Signs you may have a political ideology disorder

Seano says:

11:06am | 19/03/10

It does sound like a scam, I wonder how strong the science is behind it all. Particularly since many followers of politics support their side like a football team. What next a ‘Newcastle Knights” disorder or a “Canterbury Bulldogs” disorder…actually that last one is a disorder I’m sure.

David C says:

10:36am | 19/03/10

Word to the left, if Julie Gillard is the best you got good luck

Me says:

09:03am | 19/03/10

Most people don’t understand that the political spectrum consists of more than just left and right. Somebody with socially liberal views will be branded as a “lefty” by people with no idea what they’re talking about, even if your economic views are actually right wing. Likewise, they think a social Conservative is always in favor of the free market, when quite often they advocate the opposite, a command and control style economy, handled by the government, protectionism, etc.

In Australia, and the US, people who are economically Right Wing and Socially progressive do not really have any real representation in politics. In the UK they have the Liberal Democrats I suppose.

Me says:

09:15am | 19/03/10

I might be wrong on the Liberal Democrats actually, To be honest I don’t really know much about the policies they stand on.

Politically incorrect Formersnag. says:

09:58am | 19/03/10

@ Me, you have obviously never heard of the “Australian Democrats” then. Or the AFP, DLP, etc?

http://www.democrats.org.au/

http://australianpolitics.com/parties/list.shtml

The second link has a complete list of them all i think, but don’t quote me on that.

Seriously anybody who would vote for either of the major mistakes has a problem. Try voting for a REAL minor party (a vote for the red/greens is a vote for labour) & then give your preference, only grudgingly to the least worst of the major mistakes. If more of us do this, then there will be, no more safe electorates.

Formersnag & Proud, Conservationist. says:

10:47am | 19/03/10

BTW, also little mention of AGW evangelists? Perhaps they could look at the survey results on increased electricity prices for an ETS. That was on “ninemsn” yesterday & this morning.

i am concerned about greenhouse gasses too, but an ETS, is the worst possible way of dealing with them. Giving “wall street” bankers another “gambling addiction” will only cause GFC 2.

Nathan says:

02:27pm | 19/03/10

My basic view is everyone should be free to do what they please, as long as doing so does not prevent anyone else from doing the same. Let me own a machine gun, but not take it to work for show and tell. Let me ride my bike without a helmet, out of the way of traffic, after being licensed and paying rego. Let me smoke, but let me not blow it in people’s faces. Let me choose a BMW instead of a Commodore. Don’t make import taxes decide for me. Let me decide who should enjoy the fruits of my labour rather than some bong-smoking lesbian single mother. Let her smoke her bongs and marry her girlfriend. Defend my liberties form others, but do not defend me from myself. That is all I want from a government, but no major party is selling that particular flavour of cordial. It’s a good thing there are lots and lots of other people to vote for.

Toby says:

04:32pm | 19/03/10

Nathan, you can afford a beemer but would still scab bongs off a single mother?  Shame (stroking finger pointing at Nathan).

Politically incorrect Formersnag says:

08:45am | 19/03/10

Somehow the ideology of fe"man"ism stayed off the list?

Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

David C says:

10:35am | 19/03/10

Singapore is not the ideal “democracy” to the right (I would have thought it would appeal to the left more than the right myself)
The attraction of Singapore is that ii has the rule eof law, that is why it works

Mark says:

10:48am | 19/03/10

Left:
9. Actually hate anyone that disagrees with you and disparage them as much as possible.
10 Think the truth is subjective and a means to an end e.g. Climate Change, Israeli attrocities
11 Often believe that anarchy and a stateless society is the ideal form of governance - see tribal life
12 Will use words such as denier or Nazi like they are actual descriptors and thinks a debate is ended when they claim something is settled or call you an “ism” or neo con or rationalist etc etc etc ad nauseum ad homien attack etc etc etc…well you get the picture.
13 Are constantly pissed off about, well, everything.

This is fun can we play some more please Seano?

James1 says:

11:30am | 19/03/10

In other words Mark and Seano, left and right political ideology disorders are basically the same thing.  I think you two have (perhaps inadvertently) captured the point of the article.  Good job.

And David, I know both left and right wing academics who believe Singapore-style democracy is just wonderful, albeit for entirely different reasons.  Go figure, I guess.

Seano says:

11:41am | 19/03/10

@Mark: I guess immitation is flattery so thanks for that.

@David: I can’t see how you could class Singapore as more left than right, but certainly the one party state idea was one Howard seemed keen to adopt.

@James: having lived in Sinapore I think those academics need to get out more.

Mark says:

12:07pm | 19/03/10

james1 you win, nailed it in fact.

That was my point. Poor Seano nearly got it but had to make it about him lol.

Same arguments and prejudices on both sides. It only gets annoying when you are reading/listening/seeing the “other” tribes mantra. Still it is not so bad just a bit funny.

And lol seano my boy. Had to stick it into Howard so lets keep playing. Do you not think Kevvie’s tactics of always arguing “if you dont do it my way the other choice is to do nothing” sort of makes him a bit one partyish, a bit of a, oh I don’t know, dictator? Toe the (Kevvie) line or you are out. that is all inclusive and engaging is it? Love to here your thoughts on that.

David C says:

01:09pm | 19/03/10

Seano I didnt class Singapore as being “left” I merely stated that I thought it would appeal more to the left as they crave the ability to tell everyone else how to live their lives.
Personally I don’t consider Singapore a democracy, I do believe it works though (I lived there for 3 years) and I believe that is more to the fact it has the rule of law.(and probably its size)
Having said that I dont want that system for Australia.

Seano says:

01:28pm | 19/03/10

@Mark: I forgot - Right
14. Like to pretend the are amusing and non-partisan.

@David: Of course Singapore is not a democracy, it is a right wing state hiding behind the pretence of being a democracy. I agree with you that the system works in as far as it all looks pretty on the surface and the trains run on time. But I heard many stories whilst living there about what happens if you get out of line, disagree or want change. I don’t think I’d like to live in a totalitarian state either.

Mark says:

02:24pm | 19/03/10

Hahahaha Seano
Left
14. Like to pretend they are intellectually and morally superior.

This is the funnest game ever (btw you are slipping into 12 but lets keep playing)

Nathan says:

02:27pm | 19/03/10

Seano, i’m not sure what you’re getting at. WMDs & Climate change(=AGW) are both lies. Us critical thinkers know this. Bush lied, so did Al Gore. Interestingly, it wouldn’t have mattered who won the 2000 election, because the US was always going to have a liar willing to declare war on a nonsense. Imagine Al Gore declaring ‘war on carbon’. Its no less insane than a war on an emotion.

Seano says:

02:42pm | 19/03/10

@Mark: I get that you think you’re funny.

@Nathan: Obvious WMDs were lies. But the bulk of climate change scientists say that there is a problem with global warming. The question that remains unanswers is how big and what if anything we should be doing. That both sides have played political football with such a serious issue is sad and disturbing.

Perth-Sing Expat says:

02:48pm | 19/03/10

I live in Singapore right now.  How anyone could think of it as left, or appealing to the left is comletely beyond me.  Democratic?  Well, it has many, but not all of the features of a democracy.  Of particular concern is the way the ruling party uses the tort or defamation as a tool to suppress opposition.  But most people here actually don’t care that they don’t have a genuine choice of government, because the one they have does a really good job.

But a state with extremely limited welfare, extensive prejudice based on race and sexuality, a fully functioning internet filter, a law against being nude outside of your bathroom and massively uneven distribution of wealth is hardly appealing to the left.  At least they’ve recently repealed the laws against oral sex.

Is it appealing to the right?  Well, I think a pure left/right distinction is a pretty useless way of looking at it.  I prefer to look at it from freedom vs control on both economic and social scales.  Singapore is economic free, and socially controlling, something generally associated with modern conservatism.  The traditional ‘left’ moniker is generally associated with economically controlling and socially free, so the left will hate it on both counts.  Personally, I’m Libertarian and like economic and social freedom.  Libertarians are usually tagged as ‘right’ because of their economic beliefs, but not being a conservative, I really don’t like some of the social controls.

That said, Singapore has something Australia doesn’t - efficient and effective government.  Taxes are low, but government service is good.  You email a question to a government department, you get an answer within 24 hours.  The place is clean, safe, and very easy to get around.  It has great cuisine from all over the world, and travel from here is very cheap.  Singapore isn’t perfect, no country is, but living here has been a refreshing change from the pandering interest group politics of Australia.

Seano says:

03:11pm | 19/03/10

@Perth Sing-Expat. Interesting read. I actually enjoyed my time in Sinapore too. But I did find it disturbing the way the government and media were constantly censuring the “opposition” without revealing what the opposition had said. That people I knew had armed police turn up on their door making threats after writing a complaint letter to the newspaper over an untended pot hole, that friends of mine had never voted in an election because their electorate was always a “walk-over” etc.

I think the price is too high and what happens if the government stops being relatively benign with no checks and balances?

Mark says:

03:16pm | 19/03/10

@ Seano. Damn man it didn’t take you long to fall into #9, 12 and 13.

I didn’t even try real hard.

And please. Do not bring science into the religious debate that is climate change. Science has no place in a debate about ideology and fantasy facts. It is in the metaphysical world of make believe we must travel to argue about AGW.

Seano says:

04:49pm | 19/03/10

@Mark - Right:
15. Thinks trolling is clever.
16. Typically has a poor grasp of Science.

Mark says:

12:09pm | 20/03/10

Well it finally came to this.

Sigh, Seano. All you have is personal attacks against me calling me a troll left in the locker. Typical reaction to any point not in agreement with your “obviously” higher moral and intellectual views. Why do you lefties always resort to indignation when when faced with a differing view and then resort to playing the man and not the ball as a matter of course? I thought you were actually a good sport for a while but I was mistaken.

And about the science. Please. My grasp is as good as yours at the minimum I bet. All you have just done is say “the science is settled” in a different way. Repeating a religious belief, an untruth or a fallacy does not legitimise it. It is the complete lack of investigation and critical thought that makes the whole AGW stuff scary as hell. Looks like the high priests have got you trained well Seano. Anyway carry on it was fun for a while. Now it is just sad.

Try to look critically at your posts Seano. You will note a worrying trend in them. Have a nice weekend.

Seano says:

02:57pm | 21/03/10

You haven’t at any stage offered a single point. All you’ve done thus far is offerered mimicry, ramblings about science and pontifcation in lieu of an actual point. And I’m worried? Ah yeah…ok.

Seano says:

10:16am | 19/03/10

Too true!
Both sides are imperative.

I laughed quite alot at this piece, and all the ridiculous characters (on both sides of the spectrum) that I have encountered over the years

H of SA says:

03:03pm | 19/03/10

This gets me thinking about the McBain movice “We are under attack from Nazi-Commies”

James says:

01:05pm | 19/03/10

It’s right wing nutbags like yourself who cheapen your arguments by using ridiculous titles like “Comrade Rudd”.

All you do then is push the left wing nutbags to start saying “Fuhrer Abbott” or something similarly childish and we perpetuate the cycle.

Grow up.

Greek Snake says:

02:02pm | 19/03/10

I actually didn’t believe someone like persephone (aka Julia) could have made such a mistake… THEN I checked the posts. Sure enough, there it is, in amongst other initiatives that Little Johnny created and Comrade Rudd took credit for.

I do like James’ response though. The left doesn’t like this finger pointing!

persephone says:

06:14pm | 19/03/10

Oh bummer, was I wrong about that one?

These things happen.

I did make it clear I was working from memory at the time…

Sorry, folks, I try my hardest not to make mistakes, but they happen.

persephone says:

06:48pm | 19/03/10

I have to say, however, that I find FrankieV’s post very touching.

I haven’t been on this site for three days and he’s obviously been obsessing about my error for all that time, just looking for an opportunity to slip in that I’ve made a mistake.

Three days!! That’s devotion, indeed.

And I’m not worried by finger pointing. Part of the reason I post here is to check my arguments before I sally forth into the wider world - I know if I’ve got something wrong, people like Frankie will spend three days checking it out and get back to me….and thus I will not make the same error in the open, as it were.

And no, I’m still not Julia, although I’m sure she makes mistakes too.

James1 says:

11:34am | 19/03/10

One example destroys an argument?  Have you been to a university campus lately, Troy?  The Socialist Alliance tents always have more attractive girls than the Young Libs do.  Well, that is a little misleading.  The Socialists have girls, while the Young Libs have young men wearing suits.

Tim says:

11:53am | 19/03/10

James,
sorry but you’ve gone too far there.
The left have better looking women but the socialists would not be among them.
Hairy underarms and unwashed hair does not an attractive woman make.

David C says:

01:33pm | 19/03/10

Dont you mean Catherine Deveny? (I think you got confused with Miranda Devine who is a right wing hottie)

Tom says:

01:38pm | 19/03/10

James, the Socialist Alternative women are in no way attractive. They are mostly poor, and have an extremely rudimentary grasp of personal hygiene. Attractive women have nothing to do with student politics.

I think former Governor of Alabama George Wallace summed up hippies best when he said: ‘‘You can shout all those four letter words at me, but I have two back that you’ve never heard of: w-o-r-k and s-o-a-p’.

Rocket Surgeon says:

02:33pm | 19/03/10

David C, you need a good lie down.

troy says:

01:50am | 20/03/10

James1,

The Two public figures I chose to compare, revels my age, so it’s been a while, since I was on campus. Sounds like you’re on the prowl trying to work out what group to ingratiate yourself with based on ratios of girls, or lack there off.  Free advice from a content older person, avoid the “world is so screwed up cause off xyz other wise I’d be happy” folks.. they never grow up happy. Go for the “what can I do that is a challenge and interests me” folks. In the long run what they (I)  do gives them satisfaction, with that comes skills, and sooner than you’d realize folks give you wacks of cash for what would otherwise be a hobby.
BTW I was never a young liberal, probably more of a socialist at hart that figured it’s quicker to make your own luck than wait for it to be made for you by complaining..

Dave I was refering to Catherine Deveny, but now you mention it I kinda like the considered way Miranda Devine talks and puts forwards a argument)

James1 says:

10:32am | 22/03/10

You have it wrong Tim.  The girls that hang around the Socialist tent are not poor downtrodden socialists, they are attention hungry rich kids who want to annoy mum and dad.  Real socialists are too busy holding action meetings, protesting Israeli policies, and running Marxist study groups.  The girls at the tent are the ones they use to draw in impressionable young men.

And troy - I work at a uni, and am purely an impartial observer.  In my spare time, I am a happy family man.

Seano says:

10:57am | 19/03/10

Your sense of perspective is out of whack if you think a LNP theif is less sinster than an ALP complainer.

(PS. Not supporting either action, just pointing out the obvious).

Dan says:

03:11pm | 19/03/10

What about children over borad, WMD’s in Iraq? These lies ruined (and in some cases ended) peoples lives!

Michael says:

11:52am | 19/03/10

(Quick paced speaking) “AuthorisedbyTonyAbbottLiberalPartyCanberra”

Jen says:

12:32pm | 19/03/10

The symptoms of right wing ideology disorder are:
9. Calling Kevin Rudd KRUDD.

Mark says:

12:38pm | 19/03/10

The symptoms of left wing ideology disorder are:
9. Calling Tony Abbott the mad monk

cwatididthar?

Greek Snake says:

02:15pm | 19/03/10

@Jen: KRudd started this phenomenon. Have you seen the way KRudd completes his twitter entries?

Infromed Giant says:

02:16pm | 19/03/10

The symptoms of left wing ideology disorder are:
10. Not being able to handle a different opinion than that of your own indoctrinated views.

(Authorisedbyanunaffiliated memberofthepublic)

get it?

Pixie Rudd says:

02:28pm | 19/03/10

9. Calling Howard, “the Rodent” or “little Jonnie”.
10. Calling Debnam (or Abbott) “budgie smugglers”.
11. Calling O’Farrell, “O’Barrell”.

Gavin says:

11:54am | 19/03/10

Ouch! I need some panadol for that sudden headache you gave me lol.

H of SA says:

12:02pm | 19/03/10

haha, its going to sound like a bowl of rice bubbles (snap crackle pop) of rusted on minds this election year methinks

Tim says:

11:59am | 19/03/10

Depends on whether you classify an Arts degree as a higher level of education.

JR says:

12:57pm | 19/03/10

No way. Its pretty easy to dispute that Jim. Just look at a ‘average income by area’ map against the electoral map. At least in SA anyway. The most affluent electorates are all Liberal (Bragg, Unley, Waite). The least affluent (Enfiled, Croydon, generally all the ones in the Northern/Southern suburbs) are safe Labor. Now this is just our state areas, but the same applies when these areas become the Federal Electorates (Mayo is the safest Liberal seat in Australia I believe, has affluent areas such as Stirling, Crafers, etc). And I think its failry well established that affluence and education go hand in hand. So as a general observation I am afraid it is not only wrong, but also the complete opposite of the case. They may claim being of the left, but when it comes down to when it matters, how they vote, they go conservative.

H of SA says:

12:05pm | 19/03/10

Oh and as for the term “latte-elite” does anyone else think that would be a fantastic name for a coffee shop chain?

We could start it up, get rich and ironically vote conservative because we want the lower business tax - while hiring young attractive lefties to serve the coffee-muhahahaha, let the evil plan commence….

Gavin says:

12:57pm | 19/03/10

What do we do when said lefties insist we only sell organic free-range coffee and not buy from companies that indulge in cage farming those poor coffee beans?

H of SA says:

01:51pm | 19/03/10

We agree with them, as selling organic coffee can help us market ourselves and win the anti-dollar dollar (we could even come up with some Che Guevera - commrade coffee flavour from latin America). We can then invest this money in some of the most exploitative and therefore profitable companies around the world…..

Simon says:

02:04pm | 19/03/10

Oooh, oooh I know this one.  I can answer by example: lets say someone has a good university education and yet doesn’t understand the concept of being educated beyond one’s intelligence.  Or maybe a person that, despite a good indoctrinat…I mean education, hasn’t even heard of the concept of being educated beyond one’s intelligence. It’s a quote from Brander Matthews (1852-1929) you know…I’m sorry, of course you didn’t.  He also invented the word “felch”.

Billg says:

07:10am | 20/03/10

Do go on Henry….  If the latter really are right wing girls I want all of those points elaborated on!

Simon says:

03:01pm | 19/03/10

You’re right about it being a quote not lending it any substance but I’m afraid you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself - the “unknown, unknowns” quote - I guess you attribute it to Rumsfeld, that’s cute - is, in fact, used in project planning and decision analysis to explain that any model of the future can only be informed by information that is currently available to the observer and, as such, faces substantial limitations with respect to unknown risk. 

It is very well understood by people that haven’t been educated beyond their ability to think.

iansand says:

03:03pm | 19/03/10

Poor Mr Rumsfeld.  Profound truth pilloried by brainless twits who call themselves journalists or don’t understand the concept of being educated beyond their intelligence.  I challenge you to express what he said more clearly and succinctly.  My explanation in parentheses.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. (Obvious)

There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. (Like the weather on 19 March 2016)

But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know. (Stuff beyond our imagination, expectations or experience.  Any example immediately removes the example to the second category.)

Mark says:

02:42pm | 19/03/10

Look who is holding the gun.

Peter says:

02:55pm | 19/03/10

Not sure if Mike Moore is a gun owner, but i know he is sickened by America’s gun laws. Mike Moore is a legend who walks around with his eyes open. The stupid thing about left/right wingers is the both think they are absolutely right. I’ll let smarter people than me decide this, but I think the extremes on both sides, bits here and bits there, is probably somewhere where the answer lies…

H of SA says:

03:11pm | 19/03/10

Mike Moore is indeed a gun owner. He legally obtained one on camera in order to show how ridiculously easy it was to get one.

Joe mauser says:

08:28am | 08/04/10

I have seen bowling for columbine, Mike Moore displays his trophy’s for the sport of target shooting , even a picture of him being presented with a prize for winning a competition from Charlton Heston himself. As for buying that rifle…he collected it on camera he did not tell the full story on the wait ect for collecting it , even in the usa you cant just walk in and buy a gun you do require a permit…only way you walk in/walk out is if it is an illegal firearm.

Willy K says:

03:21pm | 19/03/10

Since when has the right wing been more socially controlling than the left?

I think people are confused.  Right wing or ‘Liberal’ means free market and rights of the individual to choose his destiny. 

It’s the left that invented PC, sorry days, welcome ceremonies, collective bargaining and the nanny state.

Michael says:

04:14pm | 19/03/10

Completely ignoring the fact that Pro-Death Penalty, Anti-Abortion (anybody see the irony there?) and Anti-gay marriage are all Right Wing icons.

persephone says:

06:24pm | 19/03/10

You’re right about what ‘right wing’ is supposed to be, Willy K, but in both the USA and Australia it’s not what it is.

In both countries, right wing has become socially controlling - Howard, for example, overturned the right of the NT to set its own laws on euthanasia and banned sites which gave advice on euthanasia from the net. He also forced the flying of the flag at schools and the teaching of certain values which he defined as Australian (but look fairly universal to me).

In the USA, Bush made it a condition of funding for some health organisations that they not give advice on abortion.

‘Right wing’ shouldn’t mean over the top patriotic or the pushing of a particular brand of religion, but it appears to have become so in recent times.

Quite happy to say I don’t fit many of those leftist descriptors. Haven’t read anything by Noam Chomsky and scarcely know anything about him, for example. Don’t think governments should or could run everything, just essential services, particularly those which can’t be run at a profit by their very nature. Have given up on both Israel and Palestine, am pro world trade, and don’t particularly care if the net is filtered.
On the right wing descriptors: nah, don’t fit any of them.
So either the left wing descriptors are way off, or I’m a centrist.

YoungConservative says:

05:05pm | 20/03/10

I beg your pardon, the right wing parties of this country can hardly be called socially controlling (they believe in the liberties of the individual, within reason). Abortions are legal in some states with the appropriate grounds, i.e. socioeconomic factors. Gay marriage, it’s not that it isn’t allowed, it isn’t legislated for, and nor will it be for some many years to come. Compulsory censoring (something the coalition is against) the internet is hardly going to protect children, and the 99% of mature adults in this country should not be penalised. Whacky tobacco as you put it is dangerous, I don’t care if people only smoke it on occasion, it still is addictive, it still causes health problems (the bill to be picked up by the public system no doubt) in later life, and should be illegal. The conservatives like to maintain morality and decency in a society so rapidly different from 20 years ago, something I agree with, with no religious foundings. Being a conservative is a thankless task.

This whole do as I feel nature of the libertarians is riddled its way through today’s youth, and as a youth who was brought up with the ideals of hard work and effort for reward much similar to those of Thatcher, it is sickening to see how fellow university students receive their youth allowance, and drink it the next night, where as I have to earn my dollar before I decide whether or not this month I have a night out.

Furthermore young Labor followers don’t know a thing about policy, and when you want to discuss policy with them , they are aghast when I ‘discuss’ views completely opposite of their own. They degrade conversation to name calling, it is pointless attempting to discuss politics with followers of an opposite view or ‘doctrine’.
The notion that Liberal followers are ignorant is utter hypocrisy. Some I have met yes are a bit red-neck, but the hippies of the left are no better. 

I agree with the point of this article, I identify myself as a conservative or right winger however you put it, but don’t necessarily believe in all the philosophies of said side, but I wouldn’t call myself a progressive. I study proper science (Chemistry, not the wishy washy politically correct and agenda packed social sciences), and as apart of my training we are taught to critically analyse data. I believe I’ve made said judgements and that is where I stand politically.

persephone says:

11:45am | 21/03/10

Young Conservative, you are young, aren’t you?

Abortions are legal because of Labor governments.

‘It’s not that it isn’t allowed, it’s isn’t legislated for’ - what? So, if it’s not legalised, it’s illegal - that is, it’s not allowed. (Talk about spin!) My point was that, when attempts have been made to legalise gay marriage, the party of the individual has intervened to stop it happening.

If you’re banning marijuana on the reasons you cite, how can you justify the legalisation of tobacco and alcohol - both far greater killers than any ‘illegal’ drug?

As for the rest of your post, one of the things you need to accept is that to people who are welded on to a set of beliefs (whether these are left or right) anything anyone from the other side says automatically gets rationalised to suit their agenda.

People are ruled by emotion, rather than intellect (sorry) and the more intelligent they are, the more likely they are to be able to rationalise their party’s actions, no matter how inconsistent and contradictory they are.

BTW being a conservative and a libertarian are actually opposed concepts. In most countries, conservatives and Liberals are actually in different parties, with ‘liberal’ being seen as a dirty word to, say, Republican Americans.

That’s because maintaining the status quo and valuing the freedom of the individual are actually contradictory positions.

We only try and fit them into the same box in Australia because Menzies called his party ‘Liberal’.

cybacaT says:

11:39pm | 21/03/10

alf:  Yes - you’re right.  Homosexuality was officially listed as a mental disorder until not that long ago.  It took a   lot of money and a lot of lobbying to get the classification changed - and then it was a split decision won by the narrowest of margins.  Personally I’m not convinced that decision was right based on the evidence, but as we see with this “political disorder”, sometimes the facts make way for popular opinion (which can be bought and swayed).