Keep Calm Abbott is not PM

http://on.fb.me/ipVbk8

• He will cut $70 billion worth of public sector jobs AND services
  
• He will give money to Corporations; costing us $1350 not $340 for climate action
  
• He will rip money out of health like the $2.2 billion he cut under Howard
  
• Work choices work choices work choices
  
• He will never support gay marriage
  
• He will cut the NBN and go back to dialup speed
  
• His refugee policy - shipping people to Nauru - out of site out of mind
  
• Abbott WILL increase funding for private schools

 

He's pretty hot with his shirt off though.

 

^^ From a female perspective... he needs to keep the shirt on.

 

When he is doing triathlons?? Plenty of guys have hairy chest and plenty of guys wear speedo's when they do sports like trathlons.

Have you seen Julia's earlobes?? I think she needs a burka.

 

Is this sarcasm? I think all these have been debunked fully as Labor fearmongering.

 

Please stop recycling old ALP lies that have been proven to not even be half-truths...

 

Why is:
He will cut $70 billion worth of public sector jobs AND services
a lie?

THE Coalition could shut down entire government departments as its searches for $70 billion in budget savings to fund promises for the next election, including up to $8bn in cuts to personal tax.

Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has told The Australian he is leading an opposition razor gang blitz on "big government", guaranteeing to deliver the budget to surplus in 2012-13 while also slashing tax collections and government spending...the Seven Network reported that leaked opposition documents showed the Coalition planned to slice $70bn from Labor programs.

Why don't you tell us what the truth is?

 

And as for this one:

He will give money to Corporations; costing us $1350 not $340 for climate action

Could you tell us what it will cost taxpayers for a Liberal government to achieve exactly the same emissions reductions as Labor, considering th eLibs to not intend taxing insudtry?


MALCOLM Turnbull says Tony Abbott's direct action plan could cost taxpayers $18 billion a year by 2050, declaring it's only "fair dinkum" to admit the scheme will be funded by the budget.

“The whole point of direct action is that abatement is funded out of the budget as opposed to being funded by an impost on emitting industries, who then pass it on to their customers in higher electricity or fuel prices.”

Costing the opposition's policy at a carbon price of $15 a tonne, a figure supplied by Coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt, Mr Turnbull said the plan would cost $2.1 billion a year to achieve a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.

Cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, as urged by scientists, would be a “formidable” objective, he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...gain-liberal-mps/story-fn59niix-1226059726470

Or is Abbott lying when he says he is committed to taking action on climate change?

 

AHA AH AHA AH snort AHAHAH!!!
The only people who have actualy lied is Juliar Dullard and Weasel Swandive and of course all their Labor minions doing as they are told.

Do you want me to give you a list of all the things various Labor leaders said while in opposition they would do or not do but didn't do or did do?

Like it or not, the Lib/Nat coalition has a far better record of good management in government than Labor.

 

Labor Governments over the years have been shown to be incompetent.

 

Incompetent, incompetent, incompetence. Great big new tax, tax, tax, incompetence, great big new tax.... blah blah blah. Say it enough times and you might just believe it yourself.

 

Well...................................................................................yeahh

 

So - are you saying that you think Abbott IS lying when he sats he is committed to addressing climate change?

The Lib/Nat coalition has a far better record of being caught telling lies while in government too:

"Nothing can alter the fact that I have in my possession an ONA report that states baldly . . . that children were thrown in the water." 8 November 2001

and of course:

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons." "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq"
4 February 2003

 

If thats the best you can do I'm not convinced. No-one really expected Syria to have a nuclear program so perhaps it went there. Hindsight is 20/20 and only the blind use it for looking forward.

 

No. Lying is lying.

"Nothing can alter the fact that I have in my possession an ONA report that states baldly . . . that children were thrown in the water." 8 November 2001

He had nothing of the sort. He lied

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons." "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq"
4 February 2003

The Australian Government had no such knowledge. He lied.

This is not about hindsight. He lied.

And we haven't even started on the AWB stuff yet....

 

Who is this 'he' you refer too with those qoutes? Who do you accuse of making these up? I thought kids were thrown overboard to avoid drowning and this context was lost in communication and government ended up believing kids were thrown overboard because it was what they were told. Just because no evidence of this has been found shouldnt be too suprising. So your big lie is something said he'd read it in a document when in fact the context didnt exist in the report, but rather existed throughout speculation and the media.... wow thats terrible of him.

Thinking the WMD in Iraq was a lie is childish, and there is no place for children in war. Iraq was always a deliberate strategic objective after 9/11 and WMD was about shifting the centre of gravity away from the CONUS to a military capacity local to the source of the threat. Fact is nuclear material and technology was being shipped to Syria right near Iraq, fact is Iran was well on its way with its nuclear program, fact is those 2 countries border Iraq, fact is Iraq had the remnant of its chem/bio programs and had a history of use, fact is the US was under a serious dynamic threat. They needed to take proactive steps to counter escalation. They couldnt use Afghanistan for this as it was always going to destabalize Pakistan and this needed to be limited. Iraq allowed the US to engage passionate mobile elements of jihadists on its own terms, emplace a military capacity in the middle of a region suffering increasing WMD escalation, remove a barbaric dictatorship and as a result reduce the likeleehood of attacks again on US soil, provide some extra protection to Saudi Arabia from's Irans nuclear ambitions and provide support for the complex operations in the difficult environment nearby in Afghanistan. You do not go into a war announcing your strategy to the enemy else they deliberatly avoid it, and so WMD was also information strategy of disinformation commonly called propoganda. Historically propoganda has always needed to secure from betraying too much important information, but that aspect in a globalised media age has been diluted and so people tend not to consider propoganda to have any real function which is then an enabler. Propoganda has always been part-truths and outright lies, but it exists as an important part of warfighting. So when people say WMD in Iraq was a lie it just makes them look stupid and ignorant, which is ok but don't expect history to remember it that way. People get smarter and a hundred years down the road the only thing they will remember is the cause of the conflict, the strategy of the conflict, and the outcome of the conflict. None of this popular disinfranchisment about people thinking they dont deserve to have to made to listen to lies even though they are proactive mechanisms to achieve strategic security, operational success and tactical survival of the troops putting their lives in the firing line so things like 9/11 dont happen more often and in more places.

 

John Howard

You are very much mistaken. He was told there were no children thrown overboard.

Howard said:
"The Government's position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice, and until I get Defence advice to the contrary I will maintain that position". - John Howard, Sunrise, Channel 7, 9 November 2001


Former Defence Advisor Mike Scrafton advised that he was lying:
KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you think that you left the Prime Minister in any doubt that no kids were thrown overboard?

MIKE SCRAFTON: I left him in no doubt that there was no evidence that there were no children thrown overboard.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1177955.htm

Howard lied and involved Australia in an illegal war:

"Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq; . . ." - John Howard, Ministerial Statement, before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons." - John Howard, Speech to Parliament before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003

These statements were both demonstratably false. There was no uranium. And the Australian Government didn't know anything. Ther certainly didn't know something that proved to be false.

He lied.

Making excuses for lies is childish. And when people say WMD in Iraq was not a lie it just makes them look stupid and ignorant, which is ok but don't expect history to remember it that way.

 

Yes, propaganda is common. You are full of it.

To distil the most rational bit of your argument, you are saying that after USA got hit and it needed to go destroy a couple of countries to show the world how tough it was so no-one dare attack it?

Looking at your argument in general...

One minute you are saying WMD's had nothing to do with it and that was propaganda, next minute you are saying WMD's was the cause.

"Fact is nuclear material and technology was being shipped to Syria right near Iraq" Did they find it? Any evidence apart from a blog? Why didn't they invade Syria instead?

"remove a barbaric dictatorship and as a result reduce the likeleehood of attacks again on US soil" But Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911.

"Iraq had the remnant of its chem/bio programs" - No it didn't. It was all gone. The US, to this day, have found NOTHING.

With regards to the big lies war, I have some questions...

How is the "plan" supposed to work?

When is America supposed to "win"?

How do they know when they have "won"?

When will they go home and stop killing people?


The commonly accepted version of what went on is that it is a money making exercise. They blanket bombed Iraq with US taxpayer funded bombs. Cheney has interests in Halliburton. That company was given the contract to go and take the oil, with the premise of using that money to rebuild the country and make a profit, of course. The oil is too hard to extract in the quantities they desired. The US taxpayer is copping the bill and their economy is being destroyed.

The whole thing is about money at the very least, shallow revenge at the most.

Nobody will remember the outcome of these wars in the future because there won't be an outcome. Who "won" Vietnam? These things will only be remembered as atrocious mistakes.

What a pathetic waste of human life.

And money - the thing that really bleeds a conservatives heart.

 

So they either used it all on the Kurds or hid it during tears of UN dithering.

And that to you is a good thing? Strange what people will accept as long as they get a hack shot at the other side, ey?

 

Howard said:
"Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq; . . ." - John Howard, Ministerial Statement, before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons." - John Howard, Speech to Parliament before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003

He lied.

Gillard was not the first PM to tell a lie. Yore hero Howard did it often. And Gillard is not the first PM to break a "non-core" promise. Howard invented the term.

After winning the 1996 Australian Federal election John Howard slashed spending on Education, Health, Social Welfare blaming a budget deficit left by the previous government. When it was pointed out that he had promised not to cut spending on these areas as part of his election platform and that he had lied, he claimed that these were "non-core promises"


Now, could you explain to us again why Gillard implementing her pre-election commitment to introduce a price on carbon is such a bad thing?

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term as part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...se/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000#ixzz1WPHQtDpj

 

Well, I guess if we turned the clock back 8 years your post might be relevant.

And considering your selective little snippet about Gillard…..

I rate you post 2/10.

Try harder.

 

Yea points for trying hard. Its not really relevant but didn't the ALP at the time also believe the intel saying WMD did still exist in Iraq?

The real problem in your oneeyed posts is you havent proved Howard knew they weren't there when he said that. All you've proved is that he didnt know the truth, not that he lied about the truth.

 

No. This was the Labor policy position at the time
We believe that Australian troops should not have been sent in advance of a UN mandate.

We believe the weapons inspectors are still doing their job and should be given the chance to finish it.

We believe in the authority of the United Nations Security Council to deal with issue of disarming Iraq.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044318605090.html

ie - they were opposed to an illegal invasion without the sanction of the UNSC. Just like the tens of thousands of ordinary Australians that marched in protest against an illegal invasion.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749876856.html

Howard said:
The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons.
The Australian Government knew no such thing, obviously - because it wasn't true. He did't say "..our intelligence indicates..." or some such thing. He said they "knew". They didn't "know" anything.

All of these parrots parrotting The Parrot's "JuLIAR" line seem to forget that their hero had a very poor record in that department too.

 

The UN? You do know how the UN works dont you....!! rhetorical question.

Your position is revealed as semantics, both sides of parliemant would have had the same content in their briefings. Unless you expect a politician to fly over and look at something personally they will always be going off someone elses information.

 

Nice subject change!!!

That is always a good move when you are proved wrong!

The Australian Government DID NOT "know" that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons.

That was a lie. Denying it is silly.

No - the Labor party policy was to not be part of an illegal invasion.
The Government lied about facts they did not have and involved us in an illegal invasion.

Big difference.