Society/Culture Gina Rinehart says "jealous" poor should have less fun/wants minimum wage cut

[Monniehawk]

How popular is the carbon tax? The greens poll what?

So what? By making profit they invest, pay tax, create jobs etc.

Very simple. They are a burden that must be born by the economy.

Yet you have an issue with miners arguing re IR, mining tax, carbon tax etc.

Very amusing.

Biggest ever donation to a party by an individual. Ok for some but not others?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-01-08/greens-expect-backlash-after-record-donation/1898436
If you cant grasp that pointless engaging with you.

Nothing answers. Avoidance, no substance, no supporting argument. Lack of reasoning. Just emotive ranting.
The only thing you have supported is the Greens donation. Even that is irrelevant to the Gina issue. In fact, it is irrelevant to anything.
Give it up, mate!

 

[Monniehawk]

How popular is the carbon tax? The greens poll what?

As popular as the GST?
The third political force and growing steadily over the last decade. 13% of the vote which is - oh! 13% more than Gina!

So what? By making profit they invest, pay tax, create jobs etc.

Answer the question. How are they qualified to contribute anything other than mining policy?

Very simple. They are a burden that must be born by the economy.

Mining companies receive tax breaks and government assistance - a burden borne by the economy?
Doctors, nurses, teachers? Burdens to the economy?
Accountants, economists, brokers, statisticians ? Shall we dismiss them all?
Your arguments are just simplistic and naive.

Yet you have an issue with miners arguing re IR, mining tax, carbon tax etc.

Fabrication again. Your imagination knows little bounds
Find my posts that state what you claim, or sign off the topic!

Very amusing.

Fabrication or at best just biased opinion.
Provide proof that they are not democratic. Elections conducted by the Electoral Commission are 'amusing'?
Meanwhile, I can unequivocally provide evidence that Gina is not democratically appointed and has inherited power. She did not assume power on merit.

Biggest ever donation to a party by an individual. Ok for some but not others?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-01-08/greens-expect-backlash-after-record-donation/1898436

Assumption or fabrication, Meds?
Where did I suggest it was OK for the Greens or criticise Gina (or anyone) for making political donations? Anywhere on this thread or any other?
Why do you have so little substantive arguments that you keep reverting to innuendo, assumptions and irrelevancies?
I expect an apology and withdrawal of that nonsense.
Even so, it is white knighting and still irrelevant. Refer to thread OP.

If you cant grasp that pointless engaging with you.

Further avoidance. You have nothing, I guess.
Explain the relevance or withdraw.

 

[John]

It is a bit like the bleeding heart set in the inner suburbs who have never met an aborigine in their lives banging on about injustice and genocide.

Got us all there Meds. Gina's half sister proves the plutocracy will mix with all classes.

And while your at it I played darts in a team of Murri's, all friends of mine, so stick your London Banking Bolt impersonations where the sun does not shine matey.

 

[medusala]

Fabrication again. Your imagination knows little bounds
.

WTF? Thread is about Rhinehart and minimum wage.

She is in mining

 

[John]

WTF? Thread is about Rhinehart and minimum wage.

She is in mining

Nah it is about the Age and the aborigines and Putin.

 

[John]

Can always tell when you are caught out Meds, you chuck in a sneaky little "WTF"

 

[medusala]

Can always tell when you are caught out Meds, you chuck in a sneaky little "WTF"

Caught out? Hardly. The thread is clearly about mining and IR, Rhinehart being a miner.

One would think the thread title a bit of a hint. Perhaps too subtle for some

Also see previous rants by MH re Gina and Fairfax etc. As for Putin, you were the one who again brought up the notion of plutocracy

And while your at it I played darts in a team of Murri's, all friends of mine, so stick your London Banking Bolt impersonations where the sun does not shine matey.

The immense burden of moral superiority. Golgothaesque.

 

[John]

The immense burden of moral superiority. Golgothaesque.

Says the London banker with 24,000 posts WTFing anyone that does not conform to his world view.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Much rep for Monniehawk and John for their composure in dealing with the tidal wave of gormless and repetitive fictional ranting, projection, deflective manoeuvers, straw-men, false analogies, red herrings, insinuations, verballing, continual stereotyping and general arrogance from the usual source in his efforts to whiteknight Gina Rinehart on this thread.

Doing a great job guys, and thoroughly worthy of appreciation. As always, the behaviour you're dealing with is sufficiently insufferable as would test the patience of a saint.

PS- In before he tries to claim I'm the one responsible for said behaviour. Or concocts another irrelevant fiction about a long-dead thread on a different subject

 

[Monniehawk]

WTF? Thread is about Rhinehart and minimum wage.
She is in mining

The fabrication was that you claimed that I "have an issue with miners arguing re IR, mining tax, carbon tax etc."
A total untruth! Read again. I said they have contributions to make!
My answer was
"Find my posts that state what you claim, or sign off the topic!"
You chose to divert the question because you probably realised you were caught out.
Not ONE of your points that I rebutted was addressed in your response, Meds. Not ONE! All were emotive diversions.
No answers? Nowhere to go? No clues?

And indeed, the thread is about Rinehart! But specifically about her political philosophy re: the poor. It is not about her obesity, sexual attraction or family dealings (as some posters have introduced); nor is it about the Carbon Tax, Greens, Public Service or any other of your hobby horse distractions that you keep insinuating into the thread. The most astounding thing is that you have not yet resurrected your meritocracy fantasies.

Can always tell when you are caught out Meds, you chuck in a sneaky little "WTF"

True. But it generally follows the banalities, obfuscations and red herrings..
Time wasting troll methinks.
Patience is gone.
Looking for intelligent argument.
Where's Evo when you need him?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

WTF? Thread is about Rhinehart and minimum wage.

She is in mining

Maybe she just wants Australia to attract a lower class of Filipino housemaids? with lower expectations in life?

 

[Clay Davis]

Whilst there is plenty of stupid people out there, that would politely nod at Waynes interpretation of Gina's remarks, I think it's more a case of confirmation bias - we think that Gina is a greedy thief, so whatever she says somehow confirms this - the example being peoples outrage that Gina wants us to work for $2 a day!

She does, doesn't she?

Not really. She certainly wants Australians, and especially anyone working for her, to earn less though. Surely this is self evident.

 

[Tex_21]

Not really. She certainly wants Australians, and especially anyone working for her, to earn less though. Surely this is self evident.

I would say she doesn't really give a shit about their overall earnings, as long as it costs her less. Generally the two are the same thing, but Gina's focus is on her costs

 

[Blue and Silver]

Not really. She certainly wants Australians, and especially anyone working for her, to earn less though. Surely this is self evident.

What she was trying to say is that Australians act like we are entitled to our wages (we are BTW) and that it ruins our international competitiveness.

What she doesn't say is that Australia is considered a desirable location for mining investments because of our skilled labour force, stable political environment (particularly in comparison to say South Africa), existing infrastructure and the political clout that the miners get.

Not to mention that the current miners are hardly going to pull out given the huge investment in projects already underway, and the ability to comparatively cheaply transition to new projects once already in state, as opposed to having to buy up or ship new equipment to another country and recruit a whole new collection of workers, middle management etc. (HR costs).

Gina, and her fellow big wig miners make a bunch of empty threats about losing competitiveness etc. because they want to apply pressure to the government in order to get better deals in terms of subsidies and taxes

 

[Gough]

Don't they make a lovely couple.

 

[Monniehawk]

Don't they make a lovely couple.

I keep thinking about the children....

 

[mantis]

You bastard Gough, you just made me throw up my lunch & make me wish I was blind.

 

[Tex_21]

You bastard Gough, you just made me throw up my lunch & make me wish I was blind.

Rest of us just wish you were mute and couldn't type.

 

[RUNVS]

Here is what a TV star from Uganda said about Rinehart's comments

http://www.news.com.au/national/uga...harts-2-comments/story-fndo4bst-1226468099594

 

[Monniehawk]

The African analogy is a peripheral, I think.
Gina seems to be preparing ground for a full on assault on the political scene in an effort to bend the landscape to her will.
This is hardly just Gina's aspiration. I am sure all politically active people are driven by a similar imperative.
Murdoch, Dick Smith and Palmer are quasi-plutocrats who have immense economic power and have ventured into the pubic arena to ply their particular ideas. Some ideas are altruistic, some are gratuitous.
Abbott and Gillard represent the archetypal political animals who have manoeuvred their way into power positions via personal charisma. Each has a personal as well as philosophical agenda.
Gina is worthy of notice because, individually, she certainly has the power and wealth to effect such change.
The media bursts seem designed to build a charismatic persona as a public image that can complement her influence by wealth.

The question may well be: why is that good/bad for the country?

 

[thundercat]

What is she wearing???

 

[sherb]

 

[Admiral Byng]

The question may well be: why is that good/bad for the country?

I'll say it's bad, because Gina looks at it from the wrong angle. Having mineral resources in the ground is not like an infestation of termites where you have to dig it all out quick smart and get rid of it at any price. The minerals belong to the state, and by extension the people, the miners don't own them. All they get is permission to dig them out and sell them in return for benefits to the state, and they get to keep the extra as profit. Any mining approvals need to be done on the basis that they bring a benefit to the state, not only in terms of royalties and taxes, but jobs too. Her vision of a special economic zone where it's a free-for-all for miners to dig up and ship out whatever they can with minimum taxation and regulation, using cheap FIFO foreign labour who spend their wages back home just appals me. This is not bringing benefit to the state or the people that own the resources in the first place. Taxation, wages and royalties are the price she pays for our permission to mine, she seems to have it all arse-about thinking that this is something we are stealing from her. She is just so wrong in her outlook.

 

[Old Spice]

If they earnt less they might...become rich...Ahh.

**** off you fat bloated turd. Being lectured to about tightening your belt is hard to take from an enormously greedy blob who would melt in two minutes if she was exposed to the sun.

 

[mantis]

If they earnt less they might...become rich...Ahh.

**** off you fat bloated turd. Being lectured to about tightening your belt is hard to take from an enormously greedy blob who would melt in two minutes if she was exposed to the sun.

Best post on this thread.