The complete economic vandals (Greens and Labour) simply want to send a message to the world that if you want to invest in Australia that they will make it as difficult as possible. Meanwhile they will continue to ensure power prices continue to rise in order to give handouts to the renewable companies. Albo has shown himself to be untrustworthy and will continue with his double speak. Thankfully the slow learning, long suffereing Europeans have finally woken up to the con. The Chinese and Indians must be falling over themselves with laughter over the 'dumb' country.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh my dear fellow, if someone offers a bet but rather than taking it the other party makes up a bunch of caveats completely changing the original then it is they who are making excuses.

But I did get a chuckle out of this "I will nominate the payment to the Liberal party". So you consider the Liberal Party a charity case?

Well perhaps you are right at least in spirit.

That steel redux is saying I am right but I am wrong, but in truth they will be a charity case if they do not improve

SR,

You are the one sticking in caveats because you are simply not prepared to back up your claims that Adani was not financially viable.

If it's viable, it will running 5yrs after it starts, if not it won't. Cut the crap about 10m tons, being bought out, or having a power station and put your money where your mouth is.

P.S. I suggested organisation of your choice not charity.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Lol.

You really are slipperier than a butcher's dick aren't you.

So let's go to the video tape.

Me: “That mine will not become fully operational under Adani, they are way too exposed and would be copping a loss on every tonne they ship which they can only sustain for a short while. This is why they are stalling. The whole thing will go skyward and someone like Clive will step in and get it for a song. However not before both the Federal and State governments pump in public money to subsidise it first. Want to bet against me?”

You: “I would be happy to bet against you.”

Me: “So the bet is Adani will not own the mine long enough to produce the very modest 10 million tonnes per year. Shall we say $100 to a charity of the other's choice?”

You; “Your argument is that the mine is not viable, so if the mine continues running under different ownership, your argument still fails.”

Well no I expressly said “That mine will not become fully operational under Adani” because “they are way too exposed”. I'm not sure I could have been any clearer than that.

I replied to you: “I will stick with "So the bet is Adani will not own the mine long enough to produce the very modest 10 million tonnes per year." “You up for it or not?”

You then retorted with “You are clearly the one furiously backing away from your position that Adani is not viable.”

No I demonstrably wasn't.

Cont..

Cont..

You are now attempting to claim “You are the one sticking in caveats because you are simply not prepared to back up your claims that Adani was not financially viable.” which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I have not wavered from that claim one bit. It is you who wants the bet to include any owner not just Adani nor do you want to put a production amount on the bet.

So Clive picking up the mining lease and asset sitting like he does so often but dripping out a few thousand tonnes would still have you winning the bet. Go find yourself a mug because I'm not it.

As to the matter of charity vs organisation I expressly said “Shall we say $100 to a charity of the other's choice?”. Your felt that this should include the Liberal Party. Well if you agree to the original bet I am happy to oblige. My charity of choice will be B'tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
http://www.btselem.org/