• 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

A.A. Alfie said:
Why is it a lie?
Click to expand...

I think you need some help.

lie1    [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
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.
Click to expand...
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Why? They might be illegal immigrants. How do you think the UNHCR describes those that are not genuine asylum seekers?
Click to expand...

Assuming this wasn't a rhetorical question, generally "non-refugees" or "migrants" depending on the situation. The differences between refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and illegal immigrants (and other groups) are covered pretty well in their FAQ. Immigration laws vary between countries (whereas asylum laws do not) so "illegal immigrant" wouldn't be very useful to them even without the negative connotations. It's probably also worth pointing out that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Australia are people overstaying their visa, and not from irregular border crossings.

The term "illegal asylum seeker" (or more broadly, "illegal asylum") is certainly incorrect as it is not illegal to seek asylum. Abbott never used this phrase in his 7:30 interview, but only because he repeatedly avoided answering Leigh Sales' questions, and much of what he did say was remarkably revealing anyway. He has specifically referred to asylum as illegal in the past.
 
uvar said:
He has specifically referred to asylum as illegal in the past.
Click to expand...

Show me this specific please?

The rest confirms some of what I knew (in a round about way). And there is no real lie on his behalf is there? It seems simply a matter of interpretation and what group of arrivals one refers to. The ABC also hangs steadfastly and pedantically onto the Australian Press Council's definition (here):

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/docu...torGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1
 
Last edited:
Her Grey Eminence said:
Would I be correct in assuming Bill The Greek was the person who built the fence she did not ask for and therefore did not pay?

Probably just as well she is on record as saying she did not pay him, because I don't suppose Bill the Greek would be feeling particularly well disposed towards her.

But I don't see why the rest of the tradies should have a grudge? Bring out Con, I say!
Click to expand...
Here you go.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...der-kon-spyridis/story-e6freuy9-1226457032938
 
a_unique_person said:
Alfie, I am keen to find out what more you know about Abbott only being a 50/50 chance to make it to the next election as Opposition Leader.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything. I have simply formed an opinion. I believe it quite possible that Abbott has simply done his job. Played out the negative campaign to undermine the government and its leadership - to that end he has done a very good job but it comes at a cost. The cost is the damage to his own personality and it makes him damaged goods.

This in turn paves the way for a new leader to step in to take the reins ahead of the next election with the Labor party and its leadership well and truly on the nose.

It just makes sense.

Akhenaten said:
Tony Abbott said it. How much more evidence could you possibly need?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, perhaps some actual evidence as to why it is a lie. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Back to Abbott's lies, you only have to look back a day. He stated that the mining tax had a lot to do with the Olympic Dam delay. The mining tax doesn't apply to Olympic. An out and out lie designed to convince Western Sydneysiders about how evil the tax is.
Click to expand...

Premature adjudication once again LK:
Here we have Marius Kloppers and the Age confirming Abbott's supposed "lie".

Your claim of "an out and out lie" was not one at all. All that was a lie was your claim. No surprise there, huh?

http://www.theage.com.au/business/t...s-investors-20120823-24oyp.html#ixzz24PSrzzIW

BHP Billiton head Marius Kloppers has told European investors that Australia's carbon and mining taxes have helped to render the nation's coal industry unworthy of further investment at this time.

Despite reassuring Australians that the taxes were not to blame for BHP's mothballing of the $US30 billion Olympic Dam expansion, Mr Kloppers referred to both when telling British media that new investments in Australia's coal sector would not be profitable.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wombatwal said:
Here you go.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...der-kon-spyridis/story-e6freuy9-1226457032938
Click to expand...
There, was that so hard?
If Kon Spyridis really is the Con in question

Tony Wright was a little bit unclear

Enter Con, a fellow recommended by Bill the Greek, a union organiser from Western Australia whose real name was Vassilis Telikostoglou.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if this was
Enter Con, (a fellow recommended by Bill the Greek), a union organiser from Western Australia whose real name was Vassilis Telikostoglou.

or
Enter Con, (a fellow recommended by Bill the Greek, a union organiser from Western Australia whose real name was Vassilis Telikostoglou.)

Anyway Vassilis Telikostoglou was one of the signatories on the accounts associated with the slush fund - assuming he is Bill the Greek, I think Gillard acknowledged in the 1995 transcript that he was not paid.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I don't know anything. I have simply formed an opinion. I believe it quite possible that Abbott has simply done his job. Played out the negative campaign to undermine the government and its leadership - to that end he has done a very good job but it comes at a cost. The cost is the damage to his own personality and it makes him damaged goods.

This in turn paves the way for a new leader to step in to take the reins ahead of the next election with the Labor party and its leadership well and truly on the nose.

It just makes sense.
Click to expand...

So who could take over?

Joe Hockey comes across as a bit of a lightweight - well politically speaking. To me he doesn't project authority which might not matter particularly if Labour is on the nose. Malcolm Turnball I presume is no chance - although he would have the advantage of having more room to move on carbon pricing.
 
Just a final comment on Gillard's press conference.

There is nothing that she has done or that she could plausibly have done that would ever support a criminal charge, in which case this story can't really go much further. But equally it appears that it was conduct that an ethical lawyer should not be involved with, what implications that has for fitness to being prime minister I will leave to respective parties - they have to decide on the standards they wish to enforce.

She stated clearly in 1995 that it was a slush fund and this was common in the union movement. She claims today that she believed that it was a fund for union officials to donate into to support their reelection on the basis of a campaign on workplace safety. But a fund that union officials donate into to pool their funds can scarcely be described as a slush fund, I mean where is the slush.

The fund was clearly designed to create a cover - a legitimate place for third parties to put money into with the cover that it was for workplace safety. The only plausible target for such donations were firms with unionized workforces that wanted to be protected from industrial actions.

She can't have been unaware of that the articles of association were a cover and a cover to designed for firms to donate into. That is why it was a slush fund.

If Labor members are happy with that, that is the standards they adhere to.
 
Akhenaten said:
Yeah that would be great, thanks.

Post away!
Click to expand...

It's not my claim - the ball is now back with those who made it. ;) I can only presume that the claim that Abbott lied is totally unsupportable. If it were otherwise, no doubt something would have been put up. :rolleyes:

Her Grey Eminence said:
So who could take over?

Joe Hockey comes across as a bit of a lightweight - well politically speaking. To me he doesn't project authority which might not matter particularly if Labour is on the nose. Malcolm Turnball I presume is no chance - although he would have the advantage of having more room to move on carbon pricing.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the dilemma and it is not unlike Labor's problem - who is capable to take the reins?

Turnbull could take over if he dropped his insistence on a carbon tax - he wouldn't do that. I reckon it goes to a core belief and worse, it would make him seem wishy washy and/or hypocritical.
I like Hockey in the same way I liked Beazley - both affable types that seem honest and well meaning
Bishop? Can't see it but who knows.
Christopher Pyne? Stranger things have happened.
Greg Hunt is a future leader imo, but it might be a few years premature for him.

I actually expect to see some jostling begin over the next six months or so. The coalition's challenge is to ensure any changeover is timed nicely and done with grace.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Akhenaten said:
Yeah that would be great, thanks.

Post away!
Click to expand...


It's not my claim - the ball is now back with those who made it. I can only presume that the claim that Abbott lied is totally unsupportable. If it were otherwise, no doubt something would have been put up.
Click to expand...


I think it would be far safer to presume that people feel somewhat less than obliged to accede to your constant demands for answers. Neither the course of this discussion or its ultimate success, should such a thing be measurable at all, are in any way dependant upon your satisfaction with the material presented by other contributors.
 
Akhenaten said:
I think it would be far safer to presume that people feel somewhat less than obliged to accede to your constant demands for answers. Neither the course of this discussion or its ultimate success, should such a thing be measurable at all, are in any way dependant upon your satisfaction with the material presented by other contributors.
Click to expand...

On a similar note, racist sexist Larry Pickering's response to the PM's impromptu press conference was to ask her a further 30+ questions on his blog. Presumably if she deigned to answer them eventually she would make a mistake or be unable to answer one and racist sexist Pickering would leap on it as evidence of guilt.

Of course, since I doubt Gillard personally reads racist sexist Pickering's "ravings", and would never respond to them anyway, he'll have to make do with pretending she's as scared of incriminating herself as sueing him.

Since I'm no longer bothering to read A.A. Alfie's posts directly, is he ignoring the various evidence provided that Abbott lied about the reasons for the Olympic Dam mine non-expansion, and whether he read the statements before the 7.30 interview, and calling seeking asylum "illegal", and all the examples provided in Krikkiter's blog post a while back, and so on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom