The Daily Wire: Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies?

#41 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:12 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 18 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

nothing like a bit of selective reporting, right? forget the Nats and the LNP did you? all members of the coalition? that's another 1.5 million votes you conveniently forgot.

legitimacy is not something that Gillard holds.


No I did not forget. I didn't mention the Greens either.

The fact is that when the dust settled the 2pp was in favour of Labor.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#42 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostHDMC, on 18 April 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

No I did not forget. I didn't mention the Greens either.

The fact is that when the dust settled the 2pp was in favour of Labor.


...
comment deleted
...

the greens and labor are not in coalition. libs LNP and nats are
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by lenxyz: 18 April 2013 - 12:37 PM
Reason for edit: Deletion - personal attack

0

#43 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

I am noticing, with great amusement I might add, the distinct lack of lies that Gillard has told.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#44 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 17 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Maybe you should learn the definition of 'lie'. breaking a promise, changing your mind or being factually wrong without realising it are not lies. Lies are the intentional and deliberate statement of something you know to be untrue at the time.

On these criteria, Gillard's oft-quoted remarks about a carbon tax are not a lie. In fact, on those criteria, you'd be hard pressed to find any remarks at all from Gillard that are demonstrably lies of any meaningful consequence.

Quote

If you are indeed at Law School, you haven't learned much yet.

Given that the right-wing apparatchik have insisted vehemently that Gillard's carbon tax remarks prior to the last Federal election were a lie, despite no supporting evidence, if that was a lie then this remark from Abbott must also be a lie.

You haven't learnt much about consistent application of rules.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#45 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 21 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostBam, on 18 April 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

On these criteria, Gillard's oft-quoted remarks about a carbon tax are not a lie. In fact, on those criteria, you'd be hard pressed to find any remarks at all from Gillard that are demonstrably lies of any meaningful consequence.


Given that the right-wing apparatchik have insisted vehemently that Gillard's carbon tax remarks prior to the last Federal election were a lie, despite no supporting evidence, if that was a lie then this remark from Abbott must also be a lie.

You haven't learnt much about consistent application of rules.


If I promise one thing unequivocally one day and then three days break that promise it is hard not to consider that the original promise was a lie.

But I think the funniest thing of all in this thread is watching the desperate labor supporters defining 'lie' in such a broad and inaccurate manner indicating that they seem unfamiliar with the meanings of words.

Gillard lies. Often. She is known for it. "I have not offered Bob Carr the senate seat" she says and then 24 hours later announces he is the new senator. She even lies when the matter at hand is not even important because... it is in her nature.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#46 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 23 April 2013 - 06:13 AM

Quote

Today the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott claimed that there were 20,000 more public servants than five years ago, while announcing his intention to cut the public sector. But CPSU National Secretary Nadine Flood called Mr Abbott out on his figures, which he keeps on using, despite being corrected on numerous occasions.

“Tony Abbott needs to stop lying about this. He and Joe Hockey are being creative with their figures and are including Defence forces personnel and army reservists. They are counting as public servants people who spend their weeks working in companies like Westpac and BHP and weekends being soldiers. They are not and both Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey know it. I have told them enough times.”

Ms Flood said that once Defence forces and reservists were stripped out the real figure was 2,746 more public servants since Labor came to power. In that time the total number of military personnel – both full-time soldiers and reservists - had grown by 10,346. And the population has grown by almost 2 million in that time.




http://www.cpsu.org....news/30623.html

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#47 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:03 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 21 April 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

If I promise one thing unequivocally one day and then three days break that promise it is hard not to consider that the original promise was a lie.

But I think the funniest thing of all in this thread is watching the desperate labor supporters defining 'lie' in such a broad and inaccurate manner indicating that they seem unfamiliar with the meanings of words.

Gillard lies. Often. She is known for it. "I have not offered Bob Carr the senate seat" she says and then 24 hours later announces he is the new senator. She even lies when the matter at hand is not even important because... it is in her nature.

Your unreferenced rubbish is not acceptable in this thread. You are required to prove your assertions, with citations. Don't like it? Stop posting unreferenced rubbish.

There has hardly been any substantiated examples of a Gillard lie posted to this thread, and your assertion that she is "known for it" is not supported by the facts. It's certainly a lot easier to find examples of Abbott lies, and the examples that have been posted to this thread are just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, actual substantiated examples of Gillard lies are noticeably harder to find which is why I'm hoping that right-leaning posters can help out here, by posting examples with adequate proof.

By posting unsubstantiated examples, you're not helping. Put up or shut up: post examples with citations.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#48 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:03 AM

I've asked you to provide your definition of 'lying' and you have declined. Normally one would just use the common definition and usage of such a term but it is more than apparent that you define it differently. So please, go ahead and define LYING for us all in your little universe.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#49 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:59 AM

Move those goal posts like a good little badfaith debater. You are transparent and useless at this shit, so why bother? Give it up.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#50 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:26 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 23 April 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

I've asked you to provide your definition of 'lying' and you have declined.

Because you repeatedly decline to provide evidence. Quid pro quo. If there's no quid from you, don't expect others to waste their time providing the quo.

Quote

Normally one would just use the common definition and usage of such a term but it is more than apparent that you define it differently. So please, go ahead and define LYING for us all in your little universe.

Why should I do this? It's a distraction from the discussion, and you consistently refuse to do me and others the same courtesy by providing any evidence to substantiate your points despite being asked numerous times to do so.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#51 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

View PostBam, on 23 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Because you repeatedly decline to provide evidence. Quid pro quo. If there's no quid from you, don't expect others to waste their time providing the quo.


Why should I do this? It's a distraction from the discussion, and you consistently refuse to do me and others the same courtesy by providing any evidence to substantiate your points despite being asked numerous times to do so.


Oh that's lovely!!! It doesn't get any more pitiful that that! In a debating forum you would automatically default by refusing to clarify a term that is central to your argument. Your inability/refusal to define 'lying' casts doubts not just on the value of your argument but on your own integrity. It really isn't that hard to define such a commonly used term. But thanks for playing the game... pity you shot yourself in the foot.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#52 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:04 PM

What is a lie?

Quote

What is a lie?

Lying is a form of deception, but not all forms of deception are lies.

Lying is giving some information while believing it to be untrue, intending to deceive by doing so.

A lie has three essential features:

A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true

There are some features that people think are part of lying but aren't actually necessary:

A lie does not have to give false information
A lies does not have to be told with a bad (malicious) intention - white lies are an example of lies told with a good intention


http://www.bbc.co.uk...g/lying_1.shtml


And from the University of Arizona - 'What is lying'

Quote

Abstract:
In order to lie, you have to say something that you believe to be false. But this clearly is not sufficient for lying. Thus, philosophers have proposed several additional conditions (e.g., that a liar has to intend to deceive, or that a liar has to warrant the truth of what she says). I argue that none of the conditions that have been proposed so far are necessary for lying. I argue that lying is saying what you believe to be false when you believe that the following (Gricean) norm of conversation is in effect: "Do not say what you believe to be false."


http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1601034

and from Standford University:

Quote

To lie =df to make an assertion that is believed to be false to some audience with the intention to deceive the audience about the content of that assertion.


and most importantly, from Bam: "If tony abbott says it, then it is definitionally a lie'
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#53 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

Quote

Tony Abbott likes to talk a lot about lies, it appears to be something he seems to be very familiar with.




-Wixxy
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#54 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

View PostHDMC, on 23 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:



So you aren't going to try and dig yourself out of your logical hole and define 'lie' either?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#55 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 April 2013 - 04:15 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 23 April 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

and most importantly, from Bam: "If tony abbott says it, then it is definitionally a lie'

I never said this. Stop pretending that I did.

You're treading on thin ice with this conduct. Misrepresentations of this kind are against the Forum rules, specifically Forum rule 3. Especially egregious is the placing of the material in quotation marks as if it is a direct quotation. This escalates the offence to the level of wilful misrepresentation and further misrepresentations of this kind will result in suspension without further notice.

This is an official warning.

BAM
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#56 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 23 April 2013 - 04:23 PM

View PostBam, on 23 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

I never said this. Stop pretending that I did.

You're treading on thin ice with this conduct. Misrepresentations of this kind are against the Forum rules, specifically Forum rule 3. Especially egregious is the placing of the material in quotation marks as if it is a direct quotation. This escalates the offence to the level of wilful misrepresentation and further misrepresentations of this kind will result in suspension without further notice.

This is an official warning.

BAM


Apologies for misrepresenting you as a quote. Of course it would make it easier if you did explain your position to me clearly eg explaining your definition of lying to me. You have an entire thread on lying so isn't it reasonable to expect an answer on that definition? In my opinion, you believe pretty much everything Abbott says is a lie. It is my opinion therefore not a misrepresentation. So how about you clear the air in this thread by giving a clear definition that we can both work with otherwise this entire thread is a waste of time.

Over to you...
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#57 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:20 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 23 April 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Apologies for misrepresenting you as a quote.

Apology accepted. Do be more careful in the future.

Quote

Of course it would make it easier if you did explain your position to me clearly eg explaining your definition of lying to me.

Much the same as you gave already. In addition, I also use and require evidence to back up any assertions and expect a consistent application of the same standards to both combatants.

Quote

In my opinion, you believe pretty much everything Abbott says is a lie.

Not at all. Otherwise he would be living out his days next to the truth teller and before two doors, one of which leads to the way out and the other certain death.

Quote

So how about you clear the air in this thread by giving a clear definition that we can both work with otherwise this entire thread is a waste of time.

Waste of time for you, perhaps, given the lack of substantiated lies posted so far for Gillard. The rest of us are on the same page regarding appropriate qualifications for mendacity, especially the strict requirement that any criteria be applied consistently.

Like it or not, it's actually been a lot easier to find examples where Abbott has told outright lies, or at least been loose with the truth.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#58 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:01 AM

View Postscotto, on 23 April 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

So we see Rabbott has put one of his lies on a billboard in WA.... More of the "refugees are illegal" gibberish.

Luckily for him it has already been corrected.

This post and subsequent posts on the topic of refugees has been moved to the thread: Refugees.

BAM
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#59 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:25 PM

View PostBam, on 23 April 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Apology accepted. Do be more careful in the future.


Much the same as you gave already. In addition, I also use and require evidence to back up any assertions and expect a consistent application of the same standards to both combatants.


Not at all. Otherwise he would be living out his days next to the truth teller and before two doors, one of which leads to the way out and the other certain death.


Waste of time for you, perhaps, given the lack of substantiated lies posted so far for Gillard. The rest of us are on the same page regarding appropriate qualifications for mendacity, especially the strict requirement that any criteria be applied consistently.

Like it or not, it's actually been a lot easier to find examples where Abbott has told outright lies, or at least been loose with the truth.


nice deflection as always. The accepted definition of lying involves deliberate deceit and knowing you are lying at the time of saying it. It is that definition that shows most of your argument that Abbott tells lies to be a failure. And the rest require you to know for sure that he knew at the time.

see, if you had the integrity to actually define lying you would never be able to make the idiotic claims you make.

but I don't really expect you to provide a definition. That would mean being balanced.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#60 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

View PostBam, on 01 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Date: December 2, 2009
Source: New Liberal leader Tony Abbott promises no new taxes, consideration of nuclear power (Herald Sun, published 3 December 2009)

Source: TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW (tonyabbott.com.au)

Then Tony Abbott breaks this commitment:

Date: 10 March 2010
Source: TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW WITH ISOBEL REDMOND MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA (tonyabbott.com.au)

That's a new tax, after earlier promising no new taxes would be a part of Coalition policy.



so tell me again how this is a lie? its a change in policy. A lie would require the December statement to have been made knowing fully that it was a lie. and obviously that is unknowable.

EPIC FAIL
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Fast Reply