, if that isn't enough to convince you of their alignment, here are three separate incidents which attest to her history of Liberal ties. Note that this is in addition to her monetary donations such as that towards Joyce's campaign in New England. I know in advance that you will either rubbish the source, or claim they mean nothing, but acknowledging this has been a waste of my time, here they are: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gina-rinehart-meets-coalition-mps-in-secret-trip-to-canberra-20131113-2xh77.html http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gina-rinehart-route-to-political-influence/story-fn59niix-1226346272376# Bryant writes that Mrs Rinehart, who was in her early 20s at the time, was a key participant in her father's Pilbara tours in the mid- to late-70s. Guests chosen by Mrs Rinehart included Mr Kroger, the Liberal Party powerbroker who later became her senior legal counsel; Senator Abetz, who became a Howard government minister; Michael Yabsley, who became federal Liberal Party treasurer; and Mr Costello, the future federal treasurer. Recalls one of the men who made the journey: "It was like a big kids' school excursion. But it was a Learjet rather than a bus." http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/may/1340006623/nick-bryant/what-gina-wants Yet no one I spoke to thought Rinehart would readily give up her drive for influence and acknowledgement. Last June, in a faint echo of the ‘Hancock Benefit Tours’, Rinehart flew on a private jet to attend the Bollywood-style $20 million wedding celebrations for the granddaughter of GV Krishna Reddy, the Indian industrialist who acquired her coal mines in Queensland three months later. Accompanying her were the Liberal Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop, Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro and Senator Barnaby Joyce. Gina understands better than anyone the power of influence. It is plain disingenuous to deny that she has not used hers to the fullness of her capabilities by latching on to a party whose policies stand to benefit her the most. Whilst it might have made you "happy" to read that she donated to the ALP, I've already quoted from that same article, to show that is not really the case. I'm done with this now. You just deny, deny, deny, and when a point is raised that cancels out an argument you just don't acknowledge it and attack the person presenting it. But for the benefit of someone else reading this, I wanted to clarify that Rinehart's political leanings are irrefutable, and your stuck in the mud views don't change that. She has never been a bigger key player than she is with Abbott as PM.

Okay Rob, removal of the mining tax. Stab in the dark, is Gina for or against? Actually, I'm not doing this again mate. You just don't give an inch on the most fundamental things. Gina has no leanings whatsoever. You win. Great article. I vote on policy and yes, I'm alot more closely aligned to Labor but I'm not wed to them. I'm sorry I don't fit into a box.

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.

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.

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 assumed that one was love, Clint. Perhaps wrongly.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say I feel jealous about that, it just really, really, really shits me.

Really doesn't bother me either way, although I agree that if they were to go ahead with it they would want to ensure the back of the jumper didn't become too cluttered. Some sponsors might need to be bumped, and I don't see that happening in a hurry. But on the traditional front, doesn't bother me. The world will keep spinning. It's also not just an American thing so I don't understand that argument at all.

Just a bit of fun really. What are your feelings towards each club? This isn't just asking who you hate most cause we've done that. So if you can't be bothered doing the list, no need to respond. Can be anything from one word to a couple of sentences, and can range from long term to very recent. If you have no feelings at all then I guess N/A would suffice. Copy and paste below. Adelaide - Brisbane - Carlton - Collingwood - Essendon - Fremantle - Geelong - Gold Coast - GWS - Hawthorn - North Melbourne - Port Adelaide - Richmond - St Kilda - Sydney - West Coast - Western Bulldogs -

You do make me chuckle HH, I'll give you that. If he's a Jordie Mac who can kick, I'll gladly take it.

Morrison was asked, directly, in the Senate Enquiry: "How many boats have entered Australian waterrs since December 19?" Morrison: "Again, Senator, that would go beyond what our procedures are." i.e. that's an "operational" matter. If he refuses to answer a straightforward question about the number of boat arrivals in a Senate Enquiry, then he will continue to be accused of secrecy and any trumping in The Australian of a January free of deaths and/or boat arrivals is frankly not worth the paper its written on.

I feel it should be noted in this thread the decision under this government's watch to allow the dumping of nearly 3 million cubic metres of dredge spoil near the GBR's marine park as part of the aptly named Abbot Point coal port expansion. This after Hunt claiming that the port expansion and dredging of waste would actually improve the water quality... Anyone who has visited the Reef I'm sure will agree it must be protected. I can overlook stupid decisions that can be reversed, and damage that can be undone. But if these deceitful, back scratching [censored] have placed our greatest natural wonder in jeopardy, as looks to be the case, I will never forgive them.

Post edited mono, hopefully no more confusion..

lol..really? No, it's not fact.

Found that interesting and a little surprising, but on reflection it makes a fair bit of sense for the main reasons Col mentions: opening up discussion on what others can do to improve their leadership and being as transparent as possible, which he admitted is something that has been lacking in the past.