That's right. "Prove" that the Prime Minister lied when she said "there will be no carbon tax", and I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice, if you are the first within this topic to "prove" she lied.

Firstly, we will get the definition of "lying" clear. For a lie to be a lie, there MUST be premeditation. When you tell the lie you MUST know *at the time of the lie* that you are not going to do what you say you are going to do. If you disagree with this simple and accurate definition, please DO NOT take part in this topic, as obviously you are beyond help.

So folks .... present your proof. Remember I said proof, NOT opinion.

If all you can offer is an opinion, please don't take part in this topic.

Here's a fact. The pre election Labor platform specifically said Labor would introduce a market based emissions reduction scheme. This is precisely what they are doing, because we transition into a full emissions trading scheme in 2015 .... result = election promise fulfilled. The actual fixed price element (carbon tax)only exists till then.

Fact = The PM said there would be no tax on carbon. So, the totally unforeseeable election count, meant that to achieve government Labor broke the promise of no carbon tax. They changed their stance due to post election circumstances.

Fact = a broken promise is NOT a lie (unless premeditation to break the promise existed during the making of the promise).

Now remember folks ... your "opinion" is not sought. I ONLY seek "proof" that the Prime Minister lied.

If you don't possess what you believe to be genuine proof, please don't participate in this topic.

Thank you.

But to do this right Pete, we need to have a fair, honest, high principled , nonpartisan judge -- I nominate myself for that position.

PS: Does Alan Austin know your plagiarized his favorite argument?

You are right, Pete:

She said that "there will be no carbon tax" and indeed there is no carbon tax, only a tax named "carbon".

Pete, who gives a tinker’s cuss that Gillard is a liar, plain and simple she is and we all know it.

What Gillard and her Labor criminals lie about is more fitting a subject matter.

Roxon is now playing with the facts about when she knew Thomson was in trouble. It seems it was well before she had previously stated. The same goes for Slippers anti women view.

Swan has manipulated the truth regarding our economy. It will be in surplus he tells us each year. The truth is record deficits each and every year they govern and a record Commonwealth debt to boot.

Give it a rest comrade, they are duds and liars supported by acolytes who ingest and dribble spin for their own personal gratification. Are you gratified comrade?

Agreed with Sonofgloin.Pure semantics pete.Juliar "There will be no carbon tax under the Govt I lead." Swan affirmed this position and called the Coatilion scare mongerers before the election.

The reality,Julia made a grubby deal with the Greens and Indpendants to steal power.The Coalition should have won and both Labor and the electorate know it.

Since day one women have had the right to change their mind, even the law states this, and at the most crucial of all times.
There was two elections at close intervals. What counted for one didn't account for the other.
Julia did say all promises were off, but that doesn't get much air time.
Abbott tells more lies than the PM. His inability to read a power bill is proof enough.
The roof didn't fall in, nor did the economy collapse, the sound you heard was Tony's jaw hitting the ground, when nothing happened.
Turnbull is the man for the job, Abbott's time is near.

My ex is rather fond of claiming a change in circumstance to justify breaking commitments. Strangely enough other peoples change in circumstance don't seem to get much sympathy, just her own self serving definitions of a change of circumstance. Generally just a tactic to gain ground.

Debate will continue over definitions of lies, in the mean time people who break commitments when there were other options available can't be trusted.

Other option's available in the federal sphere included
- someone else could have lead the government
- we could have gone back to the polls
- the coalition could have tried to form government. Unlikely that they would have reached an agreement with the Greens so it was probably the second option as well.

I think the nitpicking over definitions of "lie" is just an excuse to try and justify dealing dishonestly with the Australian people. There were other options which were not tried.

For the record I've got a similar view of Newman's breaking of commitments regarding sackings of public servants in Qld, Newman made a commitment knowing the state budget was a massive mess. If he was not certain of being able to keep the commitment he should not have made it.

I'm not silly enough to think that Abbott won't also find some "change in circumstance" to justify breaking commitments he makes.

The sooner the party faithful stop excusing that stuff the sooner we start getting to a point of getting some more honesty back into politics.

Be nice to have a process where the breaking of an election commitment was a punishable crime unless it had bi-partisan support in parliament.

R0bert

DiamondPete, I agree that by definition Gillard didn’t lie.

However, having made the original assertion that “there would be no carbon tax under the government I lead”, it was then unforgivable to turn around and introduce it.

She should have simply said to the Greens that it was not open for discussion and that they needed to push for other things instead. And by crikey, there was so much more that the Greens should have pushed for, which is of similar or greater importance, which they could have won a great deal of support for from Labor.

In fact, the current political setup was an excellent opportunity for Australian politics to move substantially away from the addiction to growth and towards a paradigm of sustainability. But alas, we missed it entirely!

As much as I agree with the concept of a carbon tax, the integrity of our political office and faith in our nation’s leaders has got to take precedence.

As a result of this backflip, and a host of other similar things, we now have the most dismal level of trust and respect for our politicians, of all persuasions.

And then to complicate it further, we have ended up with a complete dud of carbon tax, which will do nothing to help wean us off of our addiction to fossil fuels and help engender movement towards a more sustainable society.

So there you go. That’s my opinion!

<< If all you can offer is an opinion, please don't take part in this topic. >>

Um…. DP, this is the Online Opinion Forum. I reckon it is entirely inappropriate to ask people to not express their opinion here... and I wonder how that bit got past the moderator!!

I remember the same attitude and strident commitment to 'proof' was applied by all supporters of the Left when Little Johnny 'lied'. Yeah right!

There is a commitment that was broken, as R0bert says, with many options available to fulfill the commitment.

She chose not to. Whether this was premeditated or not only Juliar knows.

Obviously she wasn't very committed to this commitment, so why make commitments in such strident terms (Which is important, she didn't need to make such a fuss about how committed she was) that you are happy to abandon at the slightest inconvenience.

So even in the absence of any proof, she lacks moral character by these actions. Don't make promises you cant keep. Especially so stridently and definitively before an election.

With this new Pollyanna definition of lying where one needs absolute proof, with this 'change of circumstances' defense (about as convincing as The Chewbacca Defense) one must not only leave their cynicism at the door but also their brain.

As I said, cold day in hell that The Rodent would be given such benefit of the doubt. Anyone interested in giving such a benefit of the doubt to a politician really is a true believer.

The Prime Minister made a statement of her intention that her government would not introduce legislation for a carbon tax . Unless some clairvoyant can establish that , when making that statement , she had no such intention , she did not lie . In legal proceedings , a person cannot be convicted of dishonesty for making a statement of intention unless the prosecution proves that the speaker had no such intention .

People often announce what they are intending to do and later either change their mind for personal reasons , or circumstances change , requiring the person to do something different from the original stated intention . In those circumstances , there is no lie .

The Prime Minister and her advisers believe that a carbon tax is the best solution for Australia . It is appropriate for the government to do so . If the Prime Minister failed to do this , because of the intention previously stated , she would deserve criticism .

In future , to avoid being criticised for "lies " all politicians seeking political office could qualify every statement which they make , by stating their intention , at time of speaking , but making it clear that this may have to be changed , if circumstances change . If they do this , they will be criticised for not speaking with certainty .

This parroting about Prime Ministerial " lies " is itself dishonest , ignorant , boring and has been done to death . The parrots should find some more intelligent insult to throw at the government .

Come off it! Julia spoke the truth when said she wouldn'tintroduce a carbon tax....but in the negotiations for power with Greens and independents that was the Greens price for supporting labour.

She supported Thomas,knowing he was a little crook, to keep his vote.
And bribed Slipper into becoming speaker so libs would lose his vote.
what wouldn't she do, to keep her job!

Anyway, I am bored with this forum, people arguing stridently with each other, only a few with condisered opinions. Is this how it is supposed to be?
So I leave it to you and good luck.

DP,

Here is an excerpt from an interview:

ALEXANDRA KIRK: So your problem is that you've had two opposing positions on carbon tax.

The fundamental problem is that you broke an election promise. You said before the election there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, and now you've shifted your position. So you don't have a mandate for a carbon tax.

JULIA GILLARD: Alex, we went to the 2007 election saying we had to price carbon and the best way of doing that was an emissions trading scheme where the market sets the price for carbon.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But you went to the last election…

JULIA GILLARD: We went to the 2010 election saying we need to price carbon and the best way of doing that is an emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.

What will we deliver? An emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.

Yes, there will be a period where the price is fixed, effectively like a carbon tax. But we will end up exactly where we promised Australians we would go. >>>

This is Juliar at her weasel best. Here she is saying that she always intended to price carbon, but this is not a carbon tax, just an emission trading scheme with a 2 year fixed price on carbon.

She later admitted that it was a carbon tax.

Unless she lied at this interview (a possibility) she clearly states that she always intended to impose a carbon tax. She just decided to call it something else.

Thus at the time she made the promise, she intended to break it. Thus she lied, and thus she is a liar.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

$50 to the guide dogs association would be great.

Shadow Minister gets the prize.Best rebuttal yet.

DP you are right she did not know it would be a hung Parliament and the greens would, along with independents force her hand.
But look at SOG his post is his best, not balanced, no intention of being so.
Gillards crime is being the hand that held the knife.
For others it is being a woman.
And other not being a Conservative.
My gripe? she is not a leader.
Now you keep pushing your point but never ignore public opinion, it drives election victory,s and Turnbull is in charge of that.

From: Chek Ling
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011
To: letters Australian
Subject: Gillard's lie, Abbott's mortal sin

Enough, your editorial laments today. How timely! I too fear that our political culture is being recklessly debased.
As a non-native speaker, I consulted my Oxford Dictionary. Lie: Intentional false statement. Can we say, beyond reasonable doubt, that our PM lied about the carbon tax? Her backers in the ALP machine all thought then that the first female PM was gonna shoo it in. As well she probably believed then that she could pull a rabbit out of the climate change warren. There is no doubt she changed her mind. Most minority government Prime Ministers would in the face of demise if the Greens’ demand were not met.
Yet the polls tell us that Tony Abbott is succeeding in urging us to accept that the PM has lied. But he is in fact the liar, the deliberate liar. He has presented no evidence, just the sort of slogans we in the west often associate with leaders of countries like North Korea.
Should Abbott succeed in ousting our government, would we then have added a new facade to our traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs - Thou shalt lie, and lie, and lie again, until thou shalt be made the leader of all men.
What would Archbishop Pell think then? A big venial sin, thirteen Hail Marys and let’s move on?

That letter was not published, of course. Since then Louis Nowra has written regarding David Marr's Quarterly Essay on Abbott that this was one occasion when Marr did not go far enough. In Louis' view, Abbott would sell his soul to become PM, a reminder of what Tony Windor revealed about Abbott's offer to him before Gillard formed government.

It seems some of us only argue to win, like the worst of our pollies: Sophie M and Costello's successor are striking examples in their Q & A behaviour - brazen, shameless, and unshamable.

Have we lost the sense of fairness, or independent thought, always jumping on the latest bandwagon carrying Pauline Hanson or Alan Jones?

It can be argued that Julia Gillard did not lie, but it is a pretty
weak argument. She could have told the Greens that what they were
asking was impossible and any dill would know that the greens would
not have withdrawn their support. They would NEVER support Abbott.

Gillard knew that, but she used it to impose a CO2 tax.
That is what turned a change of mind into a lie.

Belly she still had options she chose not to use.

Refusing to break a commitment and making a stand on the point could have had her claiming the high moral ground and maybe started a reversal of the ever worsening breakdown of trust between pollies and the rest of the population. Instead Julia went for the broken commitment and entrenching the pattern of broken commitments (pre-meditated or not).

R0bert

What a pile of codswallop.

Did Gillard lie? Of course she did. Was it intentional? Of course it was.

Did the Greens force her hand on a CO2 tax? Of course not.

Come on people, just how far do you want to stretch the bounds of credulity?

I find it incredible that you lefties think you can pull yet another lie, that is that Gillard did not lie. She has told us that she always wanted a price on carbon dioxide, the only trouble was she had to win an election to get it.

Would she tell any lie, or do any dead, no matter how foul to win? Just a quick look at her personality & record tells us she most definitely would.

Did the Greens force her to the carbon tax, of course not. Are any of you telling me the Greens were going to vote with the Libs, if she had said no? Pigs might fly. She had the Greens locked up tight. They had no where else to go, & she damn well knew it. It was the riffraff independents she had to buy, which she did no problem. Lets face it they are probably the best MPs money can buy.

So come off the raw prawn kiddies, we won't fall for it. You can perhaps kid yourselves that your horrible leader is all kindness & light, but it won't wash with thinking people.

Still no harm in trying, & I've no doubt you'll try another dozen tacks to try to convince yourself, [& the rest of Oz], that she is a nice lady, just a victim of circumstances.

Duck folks, the comes a squadron of flying pigs.

Hehehe Haz, you must’ve ad a good weegend. You’re in fine form this Monday. ( :>)

Did the PM lie or not, I don't believe a definition is necessary or relevant DIAMONDPETE.

In my opinion, when she made that statement '...there'll be no carbon tax under...etc etc.

It is what her message actually conveys, into the minds' of all the many millions of people who heard her. If the ordinary Joe Bloggs out there in suburbia, believed that the PM was NOT going to introduce a carbon tax, would it have altered or varied his voting intentions ?

Or, for all you learned legal practitioners out there; '...what the belief's are of the ordinary man who travels to and from work each day, on the Clapham Common Omnibus...' the test of a 'reasonable man'.

I can think of several criminal fraud matters where, confusing, equivocal or fallacious language was employed, in order to deceive ?

Whether or not the PM, at the time she made that statement/speech, formed an intent to deceive the voting public. Purely for the purposes of exploiting or engineering a certain voter outcome ?

If that's your belief, well maybe she did deceive the electorate at large ?

Though, my opinion of politicians, all of 'em, I'd NEVER believe or trust them with ANYTHING. And to quote a well used passage (in part) from the doctrine of an organisation that I've had a bit to do with '...they're all wilfully perjured individuals...' !

What a sad stage we've reached in our country today.

Glad you liked it Luddy. I wrote it just for you, oh, & a few lefties.

So far, my $50 is safe.

Not ONE person, and not even ONE of the handful of far right wing radicals here, has been able to prove that the Prime Minister lied.

My goodness, they can't even read properly and follow easy directions, because they filled their posts with opinion, not proof.

Keep trying folks (but I think my $50 is safe).

DP,

You also lied, you never had any intention of admitting that Juliar did anything wrong. I gave you her words that she always intended to price carbon, but what more do you need? a lie detector read out.

Everyone knows she lied, and playing with semantics just makes you a fibber too.

All pollies lie but Juliar and Labor have raised it to a new artform.Hopefully the electorate will knock them out of the ring and we build a new party to replace them.

What we have is a whole lot of Labor parasites sucking of off the tax payer.They come first and the country last.

Shadow M, your argument fails miserably.

Shadow M, EVERYBODY knows that Labor intended to price carbon. They said it repeatedly at the 2007 and 2010 election. At the 2010 election, they said there would be no fixed price on carbon (FYI, a "fixed price" is a carbon tax) .... and the PM specifically said "there would be no carbon tax".

Following the 2010 election, in order to gain government, Labor had to abandon the "no fixed price" part of their ETS promise. So they introduced a carbon tax .... which lasts till 2015 at which stage it conforms 100% to their original pre election promise.

They broke part of a promise (fixed price part), in order to gain government.

Thus, clearly, the PM did NOT lie. Labor broke a promise. They did it to gain government.

I'm glad I could educate you on this matter.

So far, my $50 is safe.

Keep trying all you far right wingers. Personal abuse against the PM is the only weapon you seem to have. Cool.

PS: Shadow M, just in case you still don't understand. Putting a price on carbon, and putting a "fixed" price on carbon, are two different things.

Labor's pre election commitment was to put a price on carbon.

Labor broke that promise and put a "fixed" price (till 2015) on carbon, in order to achieve government.

Glad I could further educate you, and clarify things for you.

To all you radical right wingers, if you want that $50 to go to your favourite charity you'll need to do a lot better.

It's clear that so far, none of you have been able to prove that the Prime Minister lied when she said, "there will be no carbon tax".

Belly>> But look at SOG his post is his best, not balanced, no intention of being so.<<

China, I have said to you many times over the past few years that come the time Abbott is PM I will grow disgusted and spew venom if Abbott lies, fails miserably directly due to policy implementation or generally becomes a dud that costs us money that could go to hospitals, proper education, where excellence rather than pack mediocrity is strived for, and the indigenous get effective resources and a well funded indigenous dedicated high teacher ratio education program.
Belly I lost my footy team, the Newtown Jets, when the ARL back stabbed us, and I lost my party when the DLP bit the dust, I am an orphan.

Pete the perpetual, they are duds sport, I know it, you know it; even Richardson and Tanner know it. These boys are two true believers who see nothing to believe in regarding this lot and Gillard in particular.

DP,

A price on carbon whether fixed or not paid to the ATO is a tax on carbon, or as commonly known as a Carbon tax. I would suggest you look up the definition of a tax.

A non voluntary payment to the commonwealth is by definition a tax.

A pure ETS where carbon credits are traded between entities other than the state would not be a tax, anything else has a tax on carbon.

You made a stupid bet where you didn't know what you were talking about. So stump up!

DP
I believe the PM meant it when she said there would be no carbon tax but with a hung parliament it became a bargaining chip. Tony Abbott was also willing to consider a carbon tax to take government and Tony Windsor has said as much in relaying conversations with TA after the fact.

It is quite laughable in this context that TA keeps the faux shocked outrage stance with continued false 'evidence' of price rises due to CT including bills of pensioners rising threefold but forgetting to add that usage also increased same. It was a broken promise and personally I think the PM could have put it to the Greens that she could not break a pre-election promise from an ethical standpoint but 'trade-off' other environmental protections.

I could be wrong, but could not see the Greens backing Abbott even with an agreement on CT given Labor more likely than Libs to consider environment than Libs. LNP view environmental concerns as 'radical' and the intellectual process does not go much further than conceding to a large Conservative huntin' shootin' fishin' electorate base.

Your $50 is safe in the context of a 'lie' but definitely a broken promise.

Who is the lesser quality person, the one who twists the truth or the one who supports twisting the truth ?

Pelican I honestly agree with that post every word.
But, want Indy to know, Abbott too knows, Gillard did not lier.
Refugees from the dole office Pyne, both Bishops, Hockey know too.
Hence they are far worse liers, than Gillard ever was.

BTW Diamondpete,my favourite charity is http://ae911truth.org/ I've met them personally and they are really honest and honourable people.

They want to bring the really big criminals to justice.These criminals are far bigger than any of your Labor ones.Perhaps your donation could deflect some of our attention from the foibles of Labor.

Belly,
for your info:

lie 2 |l&#299;|
noun
an intentionally false statement

twists and turns intricate or convoluted dealings or circumstances: the twists and turns of her political career.

<< Your $50 is safe in the context of a 'lie' but definitely a broken promise. >>

Pelican, yes, definitely safe in the context of a lie. But was it actually a promise?

It was certainly an assertion, and as I said in my first post on this thread; an unforgivable backflip to go against it.

So I see it not as a lie nor a broken promise - but still a grave betrayal of trust. And when this is perpetrated by the holder of the top job in this country, we’re in trouble.

pete repeat," So far my $50 is safe." Just the same assumption Juliar and Labor makes as they approach electoral oblivion.Labor are gonesky and may they rot in their own putrid depravity.

I see Arjay has been 100% incapable of proving that the Prime Minister lied.

All Arjay can provide is personal abuse towards the Prime Minister.

Says it all.

Post this far and wide.Bob Kernohan was President of the AWU when workers turned up at his office demanding payment for works done on Juia's house at Abbottsford. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBgxVo5gTA&feature=related_embedded

Bob in the second clip says he was offered a safe Labor seat if he shut his mouth. He was sent 3 bullets and severely bashed for being honest.

Some meat remains to be picked from this bone arjay.
My life, even if I was also a member of other unions, at the same time, is proudly AWU.
I have no doubt, it is and always has been our best union./
TOO that it always has had fleas.
In this case the Union, GOD I HOPE SO! knew nothing about the grubs .
Gillard must have.
My first reaction was she may not have, I watched it grow, other than silent folk on the side watching me defile the word SOLIDARITY , say just what it is, a method of not telling union membership the truth.
I am likely the only one here who walked those union, legal, rooms.
This was always too big for Gillard not to know.
A basic, unions formed to give power to workers,fairness, and to give life to the ALP.
How strange if using the word SOLIDARITY, that SOME in Labor strangle its parent.
I TRUST THE BRILLIANT LEADERSHIP OF TODAYS AWU.
But remind even them,of the reason we exist.

DP, One thing about being delusional, is you can simply believe anything you wish to.

Let me know if you wish to visit the real world, I will try to find a space for you.

Diamond Pete,

You lied, you did the same as Juliar, you made a promise you had no intention of keeping, and are trying to use semantics to wiggle out of it.

The reality is that her promise "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" is unequivocal, and is a promise not only that there will be no tax, but that all reasonable action will be taken to prevent this.

Given that within days of this promise we then found out that we were getting a carbon tax.

Given Juliar's own words that she always intended to put a price on carbon, (which is by definition a tax), it is an admission that she lied.

We thus have proof beyond balance of probability (required for civil cases) and beyond reasonable doubt that Julia Gillard and Diamond Pete lied.

When I look at this thread I'm reminded of a comment made some years ago by Peter Garrett. Wish I could find a link but it was along the lines of when we are in government we will do what we want.

Intent is unprovable unless documentation or a witness is found showing the intent to break the committment. Personally I don't see much difference between a lie with intent and failure to keep a committment when there were other options available and the person has gained from the committment.

If fill my car with petrol thinking that I can pay for that petrol then find I don't have the means to pay it does not relieve me of the responsibility to pay. I need to negotiate with the service station arrangements that suit them, not just announce a change in circumstance and keep the petrol leaving the loss with the petrol station.

Its clear that Gillard had other options, her oen ambitions for power may have been hindered by keeping her word but there were options available which could have kept the committment.

R0bert

Ludwig
It was IMO a broken promise. I can't remember exact words but after the Carbon Tax was proving electorally unpopular, the PM did say 'There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead' or words close to that. There is no reason to believe JG would have not honoured that promise had there not been a minority government. It may well have done something along ETS lines with support of LNP - who knows as it is all moot.

But this is just semantics. The word 'lie' has more impact which is why LNP supporters use it.

Is it also a lie when a government uses a Senate majority to bring in legislation never revealed to the electorate prior to an election. eg. Workchoices. Not a lie technically but it was dishonest nevertheless

RObert yes he made that comment.
I stood in an office, leave it at that the day the Clown Latham told us he had hand picked a great singer to become a mediocre politician.
Garret went on to harm the pink bats issue and more.
The man who had been nominated by the branch he had been a long term active member of.
He was parachuted in, not before time, by the Sussex Street Mafia, as was Bob Carr after another Sussex Street tool , having undermined the party left.
However do not hold the party to account for Garret, he is a do it your self fool.

Pelican it is a lie when you emphatically state something , & then do the other.

You can't use that "had to do it to buy the Greens" rubbish. As I stated in an earlier post, the greens are welded on to Labor, & have no choice but to vote with them. It is either that or vote with the Libs. Suggesting they forced Gillard's hand is garbage, & you are smart enough to know this.

This woman has no honor, & no morals, & the sooner we are shot of her the better.

Graham Richardson said;

"Whatever it Takes"

i feel if we loooked back with hindsight
at the precise timmings of no tac govt i lead
plus the poll results ..of the time..it becomes clear hung govt was the only result

the no tax thing was a cheap..lie to get a few extra seats

we have her own words..we have the polls
we know she lied..wanted to traiter anyhow..its so pathetic

pay to the blind pete
opinion runs against you keeping that 50

but that was now seen to be a lie too

lie down with dogs get fleas
buyt im more intrested in trying to comprehend bellies last post

life a bit chh
if ya spinning half a wit chh
too close to the fire and red heads self combust

i seen it
buy a box of red heads..hold it near a nakid flame and see

for sense from nonsense
in the dollhouse..mothers/grandmothers only please

let the sisters go play their games as lobbiests
which they will in time become ..once they loose their seat*

sweet
im stil angry she visited that myssogenist [in alfganastan]
you know keisie the oine who hasnt opened a single GIRLS SCHOOL
who allows MYSOGENIST PRACTICES UPON THEIR WOMAN FOLK..

and there is that red head
running away from the flame to the fire
now shes going to deal with lower casts..in india next..
set up a few call centers full of woman..doing chick flick type work

lord juliar has awoken a sexist demon in me
she lied

pay up..to some charity
you both lost.

the more ya try to spin it
the more like each other you reveal yourself to be

too trickey
by half*..the pair of ya.

I am interested in Pelican's definition of a lie:

"Is it also a lie when a government uses a Senate majority to bring in legislation never revealed to the electorate prior to an election. eg. Workchoices. Not a lie technically but it was dishonest nevertheless"

So which of the 300 odd pieces of legislation that Juliar's government passed with a senate majority were explained to the electorate before the election. Were all of these lies?

So far we've had 8 pages, and not one person here has been able to show that the Prime Minister lied regarding her pre-election statement.

They have also displayed they lack English comprehension ability, as I specifically requested that the topic not contain "opinion". But many far right wingers are like that, and there's only a handful of them here on this topic. They are even trying to desperately redefine the meaning of the word lie ..... too funny indeed !!

Most of the replies have shown that it's clearly understood by intelligent people here that it was a broken commitment, not a lie. The majority of Aussies understand this by now.

For a lie to be a lie there MUST be intent to deceive.

The mere handful of far right wing intransigents here are continuing on with their name calling and personal abuse of the Prime Minister .... this reflects on "their" character and inability to debate the economy, education, health, defence. It's all about personal abuse and name calling to these far right wingers.

They love people like me to write posts like this. Why? Because it puts them at the centre of attention, and gives meaning to their existence. They come here, abuse the people they despise, and then feel important and powerful as a result. Their behaviour here says EVERYTHING about these handful of far right wingers.

And of course, not one of them has been able to prove that the Prime Minister lied.

DP has it come to you?
That post could have been about?
YOU!
I find the use of the term lefty offensive, why should I not find your generalization far right that too.
Your posts are put to generate a focus on? you.
She did not lie, agreed, but if our Julia had wings of gold and was presented to use by a bloke with a Halo on his head, she would not win an election.

To sum up what we have after 9 pages:

1 There was a solemn promise made to the electorate and it was broken within days, thus the promise was a lie. The point at which it became a lie is under dispute.

2 DP and other left whingers are contesting that a strict definition of a liar is one who at time of making a promise knows that it is false. And as no one can conclusively know someone else's mind, no one can ever be called a liar, and the word is thus redundant.

3 Myself and others (referred to as right wingers,) capable of forming rational opinions without a presiding judge, prefer to determine Gillard's intent based on her actions (i.e. the speed at which she abandoned her pledge to the voters) and her subsequent declaration that she always intended to tax carbon.

I and most Australians, based on item 3 above, and the scarcity with which Labor's promises are acted on, simply understand that we were lied to by Gillard and Labor and will judge their promises at the next election by the yard stick they have carved for themselves.

Hi Belly,
Nice to be back posting on OLO after quite some time of other distractions.
Having read a few of the posts on this topic, I am drawn to the fact that Julia Gillard lied......show me a political leader who hasn't?
Given that our Prime Minister was a first time Female, I think that this first time Politician, made the mistake of trying to please all people all of the time, a natural mistake with first timers.
I believe that of late, she has come into her own, and now she is starting to find her feet, and appearing to be quite comfortable with her role of PM., the shameful side of Politics, and I refer to Tony Abbott, has done nothing but blunder his way through so-called politics without checking his facts. The only time we see him in the public arena is laying bricks, packing boxes in vegetable markets and so on. Please God do not make Tony Abbott become PM. He is verbally inept, he obviously does not like capable female politicians, and really all he has achieved, in my view, is behaving like a recalcitrant schoolboy. His knowledge of political mores is disgraceful, and I really don't think he would ever make a PM.
I believe that our current PM who hasn't really had the experience in politics has done a sterling job, and frankly I hope she is able to stand for another term. I suspect that she is the butt of jokes, because most males resent a female politician. Lets face it, it is not about Gender, it is about capability, and I suspect the the incumbent PM possesses more capability that the alternative PM. By the way, I didn't vote for either of the Major parties.

In answer to Shadow Minister's "attempted" pointa:

1 SM has redefined the meaning of "lie" to mean "broken promise". SM = FAIL.

2 Not knowing whether a specific person lied, does NOT mean the word "lie" is redundant and that nobody can be called a liar. SM needs to study English comprehension a bit more. SM = FAIL.

3 As has already been explained to SM (and of course ignored by him because he doesn't like the truth) ... the speed of Labor's post election backflip was because it was required in order for them to form government. This doesn't mean that Labor "lied" about the promise when it was made ... it means they changed their position. Duh! It was public "pre" election knowledge that Labor always intended to price carbon. Why was it public knowledge? Because they said so themselves. Gillard then said a "fixed" price would not happen (meaning it would STILL be priced). The "fixed" price commitment was then broken post election, in order to gain government. If Labor had been able to form government in it's own right, we would NOT have had a "fixed" carbon price. But SM doesn't see this. Why? He obviously considers it not politically correct for him to see this. SM = FAIL.

SM has been incapable of proving that our Prime Minister specifically "lied".

I'm still waiting for any of the personal abusers here of our Prime Minister, to prove that the Prime Minister "lied" regarding her commitment.

So far, not one person has been able to do that.

Not one!

Prerogative is the word. It's the PM's right as a female to change her mind at any time, or at amy stage. And if you don't comply you are in big trouble. So where is the problem, if any.
The only ones that seem to have a problem are Abbott worshipers. I would rather think of the welfare of the nation before i gave anything to the one man noalition team.
Has there been a foot in mouth today as yet.

DP,

A Broken promise is a lie. Here are some definitions of the noun lie that you might have missed:

- a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
- An untrue statement;
- Lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy.

You cannot argue that Juliar's promise was untrue, deviated from the truth, etc.

Learn to read, I said that your definition of the word Liar made it redundant, not that was redundant, neither did I mention the word lie.

Logic is also not a strong point of yours, if Labor always intended to price carbon, then Labor did not change its position with the hung parliament, which ipso facto make Julia Gillard a Liar when she made the promise. You can't have it both ways.

Fixed or floating prices on carbon paid to the ATO are both taxes on carbon and thus carbon taxes.

Noisy Bird mentioned jokes about Julia Gillard.
I have not heard any yet.

I thought that was because no one was laughing.
I have seen nothing funny at all.

Hello Noisy Scrub Bird. Good to see you back after five months away from OLO.

I pretty much agree with your comments on both Gillard and Abbott.

I said earlier on this thread that I think Gillard did not lie nor break a promise, but nonetheless did gravely breach our trust in the highest office in the land, by making an assertion and then going against it, which is just plain unforgivable.

Well….. almost unforgivable.

Ok, so she was new at the PM game, and didn’t realise the enormous backlash that would result from doing a complete reversal to a major policy position.

Hmmm…. she’d been in politics a long time close to the top level. So that one’s a bit hard to believe.

But she does seem to be much more settled in now and hopefully will never make an enormous faux pas like that ever again.

Now if she’d just assert her stated opposition to Rudd’s ridiculous ‘Big Australia’, we’d be starting to possibly maybe hopefully get somewhere!

In fact, the biggest criticism of Dear Ms Gillard should be that she clearly opposed the notion of a big Australia, but has completely failed to act on it!

<< By the way, I didn't vote for either of the Major parties. >>

Me neither. Not for many year now!

What ever way you look at it, the decision was good for AU.
Two coal powered power plants scaled back in a week, QLD and vic.
The cost was to much to bye, and now they have scaled it back.
The more solar and wind power available and more will be scaled back again.
So the system is working, and a good decision all round.

579, the shutdown of those power stations will probably be permanent
but it is sensible to keep them mothballed, just in case.

Politicians and economists believe there will be recovery and growth
in the future, which will probably means they would be fired up again.

However, it is most likely that together with our reduced oil
consumption, our reduction in electricity use will be permanent.
The economy is slowing and our GDP will eventually be the same as other
developed countries.

The Liberals think they can get growth going again but they are also
unable to grasp the reality of world energy supplies.
The current oil price of $113 a barrel is the main reason our economy
is in the doldrums, except mining of course.

Bazz why do you say our economy is in the doldrums. Mining accounts for 20% of GDP. Our GDP has dropped .2 of a trillion with the downturn in minerals price.
Australia has more people in work, now than any time in our history.

Well 579, the GDP that is most important to the majority of Australians
is the non mining proportion. The GDP that is due to mining mostly
goes overseas as mining company profits and charges.

Our energy availability/cost is a balancing act between the two but
the upshot is a reduction in energy use that will continue to reduce
our economic activity.

Politicians and economists, except for a few, still think money
manipulation is the way to get growth in the economy.
However we live on a finite planet and growth, especially population
growth, is simply not sustainable.

>Australia has more people in work, now than any time in our history.
True, but so is our population. We cannot grow while energy declines.

There has not been a contraction of growth for 22 years.
Oil will gradually be replaced, the availability of electric cars will increase and diesel will be replaced with gas.
These technology's are hear now, without any extra technology's.
Clean electric power is increasing, and will continue to make inroads into coal power generation. Industrial roof space is ideal for solar power. All obstacles can be overcome.

NSB!great to see you back.
I am retreating from some threads.
We have super combative newcomers and not worth it see you on one of those.

I m pretty sure that there has been a reduction in GDP this year.
However we are affected by the world average GDP and we are using
less energy and that must result in lower GDP.
Even mainstream economists recognise that now.

If we continue exporting natural gas then it will have little effect
on our our transport fuels.
It is the scale of the oil industry that is so very hard to offset.
Example, one opinion is that the shale gas and oil in the US will
delay the decline in oil supply by two weeks.

Another opinion is that there will not be enough credit available to
convert the transport over from petrol and diesel to natural gas.

Have a listen to this talk by Richard Heinberg in New Zealand.

http://tinyurl.com/ce73aw7

Cheers

Dear Bazz,
Let me correct you, I didn't mention that Julia Gillard was the recipient of jokes, I just said that I suspect that she is., quite a vast difference in my book.
Cheers for now,
Noisy

Hi Belly,
Thankyou for your welcome back to OLO, I have missed you and others, I see that nothing much has changed, there's a few feisty, single minded folk out there. But it is good to reconnect my good friend.
Hope this quick post finds you well and happy. Take care my good friend.
Noisy Scrub Bird.

NSB, ahh yes you did say suspect.
>I suspect that she is the butt of jokes,

I have not heard any jokes either.
Maybe it is because she is the joke !

Cheers, if you didn't laugh you would have to cry.

579, this says it in less words than I can use.

Keynesians believe government stimulus spending will boost employment
and consumer spending, thus flipping the economy back to its “normal”
expansionary setting. But bailouts and stimulus packages of the past
few years have produced only anemic results, and central banks and
governments can’t afford much more of the same.

Free-marketers nurture faith that if government spending shrinks,
that will liberate private enterprise to grow profits and jobs.
Yet countries that implement austerity programs show less economic
growth than those whose governments borrow and spend—until the
spending spree ends in bond market mayhem.

Neither side wants to acknowledge that its prescription no longer
works because that would imply the other side is correct. But maybe
both are wrong and growth is simply finished. There are, after all,
limits to both resources and debt.
unquote

This is what our politicians are struggling with, it is just that
they do not realise it yet.

Gillard is definitely a liar. It's simple logic:

Lawyers are liars.
Gillard is a lawyer.
Therefore Gillard is a liar.

Here is definitive proof Juliar lied:

As with most words there are more than one interpretation. If one uses more than a pocket dictionary, 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.

SM,

I recall you and I having a discussion on this issue way back when - and you mitigated John Howard's back flip on the Never, ever, GST as being perfectly fine because he took it to an election.

So my point is that politicians change their minds depending on exigencies - John Howard said the GST would "never" become part of Liberal Party policy....I mean "never, ever" are fairly strong words.

It "did" become Liberal Party policy - so according to your definition, they must be liars as well.

(btw, your previous post was the biggest load of opaque and impenetrable rhetoric I've ever had the displeasure of reading on OLO - congratulations!)

Is that the best you can do?

Good-O

Poirot,

A proof requires more rigorous treatment than "yes he did"

I went through a series of legal definitions of lying and their associated conditions, and showed conclusively that what Juliar said and did, definitively fulfilled the conditions of one of the recognised definitions of lying.

Howard in saying "never ever" was very silly, as ruling anything out forever, meant that one would be technically lying even a decade later.

In both cases we have a breach of trust, with Howard he realised his mistake and had to take a very unpopular policy to an election that the opposition hammered him with, but the voters had the opportunity to have their say.

In 2010, support for a tax on carbon had collapsed, and to prevent losing the election Juliar made a similar promise. A few weeks later she abandoned it, and the voters who were against a carbon tax were outraged. Trying to compare this to Howard's GST only makes it worse.

Good morning Poirot.
Loverly day for fishing.
Provided you are not the fish.
Take care.

SM,

"Howard in saying "never, ever"......meant that one would be technically lying even a decade later."

Well let's face it, we are talking "technically" here - or was your previous post an "untechnical" explanation. If you're going to get involved in technicalities to bounce Julia, you shouldn't mitigate them to excuse John Howard.

btw, I had forgotten just what an honourable character was Mr Howard - I mean taking things to an election is all very noble and all that. Have you got a technical explanation for introducing major legislation that you failed to mention in your election spiel? Something along the lines of "lying by "omission" (as in introducing Work Choices without taking it to an election?)

Technically,

Every politician that promised something and didn't follow through would be a liar, which is a breach of trust. However, the depth of the breach is really what counts.

If one signs a purchase agreement for a house based on expectations stated by the seller, and:

1) just before the sale goes through, the seller contacts you and says that he made an error with a substantial promise, and offers to cancel the sale at no cost.

2) The "error" comes to light after the sale goes through, and the seller's response is "hard luck" or tries to wiggle out by saying that the reality is what she meant and that buyer should have understood her intentions.

1) is Howard.
2) is Juliar.

Poirot I am sorry, clearly on your last post you need no help with fishing.
Discarding my rubber bait you Selected the live bait of truth.
Well done.
Well dome MS Gillard too, having put a gap between her and Abbott.
However I prefer both to find other jobs, Say Abbott speech writer for a door to door salesman?
Gillard looks a shoe in for over seeing property transfers.

Does the original context of this thread still have any bearing?

As I interpret it an attempt to use a fairly specific interpretation of lying and the lack of proof of a pre-mediated intent to break the commitment made by Julia Gillard to then try and rebut the idea that she has behaved dishonestly in reneging on that commitment.

It is valid to try explore broader definitions of lying (pre-mediation can be very difficult to prove and is in the view not the only criteria for dishonesty).

Whilst I'm not a great fan of SM's one sided political commentary some of the rebuttal looks more like word games than an honest attempt to address the issue. There is a massive difference between Howard's change of view on a GST and taking it to an election and Gillards commitment and subsequent breaking of that committment.

Perhaps a better point to discuss respective honesty would be the point where Howard became aware of the Navy's view on the children overboard claims and his subsequent comments on the issue. Or maybe if anyone has more detailed info it could be asked at what point he became aware that the US's claims about WMD in Iraq were a fabrication and his subsequent actions.

The Workchoices issue has already been raised, in my view different to a commitment not to do something then doing it but a large enough unannounced policy initiative to be a concern. I hope the following election result set a precedent for the outcome following such a choice.

R0bert

You know, RObert. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are correct : )

Reading SM's majestic and sterling rhetorical gobbedlygook a few posts back, somehow got me going. Anyone who quotes such contorted and opaque reasoning in an attempt to prove their point, deserves a rebuttal - don't you think?

I worry about SM, I really do. He's going to put his back out dragging such turbid prose around OLO.

Cheers

Poirot,

Robert has actually grasped the idea. While you might want to look at the broader issues, that is actually not what the thread was about which was specifically whether it could be claimed that the PM lied.

This particular poster has in other threads tried to claim:
1 That the PM did not lie, and at worst it was a broken promise.
2 that "broken promise" about no carbon tax was only a minor breach of faith as Labor had always wanted to price carbon and the carbon tax was an interim measure to a ETS.

The reality is that Juliar's guarantee that there would not be a carbon tax was broken within weeks, for no reason other that political expediency, and secondly after the fixed price lapses, the "ETS" still requires that companies buy permits which is in itself a tax on carbon. The only way an ETS would not be a tax would be if the money from the sale of the permits did not go directly to state revenue.

While I understand that big words are gobbedlygook for you, and that definitions more precise than the collins pocket dictionary are confusing, please try and that "it is better to keep you mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot than speak and confirm it".

Why thank you, SM.

(Just quietly - do you really think I'm an idiot?)

Anyhooo...my point was that if you're driven to post something so irredeemably abstruse to prove your point, then perhaps you're desperate.

Have a good day.

Poirot,

I don't actually think you are an idiot, but "sterling rhetorical gobbedlygook" to describe an extract from a more comprehensive dictionary if taken at face value puts a very distinct ceiling on your linguistic capabilities.

Anyone familiar with legal texts such as contracts will recognise this style as written to be deliberately clear and unambiguous.

SM,

Yes, yes, we all know how clear and penetrable is legal jargon (ho, ho)

"...a very distinct ceiling on your linguistic capabilities."

(and your employment of the word "very" in your sentence above is superfluous : )

Of wind power and splitting hairs.

Toxic Toni, has again verbally disgraced himself again. He hasn't learnt much over the years. He is getting to be a liability.
Shoot from the hip, all he seems to know.
I reckon Keating was spot on when he said Abbott was a political illiterate.
Every time he opens his mouth a heap of toxic slush falls out.
Can you imagine this bloke on the world stage.
When they come to the conclusion that he has to go, we will be better off.

Lets go for gold for the longest thread about nothing on OLO. This is only slightly more tedious than whether or not god exists threads.

Is it possible the population of OLO has truly run out of things to discuss, but continue to go through the motions in some sort of reflex action.

I think you owe it to yourselves to go outside, even if ever so quickly, to witness the grass growing. Even if only for a fleeting moment.

Go on!

Reward yourselves!

You're worth it!

I reckon Toxic Toni is onto a winner. All he needs to do is adjust that fine line of ambiguity slightly, keep making statements fishing for a bit of outrage, and the ludicrous faux offense of the government's campaign becomes more exposed by the day.

I've heard this statement made a million times, but it really is beginning to be a legitimate accusation...

"It's political correctness gone mad!"

If I was him I'd start to accidentally be caught walking past some more signs. I would make it my mission to expose how petty and precious and pedantic the Emily's list brigade are willing to be.

I also want to see the pathetic levels of high horse harping righteousness the likes of 579 and DiamondPete can reach.

That's where you're wrong, Houellie.

Why today I've planted tomatoes, made gingerbread, helped son with fractions, did some sewing repairs and cleaned out the chook house...I also noticed grass growing (too fast)...OLO is a mere diversion from life - it's mainly an exercise in rhetorical gymnastics, as in a bit of frivolous debate/discussion is better than a crossword.

Why didn't you include SM alongside your critique of 579 and Diamond Pete on the subject of high-horse harping righteousness?

Oh Poirot, so productive, this will never do. I hope you're not time-poor? Please don't tell me we have here an example of the feminists' time-poor juggler, a proud member of the downtrodden martyrs of society;-)

Yes you are right there Poirot, I shouldn't have left the prime example out, but my familiarity with his MO somehow didn't make him remarkable enough. These new shrill brothers (or sisters) are really tiresome. I feel this exercise, and the hair splitting being employed by all, is really not befitting the intellect of those concerned, I suppose that is the main cause of my distaste.

But I always support the underdog too, and the goings on about Tony (Who incidentally I cant stand) are getting so shrill, and SM has you three against his one voice here, going on ad-finfitum, well, who can blame me for omitting the benign dronings of the rusted on juliar hater. He's part of the wall paper.

Actually I think SM is Gerard Henderson. Or maybe the love child of Piers and Albrechtsen.

I can see your point, Houellie.

It does seem SM has attracted some increased opposition.

I'm definitely not time poor. All those tasks are merely part of the day - and it doesn't include running around like a tornado in the mornings and being catapulted out into the throng at rush hour.

(P.S. the gingerb-bread men were a combined maths/direction-following exercise for son - and we get to eat the result : )

Poirot,

"Yes, yes, we all know how clear and penetrable is legal jargon"

There was no legal jargon in what I've posted, Perhaps I've over estimated you. If reading a dictionary definition surpasses your competence.

H,

We can always rely on you to bring in the mundane.

SM,

"There was no legal jargon in what I've posted..."

I didn't say you posted legal jargon.

You said:

"Anyone familiar with legal texts such as contracts will recognise the style as written to be deliberately clear and unambiguous."

My comment was in reply to the sentence above.

"If reading a dictionary definition surpasses your competence."

I read it, Mr Shirty. I understood it. I also understand that you're obsessed with being proved right, and running off to the dictionary in search of some long-winded definition is about your speed.

Most entertaining!

Poirot,

"I read it, Mr Shirty. I understood it."

"majestic and sterling rhetorical gobbedlygook ..."contorted and opaque reasoning"

Then only one of the statements is true to you. So were you lying or ignorant?

Squarwk!

SM's run out of seed again.

You prize definition was contorted and opaque. I understand that it's the best you can do, under the circumstances, but some of us prefer conciseness to prolix.

Then again, SM, perhaps we should both stop flapping around on this thread trying to prove which one of us has the sharper beak. It's a waste of time and energy.

I'm sure the writers and editors at Oxford go out of their way to make their definitions contorted and opaque. Perhaps their efforts to go deeper into the commonly accepted meanings of words are wasted and they should settle for the one line "concise" ambiguity that you prefer.

For me (not an English scholar) the definition was as concise as possible without losing meaning, and suspect that you simply didn't understand it.

Feel free to suspect anything you want, SM.

I wasn't criticisng the meaning. I was having a go at your going to such convoluted lengths to prove your point....which, of course, you're entitled to do. And I'm entitled to rib you about it.

(All's fair in love and war on OLO)

Cheers : )

You should be looking at the Macquarie dictionary Gerard. Then you can get the latest definitions based on the government's incorrect usage of words in their rhetoric.

I'm waiting for the new pronunciation, perhaps even a new spelling of hyperbole. Hyperbowl perhaps.

H you can do better than that.
We all know how bad I spell.
My spell checker is in therapy!
But I am game
My spelling is this
Shadow Minister.
Fits perfectly.

we are noting the same shame spin[re sandy]
of course leaders lie..[im noting the offer has gone silent
so post to keep it alive..he he

clearly his offer was spinning some kind of deciete/deception..rather than lie..but the 50 dollars was never on offer[note the weasel words.

but heck lets re write the definition
again..lawyers learn to lie ..without defining the lie
i think its called deniability..

and the offer has deneyability..cause he has run and hid..
thus he lied..by deciept..even if juliar didnt..[yet she did.

and its all rather pathetic
obviously.

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming, nor CO2

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-result-of-ocean-global-warming-nor-co2.html


The NCDC (an agency of NOAA) publishes global ocean temperature records, which confirm that global warming of the oceans did not cause Hurricane Sandy - in fact, their most recent temperature measurements reveal that ocean temperatures have actually remained flat over last 15 years (thru September 2012), while CO2 levels have increased