There’s a word for this

I just want to see if I’ve understood the Liberals’ logic on the “JuLIAR” line:

2007, go to an election promising an ETS; 2009, change your mind and oppose it. Not lying?

2010, go to an election promising no carbon tax; 2011 (when you don’t control parliament in your own right as you expected), change your mind and support it as an interim step to the ETS you did promise.

WORST LIAR EVER.

Is that it? Changing your mind is “lying” when they do it; it’s “standing up for core principles” when you do it?

Just trying to understand the Liberals’ case here before they go back out shouting about “liars” today.

About these ads

60 responses to “There’s a word for this

  1. ” There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”

    Sorry Jerremy, but that’s as straight a statement as anyone can make going into an election — and a promise broken when reneged upon once that person is voted into power.

    I really don’t see how you and others are having so much trouble understanding this.

    “2007, go to an election promising an ETS; 2009, change your mind and oppose it. Not lying?”

    Correct that is not lying, they didn’t win the election in 2007 so were in no position to implement an ETS, by the time 2009 came around they had had a rethink of their policies and decided against an ETS, which again they took to the election — that is a legitimate change of mind and policy, and as a lawyer I would expect you to know the difference (which I’m sure you do, you’re just choosing to be disingenuous).

  2. “There’s a word for this”

    Let me guess: it starts with “H”?

  3. Sadly, the LNP are going to bang on and on about this all the way till the next election. As Bob Brown tried to point out to Tony Jones the other night, when Tony tried to verbal him into saying the Greens had coerced Gillard into adopting a carbon tax: ‘Is this really the issue?’ Sadly too Bob Brown missed a good opportunity to stick it to Tony and the LCD level of political journalism in Australia.

    The press gallery and MPs truly live in a la la land where the only game in town is proving the other side can’t be trusted. Well guess what? (Duh). We already know that.

  4. Everyone seems to have forgotten Mr Rabid’s statement that if he’s speaking off the cuff he’s probably lying. He only tells the truth when reading prepared announcements.
    And GavinM, had Gillard actually won the election then you could hold her to her promises. As it is, with a hung Parliament, she doesn’t even have the luxury of core and non-core promises.

  5. You’re a barrister, their case is very week ;)

    “Let me guess: it starts with “H”?

    Inconsistency?? ;)

  6. narcoticmusing

    Mr Abbott, who has a reputation as a confrontational parliamentary performer, described the idea as “radical” but said debate in Parliament could be kinder and gentler.
    “I think we can be a more collegial polity than we have been,” he said.
    “I think the spirit of Parliament has been needlessly confrontational, especially over the last three years.”

    These are the promises Abbott made before the Government was decided, knowing that there was a hung Parliament, knowing his party may not come out on top. They were not conditional on him winning.

    Who exactly is the liar?
    Let’s just entertain for the sake of arguement that a carbon price and a carbon tax are the same thing, that it is just semantics. People disagree with that proposition, some don’t, but regardless for arguement’s sake, lets say it is the case.

    Julia, made a promise before knowing of the hung Parliament, which required everyone to negotiate a NEWposition that wasn’t just that of the ‘main’ party, but inclusive of the independent’s position, which thus led her to (arguably) shift her position – this is not dissimilar to the Libs changing their policy position when it was re-stated back at them by the ALP.

    Abbott, however, made a statement regarding his own personal behaviour, (something he has full control of) and the behaviour of his party, knowing the outcome and consistently does the exact opposite. Abbott said climate change was crap and now, because that is politically inconvenient, with no requirement (such as a hung parliament) to negotiate a new position, consistently says he believes in human induced climate change. Abbott consistently refuses to act on climate change despite apparently believing in it. Abbott is a Catholic but doesn’t think twice about judging others (personally, not just their actions), promoting hate and vilification. He insults people and uses personal attacks and endorses the usage of them, all of which is inconsistent with Catholicism.

    So, again, who here is the liar?

  7. Fair enough zoot — but does she or does she not lead the government ?

    I’m pretty sure there’d be no Carbon tax next year if she had stuck by the commitment she gave to the voters.

    Perhaps she should call another election so she doesn’t have to implement policies she evidently doesn’t believe in in order to appease minority parties and independents, or conversely she could take her newly found desire for a Carbon tax to the electorate and see if the voters support it.

    There is no hypocrisy in Jeremy’s example of the Liberal party policy changes from 2007 and 2009 — or are we suggesting that a political party should never change its policies on anything from one election to another ?

    I actually can’t believe I’m defending the Liberal party here — but to accuse them of lying and hypocrisy over this is just ridiculous.

  8. Yes indeedy the word is “hypocrisy”.

  9. Julia should just come out and say it was a non-core promise. The Opposition will immediately apologise fo all the name calling and reassure her that they understand completely.

  10. Splatterbottom

    “2007, go to an election promising an ETS; 2009, change your mind and oppose it. Not lying?”

    That statement is factually incorrect. He didn’t oppose “it”. He opposed Labor’s ETS. Presumably the Greens opposed “it” for the same reason.

    Also, as Gavin points out the promise was about what a Coalition government would do. There was no Coalition government.

    OTH, BBB’s promise was “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. While it may be true that for all practical purposes BB leads this government, BBB is in fact PM and further, there will be a carbon (dioxide) tax under the government she leads. BBB made her promise a few days out from the election and she may well not have been in a position to form government without it.

    Clearly BBB is a cynical liar. She hasn’t seriously tried to put forward a plan for an ETS without a Carbon Tax. She hasn’t appointed a Citizen’s Assembly (another lie) to look into the matter. Instead she appointed a mouthpiece with financial interests in a Green energy company to propagandise for her and her Green overlords.

  11. It’s funny. The Liberals are determined to misrepresent the “no carbon tax” promise as a lie when it probably wasn’t (it’s not a lie if the person believed it at the time).

    The Left, on the other hand, is desperate to avoid an admission that the “no carbon tax” promise has now been broken, even though it clearly has.

    Personally I think the Left has the weaker position. After all while there actually is a chance that her critics were correct and the PM was lying when she promised no carbon tax, it’s a demonstrable fact that she failed to keep that promise.

  12. Who is “BBB”?

  13. Splatterbottom

    Bob Brown’s Billygoat

  14. There have been two classics from the Liarberals. The first was when Abbott was quizzed by Tony Jones on Lateline about a visit to see his mentor Georgie Pell just before the 07 election and responded with “no” he hadn’t been to see Georgie. Jones lead Abbott on a little more but Abbott still denied it. Right up until Jones starting mentioning times and dates at which point Abbott’s face dropped. He looked like a rabbit caught in headlights. You could almost see his mind ticking over. Will I maintain the lie or fess-up to lying through my teeth? In the end he fessed-up to a blatant lie. I’ll never forget the look on his face. But when you’re an Abbott type Catholic, you just pop off to the local Church, do the Father I have sinned bit, cop a few Hail Mary’s and the slate is clean for another round.

    Then there were the litany of porkies listed by Kerry O’Brien on The 7.30 Report when Abbott suggested we shouldn’t take notice of what he says off-the-cuff. He’s apparently quite unreliable in that context. Only take notice of his written prepared stuff. Seems that’s not much more reliable though, Phoney.

    What a two-faced hypocrite!

  15. “Also, as Gavin points out the promise was about what a Coalition government would do. There was no Coalition government.” -SB

    Well, that puts that argument in a bit of a pickle doesn’t it.

    There is no ‘Labor government’ either, it’s a Labor-Green-Ind coalition government.

    I guess ‘Juliar’ is off the hook.

  16. narcoticmusing

    I’m far to realistic to think you meant ‘billygoat’ as the last ‘B’ SB. It was a clear reference to the poster at the protest.

    Seriously, you need to reflect on your attitudes and behaviour. I hope you are a little more mature and civilised around your children, given that the author of that poster bragged his 11 year old daughter painted it and you seem just find and dandy with it all.

  17. Splatterbottom

    ‘Gadj, Gillard’s promise was made specifically in respect of the “Government I lead”. As PM she leads this government. Squirm all you like, Gillard is a liar.

  18. SB,

    Now you pickle your own argument.

    Haven’t you been saying that BB is the effective leader of the govt.

    Again, ‘Juliar’ is off the hook……….but that does presume a tiny shred of internal consistency in the voluminous nonsense that issues from your maw. Ha!

  19. Splatterbottom

    Narcortic: “Seriously, you need to reflect on your attitudes and behaviour.”

    Are you seriously saying that to someone who comments as “Splatterbottom”?

    My attitudes and behaviour are fine. If I get a bit too rowdy I apologise. I actually like the people here. I also like to have a bit of fun, and to have an argument. Given how hypocritical and cynical our politicians are I make no attempt to spare their sensitivities.

  20. ““2007, go to an election promising an ETS; 2009, change your mind and oppose it. Not lying?”

    Correct that is not lying, they didn’t win the election in 2007 so were in no position to implement an ETS”

    Um, no – every Liberal MP in the parliament won their own election. If promising something and then changing your mind is a “lie”, then all the Liberal MPs who voted against the ETS they negotiated with Labor are “liars”.

    Of course, in reality changing your mind is not a “lie” at all. It would only be a “lie” if she did not mean it when she said it – and there’s no evidence of that.

    In fact, the whole “Bob Brown forced her to do it” line completely contradicts the “Julia Gillard lied” line – you can’t logically have it both ways.

  21. Splatterbottom

    You are missing the point which was that the Libs did not promise to support Labor’s ETS. Neither did the Greens, which is presumably why they also voted against it.

    “the whole “Bob Brown forced her to do it” line completely contradicts the “Julia Gillard lied” line – you can’t logically have it both ways.”

    The fact that Gillard is supinely compliant to the wishes of her Green overlords does not absolve her from the responsibility of keeping her promises. However, it is well to understand the factors at play here.

    Gillard is happy to sell out her core beliefs on the hustings to get the votes her party needs. When she goes down in the polls she puts her conservative face on again for a moment and talks, for example, about the importance of bible stories. No doubt she also vaguely remembers her days with the Socialist Forum. Sadly her duplicity creates mental and moral turmoil within. She no longer knows what she truly believes and the Greens are playing her like a violin.

  22. narcoticmusing

    Gillard is happy to sell out her core beliefs

    And Abbott isn’t? Do you really think he believes in climate change? Let alone action on climate change? Equal rights for women? Immigration? A ‘nicer politic’?

    The Greens aren’t playing her, they are asserting the only consistent position out there. Both parties have accepted the Greens position and both parties are more than aware that they need to acknowledge the greens and work with them or die. Whether you agree with the climate science or not, the electorate has been pretty clear that they want action on it, so suck it up.

    Both the ALP and Lib Co are as bad as each other – rotten to the core both of them.

  23. narcoticmusing

    My attitudes and behaviour are fine. If I get a bit too rowdy I apologise

    SB, it is not the rowdiness or ‘spice’ as you call it that was the issue here, it was the implicit endorsing of calling a woman, our PM no less, a bitch. And more than that, Bob Brown’s bitch. The implications are entirely inappropriate and verge on misogynous (I’m not suggesting you are a misogynist btw but that sort of commentary and language is hateful of women). I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of your kids doing that so lead by example – ergo, reflect on your attitude and behaviour. If you didn’t intend to endorse such hateful expression, then there you go, you have reflected.

  24. And don’t forget that Abbott started out his leadership with his principled stand against tax (“no new taxes!!!!”), followed rapidly by his big new tax to fund the maternity leave plan.

  25. John Howard? GST? Anyone? Bueller?

  26. jordanrastrick

    I’ve pretty much always take a pretty poor view of anti-G20 protesters and the ilk who burn effigies and compare Bush to Hitler all that nonsense.

    I’ve always lost respect for any “progressive” mainstream politician who implicitly or explicitly endorses rhetoric at such events that goes beyond angry or passionate into disrespectful, hateful, or violent.

    These are some of the reasons I struggle to vote for the Greens at times, because they are not as quick to dissociate themselves from the rabid left as they should be.

    But SB…. you really do defend the behaviour of politicians at this rally? Do you endorse, not someone’s democratic right to call the PM a liar or even a bitch, but the Leader of the Federal Opposition standing in front of a sign that calls her Bob Brown’s Bitch? While the cameras roll? Will you set aside your provocateur mantle for just one instant and answer that question honestly?

    I don’t mean in the context you’ve already “flippantly” referenced the phrase here, where we’re a smallish community and all used to your tendency to add a little “zest” to your views. I mean, Tony Abbott went to a rally where everyone was screaming with rage, not in his student politics days or catholic priest days or activist days or whatever but as the Leader of the Opposition.

    And at this rally were lots of pretty inflammatory signs. And Abbott chose to stand at that rally, of that tone and atmosphere, in front of the sign – and yes, chose, no major politician attends such an event without their spin doctors scoping it out and authorising them etc etc – and now refuses to even give so much as one of those weasel apologies, “I’m sorry if people were offended as a result of mistakenly believing my standing in front of a sign calling the Prime Minister sexual-submissive slave of one of her minority government partners, uh, in front of national news cameras, I’m sorry if anyone took that the wrong way, and I personally don’t entirely support the particular view that Bob Brown is lying about being gay and violently forces Julia Gillard to sexually submit to him….” well you get the idea.

    He won’t even say that much. He doesn’t want to get to “precious” about this whole affair.

    You know what the phrase “X is Ys Bitch” means, its connotations, and why its vastly more derogatory than merely saying “X is a Bitch”. Do you need a reminder? It means X has sexually subjugated Y, usually by violence. Outside of the very niche context of consensual S&M circles, it is largely used by virulent misogynists to refer to rape fantasies about women, and in the context of the mens rape/violence hierarchies in mens’ prisons.

    You know that Abbott (and all his minders) has now had more than plenty of time to come out and say

    “I stand by what I said at the rally and I stand by people angry with the PM on this issue but I unreservedly condemn what that particular sign said, I do not support that language, it was not my intention to support or associate myself with that, and I apologise to anyone who had the impression that I did. We can and should be angry but that doesn’t mean we should ever use hateful language.”

    But he hasn’t. Because he doesn’t want to risk offending people who like to reduce the political discourse to “Bob Brown is raping Julia Gillard and that’s why you’re taxing us.” Because even those his minders probably HAVE told him that maybe he should apologise, he’s too pig headed and stubborn and on a roll with the polls and all that to listent to them. Because he’s Tony Abbott, and he’s smart and has a good grasp of many kinds of policy and some admirable values, and was an asset to the Howard Cabinet and would be in future; but he is completely unfit for the office of Prime Minister.

    Give me a liar who changes their mind when circumstances change over a puffed up fool who won’t admit an error of jugement any day of the week.

  27. I believed that Mr. Abbott was past anger today, he appeared to be consumed by hate. At stages he appears to forget where he was and that cameras were recording his reactions.

    The last woman who got under his skin so bad, he pursued to prison. (maybe Mr. Oldfield was his real target).

    The man has as history of being a good hater, but the question is does he only take on women.

    I re-watched the encounter in parliament and come to the conclusion that Mr. Abbott lost more skin than the PM.

    It was not a good show jumping up to complain when he and Mr. Hockey were heard with no interruption, except the Speaker pulling Mr. Hockey up for going too far. It was not a sight for him to be proud of, standing across the table, ranting while the PM was making her response. It was the Opposition Leader that set the tone of the debate.

    It was not a good show for the Opposition leader complaining the PM insulted him and demanding that she withdraw. The Speaker treated the request with the disdain it deserved.

    Mr. Abbott does not appear to comprehend the meaning of what he says. He does not appear to see to many, he is just being nasty by attacking the person. Mr. Abbott seems to be of the belief that if he says something, that makes it fact. He does not appreciate all he is putting forwarded is his opinion. Even to do this he cherry picks and takes words out of context. He is great for putting his own meaning on what is uttered or done. He does not appear to understand what is sexist and where women are concerned, they will not tolerate it.

    Mr. Abbott would be advise to work on that sulky smirk he gets when he believes he has done something clever. Clever but generally nasty.

    Before anyone pulls me up, this is only my opinion.

    Once again, Mr Abbott has said he is sorry some of the placards were a little overboard but as with Mr. Scott Morrison and Mr. Cory Bernardi, it was a false apology as he goes on to say, he knows why they do it. According to his reasoning. All bad behaviour is the fault of the PM. What he is really saying is that anything goes, as long as it gets him closer to his obsession of taking up his rightful role as PM.

    The PM is capable of looking after herself and is capable of giving back what she receives. This is why I believe she replaced Mr. Rudd. I believe we seen our PM as close to anger that she will ever allow herself to be. The PM was a long way from being out of control.
    Next time, and there will be a repeat of what occurred today, that the Government calls the Opposition’s bluff and allow the censure motion to succeed. I would imagine that the Opposition would soon run out stream, allowing the Government to reply to the accusations in a methodical manner. This would be better than allowing the Opposition to proceed with matter of public importance which is just another platform to trash the Government.
    …………..
    Mr. Abbott just does not get it. It is not just a few nasty slogans. Few including the PM would not worry if that was not all they were. There is plenty of evidence that the PM has a great sense of humour and can laugh at a joke made against herself. What the complaints are about is the sexist nature of many of the placards. Sensible woman have zero tolerance for sexist remarks, they are not jokes or nasty slogans.
    “Mr Abbott has told the ABC’s 7.30 program Ms Gillard did not raise the issue of an apology with him.
    “There’s no doubt that the Prime Minister’s ministers are trying to make a big song and dance about a few nasty slogans,” Mr Abbott said.
    “I really think people should stop being too precious about this.
    “And the Prime Minister, I think, is a tough enough politician who dishes it out to understand that sometimes you’ve got to take it back.”

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-says-he-did-not-apologise-to-pm/story-e6frfku0-1226027664751?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newscomaunationalbreakingnewsndm+%28NEWS.com.au+%7C+National+Breaking+News%29

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-says-he-did-not-apologise-to-pm/story-e6frfku0-1226027664751#ixzz1HWEFtZWB”

  28. So Julia Gillard changed her mind. In the words of Mr Rabid’s mentor, “It’s not a hanging offence.”

  29. PM Gillard has not sold out her core belief. What she has done is changed way she will get to a market based price on carbon, which was clearly announced during the campaign.

    This action was bought about by the fact that the voters delivered a minority government, This by the way is legal under the Constitution and Australia joins many countries in the world with similar minority parliaments as well as some Australian State governments.

    I could understand the outcry if the PM had said there would be no price on carbon and that they would not be addressing the climate change problem. This is not the case.

    As for the alleged lie, I believe it could have cost her votes.

    I believe many got the message that PM Gillard was backing off climate change, especially when she come up with the citizens group which thankfully was dropped quickly.

  30. notasgreen,

    “John Howard? GST? Anyone? Bueller?”
    I’m pretty sure Howard went to the electorate when he changed his mind on the GST.

    zoot,

    “So Julia Gillard changed her mind. In the words of Mr Rabid’s mentor, “It’s not a hanging offence.”

    In which case she should have called another election and got the approval of the voters before introducing a tax that she promised she wouldn’t.

    For the record, I’m not accusing her of lying here — I’m saying she broke her promise, there is a difference.

    And no, nawagadj, she is not off the hook, as PM she leads the current government — re-read her statement “” There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”

    Promise broken — QED.

    Um, no – every Liberal MP in the parliament won their own election. If promising something and then changing your mind is a “lie”, then all the Liberal MPs who voted against the ETS they negotiated with Labor are “liars”.

    Did they promise to support Labor’s ETS as part of their election campaign Jeremy, and are the Greens who refused to support Labor’s ETS also therefore liars and hypocrites – if not, why not ?

  31. I’ve always said that there should be an equitable remedy for broken electoral promises.

    If I vote for you on the basis of your promise that you will (or will not) do a thing then I should be allowed to withdraw my vote if you subsequently break your word.

    Otherwise what’s the point of democracy?

  32. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “ And Abbott isn’t?

    So you admit that the criticism of Gillard is correct and the only answer you have is to bash Abbott? Ad hominem arguments are illogical but at least they demonstrate something about the proponent.

    Both parties have accepted the Greens position

    No. One party assumes the doggy position at the sound of their master’s voice. Bob Brown has got dog-whistling down to a fine art. The Coalition rejects the Greens’ position

    The implications are entirely inappropriate and verge on misogynous

    Me? Inappropriate? Who knew?

    “Bitch” is a term widely applied to people of either gender and is commonly used to describe supine sell-outs – as when John Howard was described as Bush’s bitch. (In fact he was Bush’s Deputy Sherriff).

    I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of your kids doing that so lead by example – ergo, reflect on your attitude and behaviour.

    “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Seriously, I have nothing but contempt for people who hide behind children to score points in an argument. Truly you are a moralising nonce.

    Jordan: “you really do defend the behaviour of politicians at this rally?

    Jordan I didn’t notice anything objectionable from the coalition politicians. I think the KKK reference from the ALP dickhead was OTT.

    Do you endorse, not someone’s democratic right to call the PM a liar or even a bitch, but the Leader of the Federal Opposition standing in front of a sign that calls her Bob Brown’s Bitch?

    At demos the biggest clowns try to get in front of the cameras. The organisers tried to get the guy with the sign to move on. Abbott probably didn’t know the sign was there when he started to speak. A lot of people at the rally disagreed with that sign. Presence at the rally didn’t imply endorsement of every sentiment expressed there.

    My friends who attended the rally said it was good-natured and peaceful. They met decent intelligent people and had a good time. However, it comes as no surprise that MSM picked up on the ALP/Green government’s talking points and demonised the protesters.

    CU: “The PM is capable of looking after herself and is capable of giving back what she receives.

    Bob Brown had better watch out then!

    This is why I believe she replaced Mr. Rudd.

    What did she ‘receive’ from Rudd? She was his loyal deputy, no?

    In fact she replaced Rudd because she was an opportunist, beholden to the faction bosses, intent on living out her Lady Macbeth fantasies.

  33. Splatterbottom

    ‘Gadj: “And don’t forget that Abbott started out his leadership with his principled stand against tax (“no new taxes!!!!”), followed rapidly by his big new tax to fund the maternity leave plan.”

    notasgreen: “John Howard? GST? Anyone? Bueller?”

    There is a difference between saying one thing a few days out from the election and doing the opposite soon after it on the one hand and changing your mind but giving people the opportunity to vote in the knowledge of your changed policy on the other. The former is treating the voters with contempt whereas the latter is allowing the voters the courtesy of knowing what you intend to implement before they elect you. Sadly this distinction is a bit subtle for those who believe that the means, however disreputable, are justified by the ends.

  34. narcoticmusing

    So you admit that the criticism of Gillard is correct and the only answer you have is to bash Abbott?
    Nope, I was calling you out that you defend Abbott indiscriminately and attack Gillard regardless of circumstance or facts. And you know that, but as always are playing dumb as if you are channeling Abbott now.

    Secondly, I already have stated I think this was likely a break of a promise from Gillard, only that I understand that as a hung parliament, things don’t always transpire as expected prior to the election. Something some here don’t seem to have a grasp on. I also believe this was not inconsistent with overall Labor policy and thus the compromise could be seen as acceptable in that light. As we are yet to get the detail on the ETS, you are jumping ahead to assume it is something else.

    You seem to think that the PM is to blame for others bad behaviour – no wonder you constantly sew sexual references of Gillard being subjugated in your posts. Oh, but you shouldn’t be called out for that? Just because you’ve chosen to represent yourself as an asshole, doesn’t suddenly mean you are absolved from any criticism. Grow up.

    I’m not hiding behind ‘someone please think of the children’ I was asserting that, you of all people, as a father, should know better. Someone who isn’t a parent may have an excuse to not understand why that is so offensive, but you don’t. It is you who are hiding behind cliches in order to dodge facing up to your completely inappropriate responses. You can’t drop your pride for 30 seconds to admit it was inappropriate to refer to Gillard as BBB? Really? Is it that hard to admit that was wrong? That is on you, it is shameful.

    Abbott probably didn’t know the sign was there when he started to speak
    Oh please, they were jostling for who could stand there first. Regardless, either Abbott and his staff are completely incompetent because if he didn’t know that a massive banner like that is right behind him then he is a total fool OR Abbot didn’t intend it and couldn’t do anything to get rid of it so why then does he refuse to acknowledge it was inappropriate? OR (and more likely) he fully intended to stand there, as the footage shows and play to this crowd spreading more hate (in his best Catholic way) and play dumb later (which for him, isn’t hard).

    The rally was meant to oppose the ETS, there was no need for any of that crap. Abbott promised the electorate a nicer politic; all he’s done is sewn hate.

    SB and Gav – you’ve missed Jeremy’s point entirely. The ALP and Libs negotiated an ETS (ie the Labor ETS was agreed upon) that Lib Co agreed to vote in the affirmative on. Labor had to make concessions that the Greens wouldn’t agree to to get this ‘deal’ with Lib Co. They cap Turnball and suddenly backflip and renege on an agreement. Getting a new CEO doesn’t give a company that capacity, why should it for a party? There was a clear mandate from the election for the ETS. They are liars.

  35. “Opportunist, ”

    Why is this a negative, Don’t we live our lives taking advantages of the opportunities that arise. Sometimes we are able to make our own opportunities, but most coast along, grabbing whatever comes our way. It is a fool that does not take advantage of the opportunities that come their way.

    Yes, Mr. Brown and any other that see this lady of a pushover need to be aware of selling her short. Personally I do not believe that Mr. Brown does see her as a push over. Mr. Brown is a little unusual in that he sees no danger in surrounding himself with strong woman, which he appears to respect.

    What I do not understand why to operate in politics, that you have to be willing to expose yourself to abuse of all kinds. Why should women, who will no longer tolerate sexism in the home, public or workplace accept it in politics.

    It maybe news to some but it is possible to put forward an argument without abuse, bad language or yelling. It does take the ability to use the English language and have a belief in what you are presenting. You do not have to destroy your opponent to prove your point.

    I believe we have reach the point as civilised human beings that we do not tolerate or need abusive tactics in politics. We do not tolerate abusive tactics in combatant sports, why in public life.

    The same people who say this is the way politics is played need to learn bullying is not tolerated or accepted behaviour. The same people who say you need to have a thick skin to survive in public life, are the same people who throw up their hands in horror at bullying in the school playground.

  36. narcoticmusing

    Btw, SB… while we are on the topic of ‘there’s a word for that…’

    In relation to: So you admit that the criticism of Gillard is correct and the only answer you have is to bash Abbott?
    I refer you to your comment on the previous thread (The dog ate my rally), Splatterbottom | 24 March, 2011 at 5:11 pm | In which the only answer you have to my criticism (re calling Gillard a bitch) is to bash Bob Brown – isn’t it a little contradictory to do that and pull me up on it?

    So, using your own words:
    You admit that the criticism of [the protests] is correct and the only answer you have is to bash [Bob Brown]? Ad hominem arguments are illogical but at least they demonstrate something about the proponent.

    Note, you made that comment prior to pulling me up on mine – there’s a word for that… I think I liked your description though nauseating hypocrisy

  37. narcoticmusing

    Very well articulated CU. I note that people are often passionate about what they believe and thus their language can slip and/or their tone become aggressive. I certainly will have a heated debate with someone that need not impact on our friendship, why? Because it is all just view points, nothing personal. Particularly in politics, it is important to critique and pull people up on what they’ve said/promised/whatever – this is critical analysis of policy statements and is required. There is, however, no requirement for the sort of personal attacks we are seeing, particularly when they are discriminatory (in this case sexist and arguably misogynistic).

  38. God, I can’t believe people care so much about this trivia. (Well, I can if they’re blatantly using it for mindless partisan criticism.) Govts change their policies in response to changing circumstances – it’s called leadership. Argue the difference between “carbon tax” or “… price”, call it lying, who the bell cares? Decision made, suck it up and if you’re not happy, vote em out next time. The “economy” isn’t going to implode in two years.

  39. baldrickjones

    Basically what we are all saying here is that it is alright if you lie, just as long as we believe in the policy that you lied about. C’mon lefties, at least admit that much. If Julia didn’t want this policy, she had the option of another election. Basically Labor wants power more than anything else.

  40. Abbott probably didn’t know the sign was there when he started to speak.

    What makes you think that? Can’t see a hell of a lot of reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, I’m not usually a Liberal voter.

    A lot of people at the rally disagreed with that sign.

    From your post, you apparently weren’t there. How could you possibly know this?

    My friends who attended the rally

    Oh dear.

  41. “There is, however, no requirement for the sort of personal attacks we are seeing, particularly when they are discriminatory (in this case sexist and arguably misogynistic).”

    There was also unabated hate on the faces of many on the Opposition’s side. This I do not understand.

    Yes I can have lack of respect or even contempt for some in politics, but hate?

    To have hate for a person, I believe that you must first have love, trust and respect and that love, trust and respect has been violated.

    Yes you can be angry with a person, you may not agree with them but why hate. I might be looking back through rose coloured glasses but in the latter half of last century, there were many friendships form between people from both sides of the house.

    Today, those on the opposite side appear not to be able to remain in the same room. You do not see any interaction on any grounds between anyone. Would the new parliament house where everyone remains in their own domain, never the twain meeting be the cause of this.

  42. PM Gillard has not sold out her core belief. What she has done is changed way she will get to a market based price on carbon, which was clearly announced during the campaign.

    This action was bought about by the fact that the voters delivered a minority government, This by the way is legal under the Constitution and Australia joins many countries in the world with similar minority parliaments as well as some Australian State governments.

    I could understand the outcry if the PM had said there would be no price on carbon and that they would not be addressing the climate change problem. This is not the case.

    As for the alleged lie, I believe it could have cost her votes.

    I believe many got the message that PM Gillard was backing off climate change, especially when she come up with the citizens group which thankfully was dropped quickly.

    I firmly believe she had no intention of introducing a carbon tax, as up to then, Labor had considered and rejected the option early in the piece. In hindsight, it was a mistake.

    There were many who where relieved when Mr. Rudd failed, not because they did not want the legislation, but many believed it could and should be better.

    Mr. Abbott knows all this but prefers to peddle misinformation and half truths for his own agenda.

    There is a report by the Grattan Institute is being released that much of the money spent by the Howard, Rudd and Gillard government on carbon abatement has not led to a worthwhile reduction in carbon pollution.

    Oddly it has been the useless NSW Government that has the best results. This will underline to most people that Mr. Abbott’s Direct Action will and cannot succeed.

    Late Line a couple of nights ago interview Mr. Hunt, if anyone is interested, it is worth checking.

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3172045.htm

  43. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “ I’m not hiding behind ‘someone please think of the children’ I was asserting that, you of all people, as a father, should know better. Someone who isn’t a parent may have an excuse to not understand why that is so offensive, but you don’t. It is you who are hiding behind cliches in order to dodge facing up to your completely inappropriate responses. You can’t drop your pride for 30 seconds to admit it was inappropriate to refer to Gillard as BBB? Really? Is it that hard to admit that was wrong? That is on you, it is shameful.

    I don’t get what “the children” have to do with this. And what do you mean “know better” and “inappropriate responses”? There are few things that tickle my funny-bone more than to be lectured by a self-righteous humourless git such as yourself. In fact there is a place for analogy in arguments and Gillard’s supine behaviour is ripe for it. Sexual and other bodily function analogies work particularly well, being an area of expertise shared by most people. I am not the least bit ashamed of my prose in this regard.

    ” I refer you to your comment on the previous thread (The dog ate my rally), Splatterbottom | 24 March, 2011 at 5:11 pm | In which the only answer you have to my criticism (re calling Gillard a bitch) is to bash Bob Brown – isn’t it a little contradictory to do that and pull me up on it?”

    Yes. Fair point. The answer to your original question was that I don’t think the sign was that bad at all. It was making a legitimate point as to the influence Brown appears to have over the PMs policies, and no worse than the “John Howard is George Bush’s bitch” sign for a previous rally.

    It’s not the sexual innuendo that offends me so much as the hideous stuff seen so often from the left, like Crikey suggesting Obama name his dog “Trig the Bastard” (after Sarah Palin’s son who suffers from Down’s Syndrome) or the racist attacks on Condi Rice and Colin Powell, or Deveney suggesting that 11 year old Bindi Irwin needs to get laid.

  44. narcoticmusing

    I found all of your examples in your last paragraph just as awful as you did – which again is my point that it is all quite unnecessary. I have no issue with adding ‘colour’ or ‘spice’ or whatever but some of this abuse we are seeing from both sides is just ridiculous. To say it is the left or the right doing it is to be blind to one side just to attack the other.

    Although, I’d say that complaining about the offences and calling me a git (which has a pretty strong meaning that I’ll let you go find out if you don’t already understand it) is pretty hypocritical.

    I have a great sense of humour, I just don’t find your constant insults funny. I’d prefer it if you used wit instead of derogatory statements that continue the abject endorsement of violence against women – silly me, I just don’t find that hilarious at all.

  45. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, ‘git’ isn’t that bad – from wikipedia:

    Git is mild profanity with origins in British English for a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile elderly or childish person. It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker or arsehole.

    The word git first appeared in print in 1946, but is undoubtedly older. It is originally an alteration of the word get, dating back to the 14th century. A shortening of beget, get insinuates that the recipient is someone’s misbegotten offspring and therefore a bastard. In parts of northern England, Northern Ireland and Scotland get is still used in preference to git.
    The word has been ruled by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be unparliamentary language.

    The word was used self-deprecatingly by Linus Torvalds in naming the git source control package.

    “I’d prefer it if you used wit instead of derogatory statements that continue the abject endorsement of violence against women – silly me, I just don’t find that hilarious at all.”

    Good for you! I’d prefer it if you didn’t lie about me or imply I’ve said things I haven’t. I haven’t endorsed violence against anyone. Finally, if people decide not to take what I say in the context and spirit in which it is said, that’s their problem. I am not responsible for their stupidity.

  46. narcoticmusing

    Git means the bastard of a prostitute. I can’t help it if the oracles at Wikipedia don’t understand British slang.

    I don’t think I’m lying when I recall you refer to Gillard as BBB… and as it was explained, in case you didn’t get it, calling a person someone’s bitch means to sexually subjugate them with violence. That was clearly the intention of that poster, particularly with the nice touch of the fire to demonstrate that rage-filled violence. So, your use of that term continues the social acceptance of (and/or denial there is a problem regarding) violence against women. It is the leading cause of avoidable hospitalisations for women, so I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest a culture that is happy to ‘joke’ about sexual violence against a woman is a problem, including calling Gillard BB’s Bitch. I will, however, take you at your (implied) word that that was not your intention. This brings us back to our discussion on inappropriate language – a culture that says calling Gillard BBB is fine because it just means she is ‘taking it…’ oops we mean ‘doing whatever BB says’ is one that, perhaps unintentionally, is promoting that sort of attitude.

    Sometimes your context and spirit is obviously humerous or sarcastic. Many of us here see that. However, your context and ‘spirit’ is often without reason, harsh insults. I have thick enough skin to not take offence, I merely point out that I shouldn’t need thick skin just to have a debate or conversation.

  47. I’ve always liked the word “git” as a friendly insult, and had never heard narc’s definition before. It’s not the one on dictionary.com.

    I prefer to think of it in the light-hearted sense – a person being silly.

  48. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “I don’t think I’m lying when I recall you refer to Gillard as BBB… and as it was explained, in case you didn’t get it, calling a person someone’s bitch means to sexually subjugate them with violence. “

    You are entitled to believe that if you wish, but you can’t pretend to be a sentient being at the same time. All I can do is invite you to shove your opinion up your arse – shock horror more sexual violence! You jumped from BBB to bitch because you wanted to impute to me something worse than what I actually said even though I didn’t use the word “bitch”. That is fare more offensive than me calling you a git.

    I probably wouldn’t use the word “bitch” myself, but I don’t thing it is a big issue with it in this context. Maybe I’ll try it if the circumstances arise.

    Sexually violent imagery is more like wishing Sarah Palin to be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” as was suggested by one leftist. Palinophobes are like that – see also Letterman’s fantasy about Palin’s 14 year old daughter getting “knocked-up” by a baseball star.

    Saying that “bitch” necessarily connotes violence is just you making shit up. It suggests a submissive role, but there is nothing wrong with that – ask any bottom.

    “This brings us back to our discussion on inappropriate language – a culture that says calling Gillard BBB is fine because it just means she is ‘taking it…’ oops we mean ‘doing whatever BB says’ is one that, perhaps unintentionally, is promoting that sort of attitude.”

    “Taking it” is sexual imagery which perfectly matches Gillard’s supine political behaviour. I am not sorry if your precious sensibilities are offended. I despise self-righteous types who try to demonise others with their faux-outrage.

    The response to his rally highlighted the hypocrisy of the left. Bob Brown self-righteously demands an apology yet when there was a violent rally in Melbourne in 2000 Bob Brown said it sent a “positive message”. The response to the Canberra rally was a pre-planned attempt to demonise the protesters at a peaceful rally. Trolls like you busily started promoting the meme. Truly contemptible.

  49. narcoticmusing

    Again SB, you contort what I say and then accuse me of doing the same. I have said repeatedly that I don’t support either side using that sort of imagery – why is it you keep defending the right by using examples of the left? Both are doing the wrong thing. I have said more than once that I find both deplorable. You seem to think that the right are justified to do/say what they want because the left have done worse. I am sure the left could find even worse examples again from the right and then you can go find worse still until we have a ‘who is the worst protester’ arms race. I don’t care which ‘side’ did what – that is you who cares which side – I am just concerned about all the hate and violence in speech used by our leaders (and in this case, personal attacks against conotating violence against a single person when it should have been an anti-ETS poster), period.

    I also stated that I accepted it wasn’t your intention to promote violence agaisnt women; I was commenting on a culture that thinks it is fine and dandy to say that sort of thing – and political leaders that think it is fine to be associated with that sort of thing. Forgive me for looking at a picture bigger than just yourself.

  50. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “You seem to think that the right are justified to do/say what they want because the left have done worse. “

    1. I don’t think the single poster in question is all that bad in the context of a protest rally.

    2. The attempt at demonising the whole rally for the actions of a single protester was a cynical pre-meditated strategy which the usual ALP lackeys have latched onto: “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.”

    3. The point about the left’s conduct is not about justifying anything, but rather demonstrating the rank hypocrisy of the likes of Combet and Brown, both of whom have criticised the rally.

    “I was commenting on a culture that thinks it is fine and dandy to say that sort of thing “

    This is pure sanctimonious psychobabble. What do you mean by “a culture”? How do cultures “think”? Are there any other components of this culture you might turn your attention to? If you are trying to have a rule that there should be no more impolite placards at political rallies I disagree with you.

    This episode is trivial. It is best understood as political gamesmanship by leftists and their idiot stooges. That is far more corrosive of political discourse than one questionable poster. Truth doesn’t matter any more it is all just a power game.

    “and political leaders that think it is fine to be associated with that sort of thing.

    Please tell me what “hate and violence” on the part of our political leaders you are referring to.

  51. ” The attempt at demonising the whole rally for the actions of a single protester ”

    Single poster, well there was only one Bob Brown’s Bitch poster but there were HEAPS of “Ditch the Witch” posters and then there was the chant “Ditch the bitch” You trying to tell us that that was one protester?

    “The point about the left’s conduct is not about justifying anything, but rather demonstrating the rank hypocrisy of the likes of Combet and Brown, both of whom have criticised the rally.

    Show ud the posters they stood in front of.. C’mon, put up or shut up. You can claim that Abbott was unaware of the poster but I don’t buy it, he has handlers and media advisers. Tell us who he sacked for this stuff up?

    And the crux of Abbott’s argument is that Gillard lied, even if he’s right it’s rank hypocrisy coming from the bloke who told the nation that you can’t put any weight on anything he says, only if he puts it in writing.

  52. Splatterbottom

    RobJ, the fact is that Gillard did lie. All your ranting about Abbott doesn’t change that.

    And that rally was one of the tamest I’ve seen. Mainly sedate older folk, completely different from your usual violent leftist rally, like the one Greg Combet attended and Bob Brown endorsed.

  53. Palinophobes are like that

    Still prefer them to Palinophiles. Which are you?

  54. Splatterbottom

    RM, as in all things I am a creature of balance. Palin is not as bad as the haters make out nor as perfect as her worshipers seem to think.

  55. “the fact is that Gillard did lie”

    Yeah, Big deal… like I pointed out, Abbott does it all the time, why, all of a sudden do you give a toss. We all know you only care because she’s a lefty.

    “Blah lah blah COMBET blah blah blah BROWN”

    Show us the pictures SB, put up or shut up. I’m not going to rely on your warped, ‘the left’ are all evil and stupid recollections.

  56. Splatterbottom

    RobJ, I didn’t think you’d give a toss about Gillard lying or about Brown’s hypocrisy. Sad but true.

  57. SB, you still haven’t explained why you were dishonest, you claimed there was only one poster. Why do you make things up?

    Gillard? Don’t like her but I’ve always maintained that she isn’t as bad as the love of your life, the Goebbelian conservative Christian known as Tony Abbott.

    You can have a hissy fit about the term Goebbelian if you like but all that will prove is that you don’t understand the term.

    Oh, when are you going to post the pictures of Brown and Combet standing in front of mysoginistic posters adrressing a rally/protest/demo? Put up or STFU! :) You make claims you need to back them up.

  58. Splatterbottom

    RobJ Stop lying. I didn’t call the poster offensive. At worst it is questionable. The main purpose it served was as a fig-leaf to enable lickspittle lackeys like you to add their shrill moronic voices to the premeditated demonisation campaign.

    You can find the picture of Combet and Jennie George at the S11 rally in your own time. Likewise Bob Brown’s comment that the rally sent a “positive message”. If you’re too lazy to find the truth, I’m not going to waste my time feeding trolls like you.

  59. “RobJ Stop lying. I didn’t call the poster offensive.”

    Projecting? You’re the biggest bullshitter here!

    “You can find the picture of Combet and Jennie George at the S11 rally in your own time. Likewise Bob Brown’s comment that the rally sent a “positive message”. If you’re too lazy to find the truth, I’m not going to waste my time feeding trolls like you.”

    You MADE the claim, the ONUS is on YOU to back it up. Of course you could always STFU! ;) Either way, I’m not doing your leg work for you, It doesn’t bother me that you can’t back up your own claims.

    “I’m not going to waste my time feeding trolls like you.

    Awwww projecting just because you can’t back up your own claims… Awww diddums SB.

  60. I’m not going to waste my time feeding trolls like you.

    This is a left-wing message board where you spew forth your obsessional hatred of Teh Left on a daily basis, obviously getting your jollies when you get a reaction. You’re the troll here. You will always be the troll.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s