AA,

As proven elsewhere, Julia Gillard did tell a direct blatant lie. The intent was shown in an interview where she said that she had always intended to put a price on carbon. (tax on carbon) Another was the East Timor solution that was promised prior to the election based on a single phone call.

Juliar Gillard would make Allan Jones look as pure as the driven snow.

Shadow Minister, Gillard has never been proven to have lied; where is your proof. If you want to prove something you need facts, evidence and a rational argument. You have nothing except your own 'spin' that is backed up by the delusional views of others on th is forum who feel very badly about the way the world is changing.

Speaking for myself, not all women, I am sorry that some of you blokes have been mistreated by individual women and I understand that you are now attempting to ameliorate that pain by paying out on all women.

It is a shame that you can't see the benefits of having women participate fully in our society. Thankfully there are enough men now who actually do see that women have something important and valuable to offer, so you don't really matter. The number of men, including my sons, who value a society that includes every person is increasing.

You can't 'win' this war you know; the war you are waging against 'the left' - which isn't the Labor party by any means - and against women being accorded equal rigthts. This boycott of Alan Jones may be 'politically' driven, but the huge numbers who signed the petition to stop Mr Jones's did not come from politically partisan people.

I know this because I was able to easily encourage my apolitical friends and relatives on facebook to sign, when for any 'political cause' they are not at all willing to be 'encouraged'.

These days the political is the personal and most of the young people I know believe that if we all behave well, things will get better. They, unlike you partisan fellas, see that both sides do it and that although the 'left' behaved badly in criticising Howard so personally, that doesn't make it ok for the 'right' to payback with even more venom and less reason.

Did you forget that two wrongs don't make a right?

Hello again,

@Mollydukes: I agree entirely. Just wish I could express it so eloquently.

@Shadow Minister: just wondering if you have had a chance to consider this treatise thoughtfully:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786

Pretty sure this will be on the reading list for the remedial broadcaster classes the 2GB lads have to attend.

On the same topic, SM, what do you understand as the justification for John Howard, before the 1998 election, to say he wanted the GST to on the Coalition’s platform, when he had specifically promised earlier that "there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy ... Never ever, it's dead.”?

We know Ms Gillard had a cliffhanger election, a hung Parliament, a bunch of ornery Independents and the unyielding Greens forcing her to change her carbon price position in 2010.

But what forced John Howard to to change his GST position in 1998, before the election?

Thanks, SM.

Cheers, AA

AA and MD,

There are always more than one accepted definition of a word. This definition also applies:

"A fifth alternative definition of lying avoids the objection that an intention to deceive an addressee is necessary for lying by dispensing with any intention to deceive addressee condition (Carson 2006). According to this definition, lying is not necessarily a form of intentional deception. In place of an intention to deceive an addressee, it substitutes two further necessary conditions, namely, that the context is one which warrants the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee, and that the person who makes the untruthful statement does not take herself to be not warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee. It also adds a third necessary condition that the untruthful statement be false (falsity condition), and amends the untruthfulness condition slightly to allow that the statement can simply be not believed to be true:"

Conditions 1 and 2: Juliar emphatically and unconditionally made the statement "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" This meets the condition of warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee, and the second condition that the person who makes the untruthful statement does not take herself to be not warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee.
Condition 3, i.e that the statement was false is self evident.

Q.E.D Julia Gillard lied.

Shadow Minister, lol you hang on to that argument. It is a scary world for men who don't trust women and I do understand that your certainty about this one thing keeps you warm at night and gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

But... the Courier Mail article Alan linked to. Shadow Min, read it and move on; you've got nothing.

SM,

"Condition 3, ie, that the statement was false is self evident."

"The GST will never become part of Liberal Party Policy."

"...never, ever..." (John Howard)

What's the difference?