• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Julia Gillard - liar

uvar said:
A.A. Alfie, do you have any comments on Robert McClelland's speech? You did ask about it, after all.
Click to expand...

You read it far differently from me. If McClelland had wished to not provoke questions he would not have specifically mentioned the PM. There was absolutely no need for him to do so.

Your attempt to wallpaper with pretty flowers is duly noted.

The point is and remains that the PM has some questions that need to be answered, if for no other reason than to put this matter to bed.
 
uvar said:
What you care to be more specific about the characteristics you think they share, and what sharing them would imply? I assume you're not referring to the fact that they're both female.
Click to expand...

While I think it is probable that Craig Thomson was guilty of some level of impropriety with union funds (he admitted, for example, that it was not wise to take his wife to conferences, even if one of those conferences was allegedly when he was seeing prostitutes), not to the extent that Kathy Jackson accused him of and some of the material used were not genuine.

You are doubtless aware of the credit card slip that Fairfax flashed around that not only had a misspelt name on the card, it had a rejection code on the slip that states the card's verification number is invalid.

It seems someone made up a fake credit card - maybe in 2005 but more likely in 2009. Making up a fake credit card is a crime, using falsified documents in the courts is a crime. As you doubtless know, the mainstream media won't even so much as whisper this. But they are joined in their silence in an extraordinary cast of characters including Craig Thomson, Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten. All Craig Thomson has to do is make a statement alluding to these facts and the media will report. It seems that he is doing someone a favour by refusing to refute to the fullest extent these damaging stories - when very powerful defences are available and matters that should be the subject of police corruption probes.

And there is also the question of why Julia Gillard, when aware that part of the evidence was forged, did not show solidarity to her MP and use the formidable resources of government to uncover who was forging documents on one of the members of her team and why.

The easiest answer is that Julia Gillard has some very loud skeletons rattling in her closet and can't move against organised corruption in the union movement because she benefitted from it herself.

Craig Thomson has to let Kathy Jackson get away with outrageous character assassination because her behaviour with the HSU is no different than Julia Gillard's behaviour with the AWU.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
You read it far differently from me. If McClelland had wished to not provoke questions he would not have specifically mentioned the PM. There was absolutely no need for him to do so.

Your attempt to wallpaper with pretty flowers is duly noted.

The point is and remains that the PM has some questions that need to be answered, if for no other reason than to put this matter to bed.
Click to expand...

If Labor members steadfastly refused to mention or discuss a certain period of the PM's history, there would undoubtedly be people claiming that they were trying to cover something up. There wasn't a need for McClelland to mention Gillard, but there were sensible reasons and I pointed them out to you:
  • The speech was about an amendment to a bill to reduce fraud/theft in unions
  • Robert McClelland began the speech by demonstrating his knowledge and experience from working as a lawyer on cases in this area
  • He mentioned several notable cases he was involved with, only one of which involved Bruce Wilson (which did not find him guilty)
  • He mentioned working opposite Gillard at the time, whose employment as a lawyer on union cases is not a secret or disputed, to show her similar interest and experience and that Labor was generally united in wanting the amendment passed
  • He then went on to say another 1800 or so words about the amendment, and his personal comments about parts of it and the history of the bill, that you apparently don't consider relevant at all for the context of his introduction

He didn't mention Wilson at all, nor link Gillard to Wilson or discuss her history except that she worked as a lawyer on union cases. You only think McClelland's (innocuous, undisputed) comments mean she 'might' be guilty because you already think she 'might' be guilty and evidently can't think of any other reason McClelland might have discussed it. If I wanted to get into an argument about logical fallacies, which I really don't, I'd list a few here.

It also seems a little hypocritical that you entirely reject my reasoning when the original source is present - albeit not bothering to list any specific errors or disagreements with it - but accept the allegations towards Gillard (for which far less definitive information is available) and link to Pickering's version (which he has admitted is not entirely true) as "interesting" and possibly true.

The point is and remains that the accusers have some allegations that need to be substantiated before they deserve to be taken seriously in the first place.
 
Her Grey Eminence, you may have misunderstood. Several posts ago you stated:
Julia Gillard does seem to have some distinctly Kathy Jackson characteristics about her.
Click to expand...

I asked for clarification on the characteristics that you thought Gillard and Jackson had in common, where a 'characteristic' is generally understood as a distinguishing or distinctive feature and not a suggestion of irrational behaviour or accusation of a cover-up.

A list will suffice. For example:
  • Female
  • Elected to Australian Parliament
  • Their first and last names start with consonants
Although I would assume yours will be somewhat more specific. I understand that characteristics can be subjective and won't necessarily expect evidence for each, though I would expect you to be able to at least provide reasons.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Wallpaper
Click to expand...

I don't think that kind of behaviour is going to reflect very well on you to the other people who read this thread. Perhaps you should take the opportunity to point out some specific problems you have with my posts about Robert McClelland's speech and why you think they are entirely without substance.

Or was it a shopping list? I think you'll find your personal notepad is in the User Control Panel, not Non-USA & General Politics.
 
uvar said:
Her Grey Eminence, you may have misunderstood. Several posts ago you stated:


I asked for clarification on the characteristics that you thought Gillard and Jackson had in common, where a 'characteristic' is generally understood as a distinguishing or distinctive feature and not a suggestion of irrational behaviour or accusation of a cover-up.

A list will suffice. For example:
  • Female
  • Elected to Australian Parliament
  • Their first and last names start with consonants
Although I would assume yours will be somewhat more specific. I understand that characteristics can be subjective and won't necessarily expect evidence for each, though I would expect you to be able to at least provide reasons.
Click to expand...

Here's a few...

- Both their men (or ex men) have allegedly been beneficiaries of ill gotten money?
- Both have five letters in their first name?
- Both have seven letters in their last name?
- Both have had sex with union officials?


Cioncidence?!?! - I don't think so. :rolleyes::)
 
uvar said:
I don't think that kind of behaviour is going to reflect very well on you to the other people who read this thread. Perhaps you should take the opportunity to point out some specific problems you have with my posts about Robert McClelland's speech and why you think they are entirely without substance.

Or was it a shopping list? I think you'll find your personal notepad is in the User Control Panel, not Non-USA & General Politics.
Click to expand...

I feel no further need to add anything more than what I have already said. Here's a reminder:

The point is and remains that the PM has some questions that need to be answered, if for no other reason than to put this matter to bed.

Until she does, I suspect nothing will change.
Our individual and collective interpretations and opinions will do little (nothing in fact) to settle the matter.

And so we wait, the story goes around and around. The accusations fly, the confirmation bias abounds on all sides of the media and blogosphere. No one is right and no one is wrong. And the Yabbie proves again an inability to make a decision and provide effective leadership.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I might have a chance to comment if you pointed out exactly where the lie is. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Your just a game player.
Here
Stalin said.
The carbon price is responsible for 100% of the electricity price rise in Queensland.
80% in western Sydney and Canberra.
And at least 50% in the rest of Australia.
Stalin is getting desperate, he realises his scare mongering has not worked and he is now upping the ante with lies.
Alfie, that is a lie. He knows it is a lie but takes the Australian people as fools, I resent that greatly.
No carbon tax under a government that I lead was not a lie.
Click to expand...
Audio under "absolute Furphy" at this link http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/abbott-says-electricity-price-rise-reason-a-furphy/4187906
 
wombatwal said:
Your just a game player.
Here

Audio under "absolute Furphy" at this link http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/abbott-says-electricity-price-rise-reason-a-furphy/4187906
Click to expand...

Most quotes about the carbon price are questionable in terms of "lies", since you'd be hard-pressed to show that they knew the outcome would be different (particularly the scare-mongering predictions beforehand). But if you're looking for any old Abbott lie, just wait until he refers to asylum seekers as "illegal" again (I'm fairly sure I've linked to this article before). Or find a previous example, since he's known for years that they're not. (Unless he really didn't know, which would be a sign of enormous incompetence.) Alternatively look at his lies of omission by never mentioning asylum seekers arriving by plane, who are far less likely to actually qualify for asylum.

Although if you want to discuss either of those they'd probably be more relevant in the other thread.

Oh, here's a new one, if statements later contradicted are lies like A.A. Alfie wants to believe (not that Gillard's statement was contradicted, but you know what I mean).":
In May Abbott announced that he would never accepted the tainted vote of Craig Thomson. Today he accepted Craig's vote. Twice. (via)
Click to expand...
 
uvar said:
Most quotes about the carbon price are questionable in terms of "lies", since you'd be hard-pressed to show that they knew the outcome would be different (particularly the scare-mongering predictions beforehand).
Click to expand...

So no lies there. Thanks for the clarification.

uvar said:
But if you're looking for any old Abbott lie, just wait until he refers to asylum seekers as "illegal" again (I'm fairly sure I've linked to this article before). Or find a previous example, since he's known for years that they're not. (Unless he really didn't know, which would be a sign of enormous incompetence.)
Click to expand...

So why are they not illegal immigrants? Are all of them legal asylum seekers as outlined by UNHCR definitions?

But you are right, this is clearly not what was being referred to as it is off topic for this thread.

So no lie here that I can see.

uvar said:
Alternatively look at his lies of omission by never mentioning asylum seekers arriving by plane, who are far less likely to actually qualify for asylum.
Click to expand...

Again off topic so not what was being discussed nor claimed. And a lie by omission is clearly not what you were originally referring to was it?

uvar said:
Although if you want to discuss either of those they'd probably be more relevant in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Correct, as I pointed out, not what you were referring to originally.

uvar said:
Oh, here's a new one, if statements later contradicted are lies like A.A. Alfie wants to believe (not that Gillard's statement was contradicted, but you know what I mean).":
Click to expand...

Who or what is an ashgrebanious? And since when is an anonymous tweet proof of a lie?

I see a series of fails here. From your original statement (post 142) could you please outline which bit is a lie and exactly why is it a lie?
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Relevance to post 142?
Click to expand...

What it means is Abbott is a liar of monumental proportions. You have deemed comments like this as off topic, but in a thread about the supposed lies of a leader on one side, it's fair enough to expose the proven lies of her main accuser. In US political threads this sort of thing happens all the time. It might be uncomfortable to face up to it, but Abbott is a liar.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Exactly where did he lie?
Click to expand...

Read krikketer's link. A decent summary.

Anyway, the electorate are starting to get Abbott, and the polls will just get closer and closer. His attack on public schools in favor of elite private schools will further erode his false appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom