In a nutshell.
Julia Gillard - liar
- Thread starter Hallo Alfie
- Start date
In a nutshell.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
If you show me the lies and the evidence we could discuss them, otherwise all I see is a massive fail folks.
Can you show me the lie and why or not? I am saying "not".
Illegal immigrants. You might call them that, but it's an absolute lie.
There are others. I see you haven't addressed Krickitter's posts about his lies.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
uvar
Critical Thinker
Calling them illegal immigrants isn't necessarily lying, though it's still a very poor choice of term and generally unhelpful. (After all, they may have attempted to arrive here illegally, and there are classes of people who aren't covered by the definition of refugee but still need protection and asylum.)
Calling them illegal asylum seekers or calling seeking asylum illegal is incorrect and a lie once you have been corrected. Abbott has done this and either knows he is lying or is totally incompetent. More recently he has reversed to merely suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal under some circumstances (still untrue) without actually saying so.
In a somewhat clearer case of Abbott lying:
- During the 7.30 interview with Leigh Sales he claimed that BHP's reason for abandoning the Olympic Dam mine expansion included the carbon and mining tax
- He then claimed that he had not read the document, which would mean his previous claim was incorrect but not necessarily a lie
- The following day, he claimed he had read the BHP statement prior to the interview
- This means that either he had read it and was knowingly lying about the reasons during the interview, or he hadn't read it and lied about doing so the next day
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Last edited:
Thanks for that D.E.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Did you actually read what wrote? I'll see if I can dumb it down a bit.
Showing you things is in no way whatsoever a prerequisite for our discussion of them. I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think it would be.
That you see a lack of interest in discussing things with you personally as a 'massive fail' is your problem, not mine, and it's not something I'm even remotely concerned by.
In short, the thread isn't about you.
Yep, I certainly can.
Find someone who cares what you say and tell them.
uvar
Critical Thinker
Didn't find this myself, but it's so good I can't not link to it.
2003 - Abbott faces questions over Hanson slush fund
For those without time to browse the transcript, nobody claimed that the fund here was used for illegal purposes, but Abbott had previously denied its existence on multiple occasions and spending money to so blatantly damage another party didn't reflect well on the (then) Government. Still - undeniable lies, a slush fund, questionably ethical behaviour... if I'd been paying attention to politics in 2003 I'd be kicking myself for not mentioning this earlier.
2003 - Abbott faces questions over Hanson slush fund
For those without time to browse the transcript, nobody claimed that the fund here was used for illegal purposes, but Abbott had previously denied its existence on multiple occasions and spending money to so blatantly damage another party didn't reflect well on the (then) Government. Still - undeniable lies, a slush fund, questionably ethical behaviour... if I'd been paying attention to politics in 2003 I'd be kicking myself for not mentioning this earlier.
Her Grey Eminence
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 142
There are slush funds and slush funds. If Abbott's slush fund received donations for the purpose of, say, stopping Asian immigration or promoting xenophobia but then turned around and prosecuted Pauline Hanson and then payed for a gazebo in Abbott's garden, then you could say it was like the slush fund that Gillard helped established.
If on the other hand it was a fund set up to combat racism or One Nation, then it pretty much did what it said.
Anyway you will be pleased to learn that the two people who Gillard said organised her renovations:
Jim Collins (September 1994) and Bill the Greek (June 1995) were both signatories to various accounts identified by the AWU as slush funds.
In the case of Jim Collins it was Account F and G as identified by Ian Cambridge, in the case of Bill the Greek it was Account I.
Joining any dots, uvar?
If on the other hand it was a fund set up to combat racism or One Nation, then it pretty much did what it said.
Anyway you will be pleased to learn that the two people who Gillard said organised her renovations:
Jim Collins (September 1994) and Bill the Greek (June 1995) were both signatories to various accounts identified by the AWU as slush funds.
In the case of Jim Collins it was Account F and G as identified by Ian Cambridge, in the case of Bill the Greek it was Account I.
Joining any dots, uvar?
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Why?
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Will do. You responding to me is clearly an indication of not caring, I will remember this for the future.
uvar
Critical Thinker
It would be more accurate to say that it was set up solely to ensure Pauline Hanson went to and remained in jail. It wasn't meant to be a direct analog to the current situation, more just an amusing fact that about a decade ago Abbott himself was in trouble because of a secret slush fund (which really is about all the two events have in common).
Presumably you are referring to the information in Ian Cambridge's NI96 affadavit? (A pdf of which I found from the details you mentioned, and yes, I'm aware this is the case that Robert McClelland mentioned by name.) It is interesting reading, in the most honest sense of the phrase. Particularly relevant are sections 18.1/18.2 which are too lengthy to quote when I can't copy-and-paste but discuss a cheque of $67,722.30 to Slater & Gordon (as part of the cost for the house that Wilson purchased on behalf of Blewitt), as well as 18.15 (discussing Account F). There's not much about Account I - how did you learn that "Bill the Greek" refers to Vassilis Telikostoglou, or was it just because it was the most likely name of those listed? It's unfortunate that the documents referred to throughout aren't included.
I've stated before that I wouldn't be surprised if Wilson was guilty of theft/whatever the offence would technically be - especially after I learned the police investigation failed mostly because Thiess Contractors refused to take part and not because of lack of evidence - and the affadavit provides a lot of evidence for this, and suggests the number of people 'in the know' is larger than I expected. On the other hand, although I haven't read every part of it closely I don't think it includes any evidence that Gillard knew the apparent 'true' purposes of the account(s) she was involved with or evidence toward her more general involvement in the matter (in fact I don't think it mentions her at all, but it is only one man's affadavit and he doesn't seem to have investigated the account creations at the time).
An aside: Given the large number of accounts mentioned - as well as the supplementary list of further accounts he considered worth investigating just from the Commonwealth Bank - and that even Pickering has only accused Gillard of one or two, I wonder what the process was for the rest (i.e. whether there were many persons/entities like Gillard responsible for a few each, a single entity helped create most, or only a few required people like her at all).
Yes, but only the ones that exist, since I'm not willing to draw more just to get the picture I want. The affadavit adds dots to one picture - I suppose it would be more accurate to say that it shows dots that have always existed but were previously obscured, but that's taking the metaphor too far - but I don't know that it makes the case against Gillard any stronger (or, admittedly, weaker).
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
With regards the purpose of the account (the slush fund), she categorically outlines its purpose:
"Indeed, every union has what it refers to as a re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the fund that the leadership team ... puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign"
http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-t...m-the-grave-20120824-24rju.html#ixzz24Uod7Kve
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Either the "yes" or the "no" must have been one of those off the cuff comments made in the heat of battle or one of those carefully scripted, prepared remarks.
I'm not even going to attempt to join those dots.
uvar
Critical Thinker
A.A. Alfie evidently knows more about politics than Laurie Oakes: "LET'S not beat about the bush. To my mind, Tony Abbott tells lies..."
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Thanks for that uvar. Finally the msm are taking an interest.
I think you referred to this earlier but it's always good to get things in context - that is if one is interested in the original text rather than secondary sources:
http://ashghebranious.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/when-is-a-quote-not-a-quote-the-sequel/
I think you referred to this earlier but it's always good to get things in context - that is if one is interested in the original text rather than secondary sources:
http://ashghebranious.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/when-is-a-quote-not-a-quote-the-sequel/
uvar
Critical Thinker
Thanks for that uvar. Finally the msm are taking an interest.
I think you referred to this earlier but it's always good to get things in context - that is if one is interested in the original text rather than secondary sources:
http://ashghebranious.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/when-is-a-quote-not-a-quote-the-sequel/
I mentioned the same thing, though not from that blog post, but I do follow Ash (and others) on twitter and some of my links and knowledge have come from them in the last few days (though he's too partisan for my liking otherwise).
ETA: Speaking of twitter accounts, @boltcomments is good for a laugh.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Perhaps he (Abbott) does and Oakes makes a case. He obviously believes Gillard is as pure as the driven snow as - it seems - do all her other defenders here.
But return to the OP, there is a litany of lies there that I don't reckon Abbott or anyone else could possibly come close to. Gillard leads the way, and has single handedly managed to lower the bar in terms of blatant, deliberate lying and indeed, turning it an art form.
Worst PM ever.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Perhaps he (Abbott) does and Oakes makes a case. He obviously believes Gillard is as pure as the driven snow as - it seems - do all her other defenders here.
Errrmmm, no. Your inventions become more fantastic with every day that passes.