Prime Minister Poll

[Rosy]

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

Yep not surprised considering your past history. If it didn't happen you just fabricate it. If I didn't say Livers is one sided as you claim you should retract the comment. If I did say it I'd like to see the context.

 

[U2Tigers]

Yep not surprised considering your past history. If it didn't happen you just fabricate it. If I didn't say Livers is one sided as you claim you should retract the comment. If I did say it I'd like to see the context.

You may not have used the exact words, I will look later and quote so
E posts, that are along those lines.

 

[Liverpool]

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.

What evidence do I need to provide how many surpluses have been delivered federally by the ALP since 1992 (when I was legally able to vote)?

I'll give you a clue: :donut

Here's some more evidence:

Any argument against this? No?

Now MB78 has asked a question so over to you...

 

[Liverpool]

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.

lie [lahy]
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.

Show me where what Gillard said, regarding not challenging for the leadership and not having a carbon tax under her government, is true then?
They are both lies.

And that's the big difference between myself and you..Knighters...etc.

Did Abbott lie?
Bloody oath he did.

Am I big Abbott fan?
No.

Do I think Gillard is a liar?
Bloody oath.

But you lot keep denying it.

Happy to denounce Abbott for his lies but never admitting the similar lies from Gillard....then you wonder why people question your integrity as a 'balanced/swinging voter' and predict (may I say correctly ) what party you will vote for in future elections.

I call "Vote 1 Gillard" now for Rosy and an election hasn't even been called yet!
Lets see if I am right... 8-

 

[Liverpool]

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.

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?

Knighters...when the ALP webpage call it a carbon tax, then its a carbon tax....you can call it whatever you like mate to try and hide this fact...but I'm sorry, its a tax.
That's not my post or my opinion but from the ALP themselves.
I posted and quoted directly from their webpage.
I posted the links as well.
There is no argument.
That's why my post was definitive and superior...because I have given you the facts and yet people still argue and deny it.

Gillard said something and did the opposite...that is called a LIE.
The ALP call their policy a carbon tax, therefore it is a CARBON TAX.
Again, more facts that don't need to be argued or debated. It is definitive.

 

[Rosy]

lie [lahy]
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.

You only say that with hindsight but fact is circumstances change. I'm confident both meant what they said at the time. No deliberate intent to deceive or convey a false impression.

Your soliloquy is a sad attempt at trolling. I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

 

[Liverpool]

You only say that with hindsight but fact is circumstances change. I'm confident both meant what they said at the time. No deliberate intent to deceive or convey a false impression.

What hindsight is that?

The majority of politicians lie and I understand that.

I have voted Libs ever since 1992 and will be next election, not because I think the Lib politicians don't lie, but because their policies, fiscal responsibility, and the 'conservative way' is more of my line of beliefs and thinking and what I believe is best for the country.

Others, including yourself, are in denial...happy to prod at Abbott, but when Gillard lies, are in denial and will argue with me until hell freezes over to defend the indefensible.
You ask for evidence, and when provided it, STILL deny she lied!
I'm blown away

 

[AngryAnt]

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

It is hard work for the poor chap, agreed.

Perhaps he'll have another meltdown and go "travelling" for another 3 years, we can only hope.

 

[AngryAnt]

Any argument against this? No?

Now MB78 has asked a question so over to you...

Ah yes, the tired old "budget deficits are bad" argument. An inherently stupid one.

Here's another graph for ya champ.

A tip to interpretation - governments can use spending to stimulate economic growth, employment growth, and used judiciously it can keep a country out of a recession/depression or at least mitigate these effects. Note the early/mid 90s where had defecist yet strong consistent economic growth - over 40 consecutive quarters I believe.

Debts - in government as in business - are only bad if you can't service them.

Also, don't keep suggesting I don't have an argument in response. It just makes you look worse when it turns out I do. And I always do.

BTW - MB78 had a suggestion, I responded. Let him speak for himself if he wants to take it further.

 

[AngryAnt]

Oh - FWIW I think Swann's rush back into "surplus" is a mistake. We ain't out of the economic woods yet.

 

[Liverpool]

Ah yes, the tired old "budget deficits are bad" argument. An inherently stupid one.


Here's another graph for ya champ.
BTW - MB78 had a suggestion, I responded. Let him speak for himself if he wants to take it further.

Its only a "stupid one" because you can't argue against it 8-

There was only ever one answer to it and you avoided it and have now decided to go off on a tangent posting graphs that have nothing to do with the question I asked...and gone to something that suits your argument.

Your response to MB78 was as weak as your diversionary tactics here.

You're becoming boring with your attempts to argue with every post I make on every thread I post on.

Oh - FWIW I think Swann's rush back into "surplus" is a mistake. We ain't out of the economic woods yet.

Exactly. If the argument is a "stupid one" then why is the 'greatest treasurer in the universe' so intent on getting one?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Knighters...when the ALP webpage call it a carbon tax, then its a carbon tax....you can call it whatever you like mate to try and hide this fact...but I'm sorry, its a tax.
That's not my post or my opinion but from the ALP themselves.
I posted and quoted directly from their webpage.
I posted the links as well.
There is no argument.
That's why my post was definitive and superior...because I have given you the facts and yet people still argue and deny it.

Gillard said something and did the opposite...that is called a LIE.
The ALP call their policy a carbon tax, therefore it is a CARBON TAX.
Again, more facts that don't need to be argued or debated. It is definitive.

There is plenty of argument, you just don't want to have it. The bill is called the Clean Energy Bill, by the way, not the Carbon Tax. I know would prefer to just shout LIAR at every opportunity followed by an emoticon. I've explained how the language was hijacked by the opposition. I'll happily admit the ALP have been inept at selling their message, still doesn't make it a tax and they notably stopped using that term over a month back and I imagine they will change their website soon. When they do stop calling it that, as seems to be your argument, will you then concede it isn't a tax? Nah didn't think so.

I posted links and quotes that showed that the PM didn't lie and posted quotes and links showing that Abbott lies all the time, you have been curiously quiet on that. I think my technique is superior. Let the debate rage on.... ;D

 

[mld]

It does get pretty semantic. Personally, while some things may be levies, tariffs, permits etc, in general usage I reckon when something involves government taking money and redistributing it, the term 'tax' is perfectly reasonable for any of them.

 

[Willo]

It does get pretty semantic. Personally, while some things may be levies, tariffs, permits etc, in general usage I reckon when something involves government taking money and redistributing it, the term 'tax' is perfectly reasonable for any of them.

Of course it is.

 

[Liverpool]

There is plenty of argument, you just don't want to have it. The bill is called the Clean Energy Bill, by the way, not the Carbon Tax. I know would prefer to just shout LIAR at every opportunity followed by an emoticon. I've explained how the language was hijacked by the opposition.

So the Opposition hacked into the ALP webpage and hijacked the language used there?

Come off it Knighters...if this Government is so inept at selling their own policies and use terms that suit the opposition, then not only are they gutless, but maybe the opposition's terms are right to begin with!

When they do stop calling it that, as seems to be your argument, will you then concede it isn't a tax? Nah didn't think so.

You're spot on, as I think the ALP got it right the first time

I posted links and quotes that showed that the PM didn't lie and posted quotes and links showing that Abbott lies all the time, you have been curiously quiet on that. I think my technique is superior. Let the debate rage on.... ;D

Not quiet at all....fully admitted that Abbott lied and its no different to Gillard.
You and others seem to agree Abbott lied but have a problem admitting Gillard is the same.
That's the difference between us.

Therefore if your technique is one of denial, then I agree, you are far superior to me on that one. ;D

 

[MB78]

Ah yes, the tired old "budget deficits are bad" argument. An inherently stupid one.

A tip to interpretation - governments can use spending to stimulate economic growth, employment growth, and used judiciously it can keep a country out of a recession/depression or at least mitigate these effects.

Who said your first point?

I agree with the second point thanks for your tip

And the graph clearly shows the best years for our countries finances where the Howard years where sound growth was achieved with surpluses for a rainy day.

So thanks for proving Livers right.

 

[tigergollywog]

What evidence do I need to provide how many surpluses have been delivered federally by the ALP since 1992 (when I was legally able to vote)?

I'll give you a clue: :donut

Any argument against this? No?

Surplus smurplus. If I give a Lib a $, he sticks it in his pocket and say "ive got a dollar in my pocket". If I give a Lab a $, she buys an asprin and a pencil and says 'use 'em whenever you want'.

 

[Willo]

Surplus smurplus. If I give a Lib a $, he sticks it in his pocket and say "ive got a dollar in my pocket". If I give a Lab a $, she buys an asprin and a pencil and says 'use 'em whenever you want'.

You're probably right TGG. But they'd give you a pencil for a headache and give the asprin to the HSU. Not much chop in doing that.
Good to see waste is acknowledged. You don't blow money for the sake of it. Or you don't keep borrowing with no aim or means to pay it back.
Plainly irresponsible.

Ah yes, the tired old "budget deficits are bad" argument. An inherently stupid one.

A tip to interpretation - governments can use spending to stimulate economic growth, employment growth, and used judiciously it can keep a country out of a recession/depression or at least mitigate these effects. Note the early/mid 90s where had defecist yet strong consistent economic growth - over 40 consecutive quarters I believe.

Debts - in government as in business - are only bad if you can't service them.

Just a couple of things..
Yes, I agree with the 2nd paragraph, but the key word is "judiciously". From what I've seen, they have absolutely wasted $billions upon $billions. Only a buffoon would say that money was spent/invested wisely.

Regarding deficits, just a few questions
1. What was the amount of debt that the country is in now?
2. What was it 4 years ago?
3. What infrastructure or lasting legacy has this splurge given us?
4. Can the current government debt be serviced?
5. What taxes are they relying on to service them?

I'd like to know the answers, does anyone have them?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

It does get pretty semantic. Personally, while some things may be levies, tariffs, permits etc, in general usage I reckon when something involves government taking money and redistributing it, the term 'tax' is perfectly reasonable for any of them.

I don't disagree completely. However Ray Hadley, Mike Smith, Alan Jones, The Federal Opposition, The Australian, Andrew Bolt, Livers, et al. Are all trying to run a line on the PM as a liar and as completely untrustworthy. My position is that if, even only on semantics, I can make a case that the PM didn't lie then the house cards comes down. They have little else to argue.

I can argue that the Price on Carbon isn't a tax so there is no lie in the PM's statement, without this lie, where does the rest of the argument run?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

So the Opposition hacked into the ALP webpage and hijacked the language used there?

Come off it Knighters...if this Government is so inept at selling their own policies and use terms that suit the opposition, then not only are they gutless, but maybe the opposition's terms are right to begin with!

I have explained how the language got corrupted and big mistakes were made by key ministers and the PM. They are attempting to correct this lately but it is too little too late IMO. I have explained that at the time the policy was announced Carbon Tax was not mentioned because the government did not consider it a tax. But the argument put forward by opponents of the PM is based only on the words, the semantics. So these must be the deciding factor. Apparently a change in the nomenclature is all that is required, no?

You're spot on, as I think the ALP got it right the first time

Ahh...right so why debate it if you aren't going to use your own criteria to judge it?

Not quiet at all....fully admitted that Abbott lied and its no different to Gillard.
You and others seem to agree Abbott lied but have a problem admitting Gillard is the same.
That's the difference between us.

Therefore if your technique is one of denial, then I agree, you are far superior to me on that one. ;D

*smile* Livers. You are all righteous indignation and :cutelaugh when talking about your opinion on Gillard's lies but you are all quiet thoughtfulness when it comes to Abbott's howlers. Where is all your deep and loud condemnation and rage about your leaders inability to make truthful statements?