I thought I'd start this thread so as people can add the proven lies here to show up either side.
The onlt stipulation I'd like to see is that what is posted here are proven lies.

I'll kick it off-
We have people on this forum like mel and lonerweekend saying the GREENS are giving all of their  preferences to Labor, thats a LIE
The GREENS are preferencing Labor in only 50 seats out of 150, and Liberals are asuming that GREEN voters are as stupid as them by following a how to vote card, most GREENS will make their own choice on who they preference including the GREENS voters in those 50 seats.

skippy. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 1:48pm:



Are they 50 marginal seats or rock solid labor seats?


It seems odd that the greens would waste paper printing how to vote cards for their supporters knowing full well that 'most' of their supporters have no intention of following the greens how to vote cards.  One might say it was environmental vandalism to knowing waste that much paper. 

Yawnz...  Sorry, I forgot my pillow.

mellie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Its on the GREENS website, do a bit of reseach for once.
Out of the remaining seats the GREENS as far as I know will be preferencing the Libs the same as Labor, deals done between the local candidates.
My local candidate is NOT preferencing Labor or the Nationals/Liberals.

skippy. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 2:16pm:


And as usual, you are wrong. the preference deals are primarily for marginal seats. why would either party seek preference deals in seats they either cant lose or cant win. its pretty obvious to most - execpt skippy.

Poor skippy cops a hiding every time.

He goes for his L-plates next week, but it doesnt look good for him does it when he hasn't read up or researched.

And dont forget the $100 million of interest that the ALP have incurred.
Guess the laborites like to conveniently avoid that one!


Oh and the rorts from the BER, guess the laborites like to conveniently avoid that one too!

Thats true longweekend.
Much the same as saying that just cause rudd cashed in the cheque made out to Howard doesnt mean that rudd has lifted a finger at all.
Besides as we all know rudd couldnt lift a finger a she had them jammed in his ear holes grabbing a feed!

Quote:



Bit hard as rudd/gilliard has already brought in a Great Big New Tax on ciggies and then there's the mining tax!
Oh and dont forget the ETS that they tried to swindle through.
SO yes, the ALP have already started the Great big New Tax!

Quote:



and still a vaslty better policy than Gillards 150-member climate change convention. Abbott's idea is viable while Gillards is a nation-wide joke!

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:21pm:


if you try and read what people are ACTUALLY saying instead of taking the extreme view you might have a hope of getting a better picture of people's opinions. YES, a stimulus was required. this single statement doesnt therefore imply that the labor stimulus was gold-plated perfect. the BER was a DISASTER of wasted money. $16.9B of money to obtain $5B of value. only a labor supporter could call that value for money. the insulation fiasco... stimulated the import sector and a small fillip to the funeral business. the bank guarantee was incompetetly managed by any understanding. The question on most thinking liberals is not the FACT of the stimulus but rather the size and where and when it was applied.

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:41pm:


It DOES confuse them, Ive found!

THE first thing to be said about Tony Abbott's critics this week is that they are liars.
Take Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Gillard's eager ears pricked up when she learnt that Women's Weekly, in a long profile this week on Abbott, asked the Opposition Leader what he thought of sex before marriage.

Hello, hello, hello.

You see, the Rudd Government has been desperate to exploit anti-Catholic bigotry in this country and paint Abbott as a papist who'd ban abortions if he could and force children to study Bibles.

Yes, really - that's how dishonest and vile its attacks have been.

But Gillard must have been disappointed by what Abbott actually told Women's Weekly, because I doubt there's a good father who'd have said much different to his own daughters.

Check for yourself. Here is every last word that Abbott, himself the father of three girls, said: "It (sex before marriage) happens ... I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question ... it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving, and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say."

Full stop. Read anything to object to?
No. And that's precisely why Gillard had to lie. (I am of course presuming she actually checked what Abbott said.)

Here now is what Gillard said: "These comments will confirm the worst fears of Australian women about Tony Abbott. Australian women don't want to be told what to do by Tony Abbott.

"Australian women want to make their own choices and they don't want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott."

You see immediately Gillard's big lie - albeit one of deliberate inference, rather than bald statement.

Abbott had not lectured Australian women generally. As he'd made clear, his was advice he would give only to his own daughters, and only if they asked.

Nor was he telling anyone "what to do" - not even his daughters.

He was only suggesting what they might consider when making their own decision. Not even to his girls did he preach against sex before marriage.

So Gillard lied. And she wasn't alone.

Predictably, the media repeated this untruth that Abbott had told all single women to keep their virginity.

Once again, many journalists preferred to reinforce their stereotype of Abbott as the "Mad Monk" rather than to tell the sober facts.

Even The Australian announced: "Tony Abbott urges women to save their virginity for marriage."

No, he didn't.

Age writer Gabriella Coslovich even fumed that Abbott's "nauseating" advice showed this "religious fanatic" was again trying to "lord it over" things, "be it land or a woman's body".

"Comedian" Fiona Scott-Norman, also in The Age, abused Abbott as a "one-time drug-taking, Vatican roulette playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male" and a "pompous tosspot" who was "telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age".

And the ABC's Jon Faine gleefully played a clip of yet another Age banshee screeching at Abbott: "Get your rosaries off my ovaries."
SUCH orchestrated lying about what Abbott said is the real issue, and at least Gillard did not make things worse by also lampooning the advice Abbott actually offered his daughters.

Indeed, how could she? What should he have said to his teenage girls instead? To sleep with the first drunk who asked, for all he cared?

You'd really have to be especially ideological, malevolent or clueless about parenting - and probably all three - to think Abbott's words so silly.

Alas, we have many commentators who tick just those boxes.

Academic Catharine Lumby, the gender-politics expert who for years taught National Rugby League players how best to ask women for sex, actually claimed Abbott's advice belonged to the days when women were "shamed and blamed for having a normal sexual appetite and behaviour".

(I think she means the days before NRL players had group sex with girls who then cried their eyes out on TV.)

Feminist Eva Cox meanwhile claimed he was "commodifying women by saying their sexuality was something to trade".

But no one was more vicious than our resident feminist ideologue, Jill Singer, who on this page likened Abbott to a terrorist ... and a paedophile.

His "tender appreciation of female chastity", she said, "would sit happily alongside that of ... Osama bin Laden".

What's more, Abbott's views were "icky" and "pervy", since "even metaphorically, it's kind of creepy for a prominent male politician to be rummaging around inside the underwear of young girls in search of political inspiration".

If I ran this paper I'd sack Singer for so foul and dishonest a piece of vilification. But when even the Deputy Prime Minister can so lie about a loving father's sane advice to a daughter, who can be surprised by a shoal of savage Singers swimming in that cesspool, too?

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:01pm:


Dont be an idiot - although it is a little too late for that.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:12pm:


which proves nothing unless you are willing to explain anything that Bolt said was inaccruate. but that would challeng you I think. Misinterpration of comments are a left-wing speciality.

For crying out loud skippy, stop using abuse and personal attacks, PLEASE.

You do not have to explain your frustration at reading longweekends posts, as they are some of the more "inventive" ones we have seen for a while, and they are so partisan that it beggars belief, but you can address them, without lowering yourself to just personal abuse, no matter how much simple a F you, may seem appropriate.

With the current polls building up their hopes and expectations, they are beside themselves with anticipation, which just means their defeat will hurt them all the more, when it comes.

I would like to point out the way the Liberals are twisting the truth about the $100 million borrowing a day we are doing.

The way the Liberals are saying it the Federal Goverment is only one borrowing all the money.

It's not only the Goverment borrowing the money it is everyone applying for any type of credit, eg banks borrow from one another all the time, Business using their overdraft, people using their credit cards, people applying for home loans, people getting interest only loans for a lot of different things.

The Federal, State and Local Goverments borrow money as well so the $100 millions are not all the Federal Goverment doings.

So when you Liberals post something tell the FULL STORY and not the half that suits your agenda.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 11:08am:



RESERVE Bank Governor Glenn Stevens has undermined one of the key Coalition election policy planks, declaring Australia has ''virtually no net public debt''.

As Tony Abbott was in Melbourne pledging $1.2 billion in spending cuts and a ''complete focus on getting debt and deficit under control'', the Reserve chief was in Sydney preparing to deliver a speech that countered some of the debt arguments point by point.


But in an unwelcome sign for Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Mr Stevens indicated the Reserve would raise interest rates at its meeting on August 3 - less than three weeks before the election - if circumstances required it.


Mr Stevens said the board would ''consider all the issues for the economy and do its job. What else do people expect?''


The key to whether there will be a rate rise during the campaign will be next Wednesday's inflation figures. Yesterday the RBA took the unprecedented step of nominating the underlying inflation figure that spells danger for Labor: 3 per cent.


The central bank wants to make next month's process as clear as possible, after apparently taking former prime minister John Howard by surprise when it lifted interest rates before the 2007 election - something it had not previously done during a campaign.


And while the bank says now it expects underlying inflation for the June quarter to come in below 3 per cent, it has made it clear it will not hesitate to lift interest rates if the figure turns out to be above 3.


Mr Abbott, meanwhile, said a Coalition government would withhold from the states hundreds of millions of dollars in promised infrastructure spending in order to get the federal budget back into surplus.


Announcing $1.2 billion in spending cuts, he also promised to take the knife to a range of government initiatives including former prime minister Kevin Rudd's proposed global carbon capture and storage institute, and his bid for Australia to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council.


Climate programs would be slashed by a total $345 million, bringing cuts in the area to more than $2 billion since the budget.

The Coalition would also scrap community cabinet meetings, saving $40 million over the budget period, and the number of Council of Australian Government meetings would be capped at two a year - down from four in each of 2009 and 2008.

And a Coalition government would insist that unions pay the full cost of running internal elections monitored by the Australian Electoral Commission, a measure worth about $25 million over four years.

''As every small business right around Australia knows, as every household knows, over the last three years there's been a lot of belt tightening,'' Mr Abbott said. ''If households and small business, if families have got to tighten their belt, it's only right and proper that government should be tightening its belt too.

''Debt and deficit is probably the critical issue of this campaign. The government is borrowing $100 million a day, every day, over the course of this campaign, debt will increase by $3.5 billion because of the spending spree of the Rudd-Gillard government.''

But Mr Stevens said that although higher public debt levels were ''largely unavoidable'' for major economies, there was ''virtually no net public debt in [Australia] at all in contrast to much of the developed world''.

''The most recent figures out of Canberra was a peak of 5 or 6 per cent of GDP. So far from that being the highest in history, it is closer to the lowest,'' Mr Stevens said.

Minutes from this month's Reserve board meeting, released yesterday, also undercut the Coalition's criticism of recent government spending levels, saying the stimulus made a ''sizeable'' contribution to the economy's recovery.

But shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said he saw no conflict between the Reserve Bank's view that public spending supported the economy and his view that it harmed it. ''The Reserve Bank's minutes are looking backwards, we are looking forwards,'' he told The Age.


The Reserve minutes also say the June quarter inflation figure is expected to be ''a little above 3 per cent'' on an annual basis when it is revealed next Wednesday.

But the minutes caution that this is not the figure to watch for the next move on interest rates, as it will be distorted by a one-off 25 per cent increase in tobacco tax.

Instead, the bank will watch the underlying rate of inflation, which it expects ''to be below 3 per cent for the first time in three years''.

Should underlying inflation not fall below 3 per cent, the Reserve will be minded to act. ''The important consideration for the board at its next meeting would be whether the new inflation materially changed the medium-term outlook for inflation,'' it said.

The one qualification, also spelt out in the minutes, is that the board will want to be sure conditions in Europe do not deteriorate.

That is from Queensland Country life

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/sorry-tony-no-debt-rba/1890766.aspx?storypage=1

If we got no debt like Glen Stevens is saying. Why then is Abbott saying Goverment is borrow $100 million a day?

||If we got no debt like Glen Stevens is saying. Why then is Abbott saying Goverment is borrow $100 million a day? 
Back to top   ||

Glenn stevens comment was most curious since treasury and labor both say we have over $100B in govt debt and a $50B+ deficit. His rationale for this statement was in comparison to other countries in that we ahve far less debt than most. but the day $100B is 'close to zero' is the day we order him back to primary school for a lesson on arithmetic.

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:24pm:



So you would never attack a poster with outragious lies for no reason other than you felt like it?

Good to know

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:24pm:


'Partisan' I wear with pride. POlitics is after all a partisan sport. but please dont think that partisan implies inaccurate because I am not. if you want to dispute me then do so but with some facts not opinions or ideologies.

try again.

Fair enough Skippy, I just prefer to see more inventive descriptions than the word liar, it just seems a little lazy.
I know that we are being inundated under a sea of right wing garbage as the Lib supporters are over excited with their premature self congratulation, but be the better man, and do not fall prey to the low blow, no matter how much someone may seem to be asking for it.

I just picked your post as an example, and I expect others have said far worse, but it is just a reminder for all of us, to keep our heads, and not really meant to highlight you as being the main culprit.

In another thread I had sprint have a go at me for a joke, and if it was someone new who did not know my sense of humour, I would have understood, but from sprint, it was pissweak.

Just because he is getting overly excited at the prospect of polls saying the Libs are in with a show, all the blood has rushed from his brain.

So, to everyone, and nobody in particular, try and play nice, if you are going to use insults, at least try and make them as inoffensive as possible, and a little entertaining, as we are not changing the world, let alone anybody's minds, with our opinions.

thanks mozzaok for trying to arrest some of the personal abuse here.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:06pm:


You are inundated with 'righties', but not for the reasons you seem to think. 'lefties' are terribly sore losers and as soon as it looks like they are going to lose then *poof* they are gone. us coalition supporters have remained in the fray debating policy over the last 3 years as we have a belief in ourselves and our party. labor supporters just drift off and disappear until they look like winning again. and if you want to do so, count the truly abusive posts and see which side of the argument they predominantly come from. you might not like the answer!

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:12pm:




Yes they even allow your absurd comments, untruths and lies.

SO there you have it 

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:16pm:

at least I post links to back up my story, unlike you who just runs the party line like the good little sheeple you are.

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:18pm:




Soooo where's the link to this one


Guess it's missing ...........oops no I found the missing link...skippy

skippy. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:18pm:



hmm I dont recall any!

So, to everyone, and nobody in particular, try and play nice, if you are going to use insults, at least try and make them as inoffensive as possible, and a little entertaining, as we are not changing the world, let alone anybody's minds, with our opinions.

- Mozza

An inoffensive insult???

Hmmm .. that could be a tad tricky lol      

Apparently Costello got away with an outright lie on births and deaths back when they were announcing the baby bonus!

Can anyone confirm or deny this?!!?