Does anyone else understand what this big lie that supersedes the other one is? I'm nearly finished this transcript but that has me confused.
Where she admits she walked away from that commitment, that supersedes any trivial little point you're trying to prove about her previous intentions, if you were right she wouldn't have made that statement on Q and A.
Julia Gillard Before The Election said:JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.
It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.
In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."
This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.
While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.
You're grasping at straws trying to win points that don't matter, look at the big picture, she is a failure of the highest order surrounded by lap dogs who will support her.
Where she admits she walked away from that commitment, that supersedes any trivial little point you're trying to prove about her previous intentions, if you were right she wouldn't have made that statement on Q and A.
JULIA GILLARD said:Well, poor polling I'll - questions of polling I'll let other people talk about but I'm actually glad you asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to explain and I do want to talk to the Australian people about what I said in the last election. Now, I did say during the last election campaign - I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That's true and I've walked away from that commitment and I'm not going to try and pretend anything else. I also said to the Australian people in the last election campaign that we needed to act on climate change. We needed to price carbon and I wanted to see an emissions trading scheme. Then we had the election and the 17 days that were and we formed this minority government. Now, if I'd been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme. It's what I promised the Australian people. As it is, in this minority parliament, the only way I can act on climate change by pricing carbon it to work with others and so I had a really start choice. Do I act or not act? Well, I've chosen to act and we will have a fixed price, like a carbon tax, for a period and then get to exactly what I promised the Australian people, an emissions trading scheme. Now, when I said during the election campaign there would be no carbon tax I didn't intend to mislead people. What I believed then is an emissions trading scheme is right for this country. I believe that now and we will get to that emissions trading scheme.
I am grasping at straws? You sir have lost all credibility. When prompted, you can't provide any proof save a video without context on a side topic.
The crux of your original argument was that ABC is biased because:
1) They asked a survey question about work choices and this should not be done because the coalition said they won't bring it back.
2) They did not include the absolute negative (or positive) as a choice. Since you would have answered as such, this shows bias beyond doubt.
You have dismissed all arguments presented to you about about statistics and survey design. You have dismissed work choices as a topic that anyone would be interested in.
And I am grasping at straws? The question of Julia Gillard's government and it's performance is a separate one to the ABC being biased. If you wish to discuss that particular topic, there are other threads around. But at this point you have to provide some proof or logic to your argument apart from I believe that is the case and therefore it must be true.
Otherwise you should withdraw your complaint about ABC bias.
I refer you to the video, end of story.
I can understand your confusion. Her quote in full.
I concede that she provides a contradictory answer there but as I said earlier, I can independently provide proof that she did state her intention. This leads me to my belief above that it refers to the fixed priced period which she is on record as saying is like a tax.
Are you going to acknowledge that she did state before the election that she was going to implement a carbon price or not?
Sorry, you have real proof otherwise but I thank you for your input.
No she said she wasnt , see the video again and stop grasping at straws.
Read the transcript which is the complete response. She specifically refers to the fixed term period. I have highlighted it above.
Withdraw my complaint about ABC bias ? me and millions of others I resume you refer to.
Yes you're grasping at straws defending the worst PM in Australian history must drive you to desperate measures.
Let's see how you go on Sept 14th.
The response I'm interested in is the one where she admits walking away from her commitment.
Liar.............
The response I'm interested in is the one where she admits walking away from her commitment.
Liar.............
I can understand your confusion. Her quote in full.
I concede that she provides a contradictory answer there but as I said earlier, I can independently provide proof that she did state her intention. This leads me to my belief above that it refers to the fixed priced period which she is on record as saying is like a tax.
Are you going to acknowledge that she did state before the election that she was going to implement a carbon price or not?
Her commitment to what exactly?
Your highlighted section changes nothing, stop grasping at straws, it's still a lie.
That is because you have an agenda that does not require reality.
Enjoy your fantasy.
For everyone else, never rely on a highly edited video. Always check the source.
To not have a carbon tax, now I've wasted enough time trying to reason with people who can't believe their own eyes when they see a video, so lets leave it at that
Instead of going around in circles, in desperation, can you bother to string a sentence together and tell us exactly what you think she lied about and what she actually lied about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?