so joanie
the excuse of ..he did it
..so she can do it

thats the new policy?

we are ruled by scummy spin docter facless hacks true to type
that us spin lies..

then get on with
the big business adgenda
according as ..those ..who run the 2 party plus one system..tell them to do..

they are all the same lowlife types
selling clever spin
or policy without the detail
when people look for the detail
the spin is they are making it up
[thats why we dont get facts]

asure it seems like we had a debate
but it was only name-calling...
[one up man ..ship ..ppt]

lets cut through the cccccrr-rap
the rudd plan..WAS THE HOWHARD PLAN
is the julia plan

thats the end plan man

first we put a fake floor price under carbon

to set the market minimum
then give it to the big money men
who then trade it up ..from the floor price

taxing in only one 'greenhouse gas'
ignoring the others MUCH WORSE

while continueing ..with the 12 billion subsidies
we currently* give ..to the poluters

just watch
who gets these bailouts
the squeaky wheel ..gets the cash

those with the most affective lobby win
and the poor or the young or the old..they simply dont count

no media to protect them
no lobby to protect them

stuff them..
and the two party system
that is further scamming and taxing them

Well, no use complaining "All political parties lie and backflip" - that's what they exist for, that's part of their job-description.

The solution is simple: take away their power so they cannot do any harm in the real world, then they may sit in Canberra and lie and lie and lie to each other all day and all night.

Also in order to minimize the damage, the best Prime-Minister candidate would be someone who is in a coma that lies in hospital in a persistent vegetative state.

Poirot >>No doubt Shadow Minister will be quick to point out that Howard took his about face to an election.

And there is the difference! No lies, just the plain open facts.

Pelican >>How is Howard's lie any more justifiable than Julia's

Because he took it to the people as a huge part of his election campaign. That's how!

Oh, golly gosh, rehctub - you're so right!

"Never, ever" actually means "I've changed my mind, how about it, folks?"

How honest can you get?

Work Choices, children overboard, the (last ditch) Haneef Affair - and, of course, his stoush with Peter Costello over the issue of leadership, demonstrate just how "honest" Mr Howard was.

The reality is that they're all a bunch of tossers who dance to a corporate tune - and at the moment they're a particularly mediocre bunch at that.

rehctub
Putting an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence does not make it any more accurate.

Howard did not take it to the election - he took the promise that there would never ever be a GST and said GST would never be a part of Coalition policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

Howard also said he would never sell off Telstra. Howard also said he did not receive advice that asylum seekers were not throwing their children Overboard. Those that supported him in the lie became senior public servants some in the area of national security.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1179011.htm

There is nothing wrong with supporting a 'team' but if they get it wrong or worse, outright lie, why are you so willing to forgive one but not the other. It is hypocrtical.

This is why politicians of all stripes get away with it, because the people let them. It is nothing more than team sports and whose team wins or loses. Fair play has gone out the window.

Perhaps Gillard didn't lie. Perhaps she make a promise without a guarantee that she could keep it. Foolish whichever way you look at it, but not necessarily dishonest. As far as any of us are aware, at the time she made the statement she believed it to be true. Unfortunately, she couldn't guarantee its veracity. She should have known better than to make the statement in the first place - that's for sure.

By the way, in my opinion it is a rather "below the belt" sort of shot to take a dig at someone because of his/her name. It kind of weakens your argument when you have to stoop to name-calling (Juliar?) in order to cement your case. That's just my opinion, though.