Prime Minister Poll

[Rosy]

No problem Brodders....Rosy has asked for Gillard lies and I have provided two of them...let's see what her defence is this time

Yep let's see indeed. Is Tony a liar too with his "over this government's dead body" claim too or did Julia "change her mind as her understanding grew" and/or do the "mature thing" in "adjusting" her position?

Lateline Parental Leave Interview
.....

LEIGH SALES: You mentioned before how you'd changed your mind on this idea. Let me read you a quote from an interview you did with the PM program in 2002. You said, ...

TONY ABBOTT: And look, I'm fully aware of that quote, Leigh. I have changed my mind.

LEIGH SALES: I'm sure you are. Our viewers ...

TONY ABBOTT: And isn't it a good thing to change your mind as your understanding grows?

LEIGH SALES: It is in some cases. What I'd like to get to, though, is what has caused you to change your mind.

In case our viewers don't remember the quote, let me read it out: "I'm dead against paid maternity leave as a compulsory thing. I think that making businesses pay what seems to them two wages to get one worker. Almost nothing could be more calculated to make businesses feel that the odds are stacked against them. So, voluntary paid maternity leave: yes; compulsory paid maternity leave, over this government's dead body," being the Howard Government.

That is quite a change of heart.

TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, no, look, I accept that.

LEIGH SALES: So what's brought it about?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, what's brought it about is deeper understanding of the practical difficulties of women who are trying to juggle families and careers. We should not ...

LEIGH SALES: And how have you come to that deeper understanding?

TONY ABBOTT: By, I suppose, being more conscious of the burdens that friends and family members are carrying and of thinking more deeply about the sorts of choices that I would like to be available for my own daughters.

Now, by all means say I've changed my mind. I have changed my mind on this, I accept that.

But I think that where circumstances change and your understanding deepens, the mature thing to do is to adjust your position, and that's what I've done.

 

[U2Tigers]

once again, you haven't replied reference the Gillard lies.

We know about the Abbots lies, you've told us often enough.

But he asked you about the Gillard lies, and you go and do the Abbott stuff.. more proof your just after a big anti Abbott rant.

Also shows your just as bad as what you accuse Livers off, being so one sided.

 

[Liverpool]

Gillard said in the quote you use that she would price carbon, she has, and that she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax, and I and others have explained how it isn't a tax. Even if you don't accept that, there is conjecture so you haven't caught the PM in a lie.

Please Knighters...stop the *smile*.
Gillard said, and I quoted, "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"

so if its not a tax that has been implemented, why do I read this:

The Gillard Labor Government has a plan to build a Clean Energy Future for our children by taxing our biggest polluters – and return every cent to assist households, support jobs and tackle climate change.
http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/environment/carbon-price-mechanism/


Wayne Swan: How carbon tax will affect the economy
Wayne Swan posted Tuesday, 7 June 2011
The Treasurer will front the National Press Club today to discuss the merits of a price on carbon. Armed with Treasury modeling Wayne Swan says the carbon tax model will increase real national income and improve the life of the average Australian
http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/wayne-swan--how-carbon-tax-will-affect-the-economy/


Both from the ALP webpage!

Ditto on the leadership. It is widely accepted, not by you but you are hardly the voice of reason, that the leadership spill was initiated by a cabinet majority not by Gillard so there is no lie in the statement. And if there is so what? Surely the post of Abbott's statement makes you equally outraged at his bald face lying? No?

If Gillard had no intention of being leader, she would not have put her hat in the ring.
She lied, said the infamous "There's more chance of me becoming the full-forward for the Dogs [Western Bulldogs AFL team] than there is any chance of a change in the Labor Party" line and within a month she was PM.


Its staggering when I have give you actual quotes of things she has said and she has done the complete opposite and you still say that I haven't proven she lied.
Its there in black and white!

That is lunacy. If a person finds one political leader's statements compelling and the other's fallacious nonsense then it isn't balanced to present both equally. Your posts can even the score if you like but that doesn't compel anyone else to consider your arguments as equal to those of the other side.

Thats my point!
They cannot say they are balanced or a swinging voter if they think one party is complete nonsense and the other is more in line with their beliefs or which way the country should head.

A balanced/swinging voter is just that....someone who does not know who they will vote for and still wants more information or something to sway them one way or the other.

You're can't be that if 100% of your posts are, for example, anti-Lib.....that just means you are a non-Lib voter.

 

[Rosy]

once again, you haven't replied reference the Gillard lies.

We know about the Abbots lies, you've told us often enough.

But he asked you about the Gillard lies, and you did not even make 1 comment in regards to that. more proof your just after a big anti Abbott rant.

Also shows your just as bad as what you accuse Livers off, being so one sided.

Haha @ you jumping to Livers' defence all the time. He's so lucky to have a pet lapdog. Like Tony, I don't consider a change of mind to be a lie. Circumstances change. It would be a pretty narrow minded person who didn't change their opinions over time.

Tell me what you think of this example in regard to lies U2. If someone was married and vowed to love and protect their partner forever then later went through a messy divorce and couldn't stand each others' company did they lie at their wedding ceremony or did time and circumstance bring about a change of thinking?

I don't happen to agree with Livers that the examples he gave were lies. The one lie he's accused Gillard of that I'd accept as a lie was the slush fund claim that she'd pilfered $5000. If she said she didn't do it and it's proven she did that would be very dishonest. As it is Livers has claimed Julia did that as though it's fact without providing one bit of evidence when requested. Is Livers a liar?

 

[Liverpool]

once again, you haven't replied reference the Gillard lies.
We know about the Abbots lies, you've told us often enough.
But he asked you about the Gillard lies, and you did not even make 1 comment in regards to that. more proof your just after a big anti Abbott rant.
Also shows your just as bad as what you accuse Livers off, being so one sided.

Spot on U2....and when I call Gillard a liar again in a few days time or whenever, I will again be asked to "provide evidence" :

Its there in black and white for all to see....c'mon Rosy, defend the indefensible :-*

 

[Liverpool]

Haha @ you jumping to Livers' defence all the time. He's so lucky to have a pet lapdog.

:cutelaugh you have yourself, Antman, Brodders, Knighters, etc all sucking from teet...thats alright though?

Like Tony, I don't consider a change of mind to be a lie. Circumstances change. It would be a pretty narrow minded person who didn't change their opinions over time.

I didn't come down in the last shower, Rosy......and you just wait and see, if Abbott gets into power and doesn't repeal the carbon tax as he has said, you will be the first one on here posting stories and calling Tony a liar, etc
You only say your above comment because you have no defence for Julia and co.

 

[U2Tigers]

Haha @ you jumping to Livers' defence all the time. He's so lucky to have a pet lapdog. Like Tony, I don't consider a change of mind to be a lie. Circumstances change. It would be a pretty narrow minded person who didn't change their opinions over time.

Tell me what you think of this example in regard to lies U2. If someone was married and vowed to love and protect their partner forever then later went through a messy divorce and couldn't stand each others' company did they lie at their wedding ceremony or did time and circumstance bring about a change of thinking?

I don't happen to agree with Livers that the examples he gave were lies. The one lie he's accused Gillard of that I'd accept as a lie was the slush fund claim that she'd pilfered $5000. If she said she didn't do it and it's proven she did that would be very dishonest. As it is Livers has claimed Julia did that as though it's fact without providing one bit of evidence when requested. Is Livers a liar?

Lapdog hey, no just calling you as I see it, non stop the way you go about it. I may not agree with Livers on all things policy, but I totally agree with what he has said your reactions will be, and they prove correct.

In regards to the marriage thing, its the latter of course, but I do think that is a totally different thing then this politics stuff.

It was a a very short marriage for Gillard then, as it was only a ery short time, that she said there wouldn't be a carbon tax and then only a matter of months Boom. I'd hope those marrying stay married a hell of a lot longer then her promises stay true. But I can also accept that Abott and other politicians lie as well, but it would be a little worse if there principles and what they stand for change at a drop of a hat.

I also can accept a parties policy changing, but would hope they had the guts to face up to the people and explain why, be prepared to take a short term hit, but gain respect in the long run.

 

[Rosy]

Also shows your just as bad as what you accuse Livers off, being so one sided.

Where did I accuse "Livers off, being one sided"? I don't recall saying it and can't find it in a search. Can you provide the link so I can see the context please?

 

[AngryAnt]

Oh, what MB78 has asked for is a good start....then you can give us a rundown on ALP surpluses federally since 1992 as well (compared to the Libs)...is that precise enough for you?

No - indeed not. And in fact the onus is on YOU to prove that your assertion is correct. So first define your criteria, then provide the evidence to back up your assertion based on those criteria.

 

[Rosy]

You only say your above comment because you have no defence for Julia and co.

Do you think Tony is a liar for his "over this government's dead body" quote and subsequent change of mind? I don't and I agree with his comments about things changing. I don't believe the examples you gave for Julia are lies either.

 

[AngryAnt]

:cutelaugh you have yourself, Antman, Brodders, Knighters, etc all sucking from teet...thats alright though?

I don't speak for others, and I don't jump in and say "rosy is right and livers is wrong". I fight my own fights and from what I've seen Rosy does too.

I do see a lot of "spot ons", :clap , and other cheap stuff coming from some on here though.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Please Knighters...stop the *smile*.
Gillard said, and I quoted, "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"

so if its not a tax that has been implemented, why do I read this:

The Gillard Labor Government has a plan to build a Clean Energy Future for our children by taxing our biggest polluters – and return every cent to assist households, support jobs and tackle climate change.
http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/environment/carbon-price-mechanism/

Please Livers....stop the fauxtrage unless you can apply it when the leader of the opposition twists himself like a pretzel around his own statements.

PM : "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

You love to present your argument like it the definitive and only interpretation of events and anyone who disagrees with you is a dope. The PM said she would price carbon and she has. It took guts and leadership. Especially in a toxic hung parliament with an opposition content to spit vile vomit from the other side often below the levels of the mic so it wouldn't be picked up. I know who I think has the greater integrity.

Wayne Swan: How carbon tax will affect the economy
Wayne Swan posted Tuesday, 7 June 2011
The Treasurer will front the National Press Club today to discuss the merits of a price on carbon. Armed with Treasury modeling Wayne Swan says the carbon tax model will increase real national income and improve the life of the average Australian
http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/wayne-swan--how-carbon-tax-will-affect-the-economy/

"How does this differ from a carbon tax?

A carbon tax is sort of the opposite. A cost is added to all emissions, equal to the level of the tax, and this causes people to cut back.

There is no cap on emissions in a tax-based system. People are free to emit as much or as little as they like, but if they do emit, they must pay the tax.

Unlike an ETS, under a carbon tax it is the price that determines the level of emissions"
http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-the-difference-between-a-carbon-tax-and-an-ets-1679

If Gillard had no intention of being leader, she would not have put her hat in the ring.
She lied, said the infamous "There's more chance of me becoming the full-forward for the Dogs [Western Bulldogs AFL team] than there is any chance of a change in the Labor Party" line and within a month she was PM.

As previously quoted by Brodders: ""No, I won't be challenging for the leadership," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network.

"I think Malcolm Turnbull is a very substantial individual. We are very lucky to have him in public life."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/im-ready-to-challenge-turnbull-andrews-20091125-jp7t.html#ixzz2EERk0PY6

"Abbott had always said he would stand aside if Mr Hockey contested the leadership"
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/turnbull-defiant-abbot-to-seek-leadership/story-e6frg12c-1225805053086

What is your point again?....oh yeah it is outrageous that you think the PM lied but you have no scorn for Abbott's constant mendacity.

Its staggering when I have give you actual quotes of things she has said and she has done the complete opposite and you still say that I haven't proven she lied.
Its there in black and white!

What's staggering is that you think your posts are definitive even when presented with posts to the contrary. Why are your thoughts superior Livers? Is it the use of emoticons that makes you the better debater?

 

[U2Tigers]

Regardless if Livers is right, got to give him credit for continually staying on debate, and continually giving his quotes and references in such an anti Coalition board, in what is obviously a losing battle from the gang mentality on here.

Wish I could be committed enough to research to get all my references. but I'm only a lapdog afterall. ;D

 

[Rosy]

Wish I could be committed enough to research to get all my references. but I'm only a lapdog afterall. ;D

As long as you're committed to the following which you appear to have neglected.

Also shows your just as bad as what you accuse Livers off, being so one sided.

Where did I accuse "Livers off, being one sided"? I don't recall saying it and can't find it in a search. Can you provide the link so I can see the context please?

 

[Brodders17]

No problem Brodders....Rosy has asked for Gillard lies and I have provided two of them...let's see what her defence is this time

one reason i get involved so much in this debate about 'liars' is every day when parliament is on we see Abbott standing up talking about Gillard's creidtability and her trustworthyness. he appears to even do it with a straight face. Abbott also has the support of fools such as Alan Jones using nicknames such as Juliar etc.
all this when i doubt there is another person in parliament who is so often so loose with the truth as Tony Abbott. (perhaps Craig Thomson).
if creditability and trustworthyness is what people are voting on next election, as Abbott likes to claim, i cannot see how anyone could possibly vote for him.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Regardless if Livers is right, got to give him credit for continually staying on debate, and continually giving his quotes and references in such an anti Coalition board, in what is obviously a losing battle from the gang mentality on here.

Wish I could be committed enough to research to get all my references. but I'm only a lapdog afterall. ;D

I have in the past thanked him for his vigilance but he likes to use emotive language so he gets emotive responses. Seems fair to me. You don't think so? The board isn't anti-coalition and there isn't a gang that I am aware of. The people who post, quite independently if my experience is typical, just happen to disagree with your politics. They may feel, as I do, that your side gets a sweeter run in the press so they like to try to even the score on here.

 

[U2Tigers]

The press comment is interesting, I actually think this was more of a problem years ago, when the barons like packer and co, and their fathers ran things. It still exists, but not as bad today, it's a lot harder today in this computerized day and age. News is news the second it happens now.

 

[U2Tigers]

As long as you're committed to the following which you appear to have neglected.

Where did I accuse "Livers off, being one sided"? I don't recall saying it and can't find it in a search. Can you provide the link so I can see the context please?

Lapdog, follower....... Anymore? If anyone else said it, I might take it more seriously.

Actually makes me think back over the years when you've had your jousts with others, and you leave your postsopen, knowing/wanting the masses on PRE to come to your defense and say how good you are and defend you. No I won't find examples of this at all, just my recollection.

 

[Rosy]

No I won't find examples of this at all, just my recollection.

In other words no substance to the claim at all?

 

[U2Tigers]

In other words no substance to the claim at all?

Substance as I see it, that's enough for me.