The left this, the right that..

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

Left:
Equality among sexes
Recognising different genders exist
Social healthcare
Separating religion from government
Treating people equally
Environmental concerns

Right:
Business, markets, capitalism are most important
Money, if you don't have it, tough.
Conserving the status quo eg, no expansion for different genders, against gay marriage
Insularism (putting borders up, "looking after our own first")
Private healthcare, if you can afford it, you can have healthcare, its business.
No environmental concerns (it's all baloney - there's money to be made, now)
Keeping religion central to education, health, the system.

Boards has become frighteningly right wing these days. I dunno when that happened, but most of the time I can't be bothered to reply on a thread as I'll be drowned out.

I know for a fact that boards is not reflective of society as a whole (thank God!) but its a good time as any, to say, why are you freaked out by the left?

Because the modern left are a bunch of eejits with their heads up their ar**es, who will drag society backwards if they have their way.

Deleted User wrote: »

From my perspective, the left (while not perfect by any means) want society to become more inclusive, and try and focus on the individual being able to be an individual, while the right tends to generally care about money and possessions first, not wanting other people to recognise their own individuality, whether that be not recognising gender spectrum, or gay marriage for instance. They want to keep women down (the lambasting the #metoo movement is especially bizarre, as we all know women who've been harassed at one time or another)

So, what's the attraction to the right? What do you get out of it? What am I missing?

Your entire post is a lot of modern horseshyte about what right and especially being left means.

As someone else said you have totally neglected most of the actual things that meant someone was left leaning and replaced them with fooking identity horseshyte.

And the real right wing is not about being just pro private healthcare, but about being anti any type of state backed social supports for the sick, less well off and the poor.
It is about removal of rights and less state involvement bar in maybe security..

And you are exactly what is wrong with what sees itself as the modern left.

Nowhere did you mention state control of resources, state involvement in the provision of services, workers rights and workers protection, looking after the working class and not foisting competition on them from immigrants.


BTW if you looked at any state that was left leaning they tried to remove the individuals power to be an individual.
The focus was on society and being part of it.

And you no doubt label anyone not falling over themselves to let most of Africa or the Middle East move into Europe as a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

See, I'm not a fan of feminism of old, but I am a fan of modern feminism.

There's many different branches of feminism today and to me, to say you liked feminism of old, but detest today's feminism sounds like, I like the Beatles, but I can't detest literally all music brought out today.

Why do you not accept there are more than two genders btw? In what quantifiable, meaningful manner would accepting that, affect your life in anyway?

And even worse when you claim you only see yourself being a fan of modern feminism and not really what passed for feminism before.

FFS the feminists through the 20th century had the real fight to win parity in employment, in education, in politics, in marriage, etc and what you are fooking arguing about now is how many types of jacks they can possibly use. :rolleyes:

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Politics aside, I think there are some people on here - far more than most other places on the internet - who constantly feel compelled to express the harshest and most uncharitable opinion possible, whatever the topic. It's almost as if they see being 'nice' as being indicative of weakness, of being a 'cuck' or a 'soy boy' (just two terms I've seen being used, without a hint of self-awareness, on this very website). I've no idea whether the cure is lots of hugs or a good kick in the bollocks.

No, some people are just sick and tired of fookers (and that includes all those tax avoiding celebrities) thinking up new ways to spend their tax money on a bunch of undeserving wasters, home grown and imported.

I believe in helping those unable to help themselves not those unwilling to help themselves.

Deleted User wrote: »

No there isn't equality here.

We don't have equal amount of
Female/male electricians
Female/male nurses
Female/male teachers
Female/male members of boards
Female/male carers
Female/male stay at home parents
Female/male TD's

Is that your definition of equality ?

There must be equal numbers to ensure equality.
FFS I do despair where this part of the world is heading.

py2006

ELM327 wrote: »

modern feminists hate men, they hate transwomen, they hate other women that dont agree.
I'm all for equal rights but this thing of men hating is not on. If men discriminating against women is out of line then the converse should be true too

The problem is they can't get their heads around this. Only women are victims (of straight white men only nowadays apparently) so that means it is impossible for these men to be victims.

OMM 0000

jmayo wrote: »

Is that your definition of equality ?

There must be equal numbers to ensure equality.
FFS I do despair where this part of the world is heading.

I agree 100%.

Let's force men and women to do jobs they hate so some **** who works in a feminist organisation can justify her salary.

indioblack

Left is right and right is wrong.

Ipso

indioblack wrote: »

Left is right and right is wrong.

And every single issue is an either or.

Chris_Heilong

I used to think I was very liberal so put myself on the left, when I was young that meant the left were good and the right were bad but looking at where American politics has gone over the last few years(and what happens in the USA has a way to trickle into our society) I do not want to associate with those calling themselves left now, there are always extremes on both side but the extremes on the left seem to have highjacked the side so much that the crazies are taking over and nobody is putting a stop to them or even calling it out(very Emperor's new clothes syndrome as the movement on the left is out to destroy anything in its way). How I see it now is:

The left:
Base decisions on emotions
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas
anti-science (about sex and gender)
want to be seen as virtuous regardless of who they hurt
Victimhood mentality
collectivists
anti-free speech
Authoritarian
Violent protests
Hate the police
Anti marriage
want Big Government interference in their lives
Dont respect their past
obsessed with Power dynamics
obsessed with Race
anti-christian but pro any religion they do not understand
favour the minority over the majority
Label anyone that goes against them as sexist, intolerant, bigot or Nazi.

The Right:
Base decisions on logic
Tolerant when it comes to different races (but do not like illegal immigrants)
Intolerant of LGBT
mostly peaceful protests
Individualist
nationalistic
respect authority (police, soldiers)
want small Government interference in their lives
pro Free speech
pro Religion
Pro family unit
Proud of their past
Money is very important to them
favour the majority over the minority


The right actually seem to be making more sense these days and you need to go very far right before meeting the extremists, I wish I could say the same for the Left.

Ipso

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I used to think I was very liberal so put myself on the left, when I was young that meant the left were good and the right were bad but looking at where American politics has gone over the last few years(and what happens in the USA has a way to trickle into our society) I do not want to associate with those calling themselves left now, there are always extremes on both side but the extremes on the left seem to have highjacked the side so much that the crazies are taking over and nobody is putting a stop to them or even calling it out(very Emperor's new clothes syndrome as the movement on the left is out to destroy anything in its way). How I see it now is:

The left:
Base decisions on emotions
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas
anti-science (about sex and gender)
want to be seen as virtuous regardless of who they hurt
Victimhood mentality
collectivists
anti-free speech
Authoritarian
Violent protests
Hate the police
Anti marriage
want Big Government interference in their lives
Dont respect their past
obsessed with Power dynamics
obsessed with Race
anti-christian but pro any religion they do not understand
favour the minority over the majority
Label anyone that goes against them as sexist, intolerant, bigot or Nazi.

The Right:
Base decisions on logic
Tolerant when it comes to different races (but do not like illegal immigrants)
Intolerant of LGBT
mostly peaceful protests
Individualist
nationalistic
respect authority (police, soldiers)
want small Government interference in their lives
pro Free speech
pro Religion
Pro family unit
Proud of their past
Money is very important to them
favour the majority over the minority


The right actually seem to be making more sense these days and you need to go very far right before meeting the extremists, I wish I could say the same for the Left.

Sorry, that just shows the whole problem with tribalism. My side good, the other bad.

Brian?

Mutant z wrote: »

The likes of the IT and particular politicians just look at how they react whenever someone as much as suggests tighter immigration controls that says it all really.

The Irish Times?

What particular politicians? I challenge you to name names and produce quotes.

Brian?

ELM327 wrote: »

Liberal loonies like Merkel for one.

That’s comedy gold.

Angela Merkel. Leader of the Christian Democrat party. Leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union!

Is a loony liberal. Brilliant.

jmayo

Brian? wrote: »

That’s comedy gold.

Angela Merkel. Leader of the Christian Democrat party. Leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union!

Is a loony liberal. Brilliant.

She is an idiot who thought it a bright idea to curry favour with the chattering classes on the likes of twitter and facebook, and the celebrity causes championing types like bono, by issuing an invite to people to come live in her country.

She never thought millions from god knows where would trample across half of Europe to get there and that those same millions would include criminals, terrorists, uneducated misogynists and those unwilling to integrate into her country.

It was about as ill thought out and shortsighted an idea as one I saw discussed the other night about how a cash strapped British labour government thought it a good idea to sell their jet technology to USSR at beginning of cold war and that Stalin was actually serious when he said they would not use it for military purposes.

Sometimes I think a lot of political leaders really are morons, and that doesn't just apply to Ireland.

Brian?

jmayo wrote: »

She is an idiot who thought it a bright idea to curry favour with the chattering classes on the likes of twitter and facebook, and the celebrity causes championing types like bono, by issuing an invite to people to come live in her country.

She never thought millions from god knows where would trample across half of Europe to get there and that those same millions would include criminals, terrorists, uneducated misogynists and those unwilling to integrate into her country.

It was about as ill thought out and shortsighted an idea as one I saw discussed the other night about how a cash strapped British labour government thought it a good idea to sell their jet technology to USSR at beginning of cold war and that Stalin was actually serious when he said they would not use it for military purposes.

Sometimes I think a lot of political leaders really are morons, and that doesn't just apply to Ireland.

Does any of that make her a liberal. No it doesn't.

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

That’s comedy gold.

Angela Merkel. Leader of the Christian Democrat party. Leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union!

Is a loony liberal. Brilliant.

She was also the loony liberal who allowed unchecked immigration to the EU.
She can label herself as left, right, centre or anything she wants but unchecked immigration is liberal lefty bs

Brian?

ELM327 wrote: »

She was also the loony liberal who allowed unchecked immigration to the EU.
She can label herself as left, right, centre or anything she wants but unchecked immigration is liberal lefty bs

I’m going to break this down for you.

She didn’t allow unchecked immigration into the EU.

She doesn’t label herself anything. She’s the leader of a centre right Christian party.

Liberals aren’t left wing. Liberals are liberals. You just don’t understand what that means. I suspect it’s the influence of the yanks.

Merkel is not a liberal, that’s pretty objective. She may be a loony, that’s subjective. But using terms such as “loony liberal” really bring down the standard of debate.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I used to think I was very liberal so put myself on the left, when I was young that meant the left were good and the right were bad but looking at where American politics has gone over the last few years(and what happens in the USA has a way to trickle into our society) I do not want to associate with those calling themselves left now, there are always extremes on both side but the extremes on the left seem to have highjacked the side so much that the crazies are taking over and nobody is putting a stop to them or even calling it out(very Emperor's new clothes syndrome as the movement on the left is out to destroy anything in its way). How I see it now is:

The left:
Base decisions on emotions
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas
anti-science (about sex and gender)
want to be seen as virtuous regardless of who they hurt
Victimhood mentality
collectivists
anti-free speech
Authoritarian
Violent protests
Hate the police
Anti marriage
want Big Government interference in their lives
Dont respect their past
obsessed with Power dynamics
obsessed with Race
anti-christian but pro any religion they do not understand
favour the minority over the majority
Label anyone that goes against them as sexist, intolerant, bigot or Nazi.

The Right:
Base decisions on logic
Tolerant when it comes to different races (but do not like illegal immigrants)
Intolerant of LGBT
mostly peaceful protests
Individualist
nationalistic
respect authority (police, soldiers)
want small Government interference in their lives
pro Free speech
pro Religion
Pro family unit
Proud of their past
Money is very important to them
favour the majority over the minority


The right actually seem to be making more sense these days and you need to go very far right before meeting the extremists, I wish I could say the same for the Left.

You’ve made most of that up, to suit your own ideological bias.

The left:
Base decisions on emotions - Not true
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas - Not true
anti-science (about sex and gender) - Not true
want to be seen as virtuous regardless of who they hurt- Not true
Victimhood mentality - Not true
collectivists - Not true (libertarian socialists and anarchists)
anti-free speech -Not true
Authoritarian - Not true (libertarian socialists and anarchists)
Violent protests - some are, some aren’t
Hate the police - some do, some don’t
Anti marriage - are you actually for real here??
want Big Government interference in their lives - a socialist utopia has no government.
Dont respect their past - you’re taking the piss now.
obsessed with Power dynamics - Not true
obsessed with Race - Not true. Race is irrelevant
anti-christian but pro any religion they do not understand - anti all religions.
favour the minority over the majority - the complete opposite of what most left wing people belieber
Label anyone that goes against them as sexist, intolerant, bigot or Nazi. -you’ve made that up

The Right:
Base decisions on logic - except if they’re religious, then they listen to their imaginary friend in the sky.
Tolerant when it comes to different races (but do not like illegal immigrants) - some are, some aren’t
Intolerant of LGBT - some are, some aren’t
mostly peaceful protests - ha! What about the neo Nazis?
Individualist- mostly, apart from the far right
nationalistic- mostly, I see this as a negative
respect authority (police, soldiers) - unless they decide to riot over “free speech”
want small Government interference in their lives - unless it’s to do with reproductive rights
pro Free speech - as long as they don’t find it immoral.
pro Religion - most are. Which is a pity. What happened to that logical decision making you were on about earlier.
Pro family unit- as long as that unit conforms to the narrow definition they believe in
Proud of their past- some are, some aren’t
Money is very important to them - meh
favour the majority over the minority - who doesn’t?

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

I’m going to break this down for you.

She didn’t allow unchecked immigration into the EU.

She doesn’t label herself anything. She’s the leader of a centre right Christian party.

Liberals aren’t left wing. Liberals are liberals. You just don’t understand what that means. I suspect it’s the influence of the yanks.

Merkel is not a liberal, that’s pretty objective. She may be a loony, that’s subjective. But using terms such as “loony liberal” really bring down the standard of debate.

I'm going to break this down for you.


She allowed unchecked immigration. From middle eastern regions.
She then was forced to wade back on these changes after protests from within her own party, other right wing parties, and other EU countries like Austria.


I don't believe you should be so condescending and dismissive of factual statements around immigration.


Statements like " You just don’t understand what that means." and "I’m going to break this down for you."really bring down the standard of debate

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

You’ve made most of that up, to suit your own ideological bias.

The left:
Base decisions on emotions - Not true
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas - Not true
anti-science (about sex and gender) - Not true
want to be seen as virtuous regardless of who they hurt- Not true
Victimhood mentality - Not true
collectivists - Not true (libertarian socialists and anarchists)
anti-free speech -Not true
Authoritarian - Not true (libertarian socialists and anarchists)
Violent protests - some are, some aren’t
Hate the police - some do, some don’t
Anti marriage - are you actually for real here??
want Big Government interference in their lives - a socialist utopia has no government.
Dont respect their past - you’re taking the piss now.
obsessed with Power dynamics - Not true
obsessed with Race - Not true. Race is irrelevant
anti-christian but pro any religion they do not understand - anti all religions.
favour the minority over the majority - the complete opposite of what most left wing people belieber
Label anyone that goes against them as sexist, intolerant, bigot or Nazi. -you’ve made that up

The Right:
Base decisions on logic - except if they’re religious, then they listen to their imaginary friend in the sky.
Tolerant when it comes to different races (but do not like illegal immigrants) - some are, some aren’t
Intolerant of LGBT - some are, some aren’t
mostly peaceful protests - ha! What about the neo Nazis?
Individualist- mostly, apart from the far right
nationalistic- mostly, I see this as a negative
respect authority (police, soldiers) - unless they decide to riot over “free speech”
want small Government interference in their lives - unless it’s to do with reproductive rights
pro Free speech - as long as they don’t find it immoral.
pro Religion - most are. Which is a pity. What happened to that logical decision making you were on about earlier.
Pro family unit- as long as that unit conforms to the narrow definition they believe in
Proud of their past- some are, some aren’t
Money is very important to them - meh
favour the majority over the minority - who doesn’t?

I think you don't know the meaning of "right" vs "left", as the highlighted parts of your post have demonstrably shown.

Brian?

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm going to break this down for you.

Sound. Thanks.

She allowed unchecked immigration. From middle eastern regions.

She didn’t. She was behind a program of quotas.

She then was forced to wade back on these changes after protests from within her own party, other right wing parties, and other EU countries like Austria.

Did she reduce the quotas?

I don't believe you should be so condescending and dismissive of factual statements around immigration.

I wasn’t being condescending or dismissive, because they weren’t facts.

Statements like " You just don’t understand what that means." and "I’m going to break this down for you."really bring down the standard of debate

The debate was at rock bottom mon amis. Do you still maintain Merkel is a loony liberal lefty? Do you still believe liberals are left wing? If you do then your don’t understand what the word liberal means. That’s not condescending, it’s the truth I’m afraid.

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

Sound. Thanks.



She didn’t. She was behind a program of quotas.



Did she reduce the quotas?



I wasn’t being condescending or dismissive, because they weren’t facts.



The debate was at rock bottom mon amis. Do you still maintain Merkel is a loony liberal lefty? Do you still believe liberals are left wing? If you do then your don’t understand what the word liberal means. That’s not condescending, it’s the truth I’m afraid.

Lets bring this down to a granular level as you seem to be perpetuating this liberal trait of general condescension to anyone that doesnt support your views.


If a liberal is not left wing then what is it?

If you are aware of the origins of the terms "left wing" and "right wing" you will know they originated from the french parliament in the early 19th century. The left wing of the parliament supported reform and liberalization of the country from the monarchy and supported the establishment of a secular republic. The right wing were conservatives, supportive of the monarchy and the status quo.


The terms have become globalized and in common parlance left wing is perfectly acceptable as synonymous with liberal and right wing as synonymous for conservative.



With politics nowadays dealing with separate tranches of issues from social to economics and fiscal policies it's a little different as you can have people who are left wing/liberals when it comes to social issues like secularisation, LGBT and abortion, but are right wing when it comes to fiscal policy (eg welfare and taxation). I happen to fall into that bracket. Conversely you could have someone who was right wing on social issues but left wing on fiscal policy. This person would be opposed to same sex marriage but would support a welfare state, for example.


It's not as black and white as it was in the 19th century but to propose the idea that left wing and liberal (or equally right wing and conservative) are not synonyms in the political vernacular is quite frankly equal parts short sighted and to be honest a bit facetious.

Brian?

ELM327 wrote: »

I think you don't know the meaning of "right" vs "left", as the highlighted parts of your post have demonstrably shown.

What exactly do you disagree with?

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

What exactly do you disagree with?

Are you playing around now? I first of all highlighted the incorrect assumptions made in your post, then wrote in detail why I disagreed.

ELM327 wrote: »

Lets bring this down to a granular level as you seem to be perpetuating this liberal trait of general condescension to anyone that doesnt support your views.


If a liberal is not left wing then what is it?

If you are aware of the origins of the terms "left wing" and "right wing" you will know they originated from the french parliament in the early 19th century. The left wing of the parliament supported reform and liberalization of the country from the monarchy and supported the establishment of a secular republic. The right wing were conservatives, supportive of the monarchy and the status quo.


The terms have become globalized and in common parlance left wing is perfectly acceptable as synonymous with liberal and right wing as synonymous for conservative.



With politics nowadays dealing with separate tranches of issues from social to economics and fiscal policies it's a little different as you can have people who are left wing/liberals when it comes to social issues like secularisation, LGBT and abortion, but are right wing when it comes to fiscal policy (eg welfare and taxation). I happen to fall into that bracket. Conversely you could have someone who was right wing on social issues but left wing on fiscal policy. This person would be opposed to same sex marriage but would support a welfare state, for example.


It's not as black and white as it was in the 19th century but to propose the idea that left wing and liberal (or equally right wing and conservative) are not synonyms in the political vernacular is quite frankly equal parts short sighted and to be honest a bit facetious.

Brian?

ELM327 wrote: »

Lets bring this down to a granular level as you seem to be perpetuating this liberal trait of general condescension to anyone that doesnt support your views.

I’m not a liberal.

If a liberal is not left wing then what is it?

It’s liberal.

If you are aware of the origins of the terms "left wing" and "right wing" you will know they originated from the french parliament in the early 19th century. The left wing of the parliament supported reform and liberalization of the country from the monarchy and supported the establishment of a secular republic. The right wing were conservatives, supportive of the monarchy and the status quo.

18th century I believe.

The terms have become globalized and in common parlance left wing is perfectly acceptable as synonymous with liberal and right wing as synonymous for conservative.



With politics nowadays dealing with separate tranches of issues from social to economics and fiscal policies it's a little different as you can have people who are left wing/liberals when it comes to social issues like secularisation, LGBT and abortion, but are right wing when it comes to fiscal policy (eg welfare and taxation). I happen to fall into that bracket. Conversely you could have someone who was right wing on social issues but left wing on fiscal policy. This person would be opposed to same sex marriage but would support a welfare state, for example.


It's not as black and white as it was in the 19th century but to propose the idea that left wing and liberal (or equally right wing and conservative) are not synonyms in the political vernacular is quite frankly equal parts short sighted and to be honest a bit facetious.

Liberals are left wing one some issues and right on others.

The whole left/right paradigm is outdated and should be dismissed in my opinion. I was being purposely facetious, in the face of what I saw as a pointless argument.

upandcumming

Brian? wrote: »

You’ve made most of that up, to suit your own ideological bias.

The left:
Intolerant of diversity of Ideas - Not true

There is no group of people as intolerant as the left.

Boom_Bap

upandcumming wrote: »

There is no group of people as intolerant as the left.

what about people that cant drink milk, they are fairly intolerant.

Brian?

upandcumming wrote: »

There is no group of people as intolerant as the left.

What about the KKK or Neo Nazis?

s7ryf3925pivug

Brian? wrote: »

What about the KKK or Neo Nazis?

Good example - lefties are super-intolerant of neo nazis.

..that's pretty much the sort of crap spouted by the new trendy wing nuts I think. Vile trend, I think I actually prefer hipsters and metrosexuals to them.

Wibbs

Jaxson Fresh Silver wrote: »

You're being snide too - getting snarky with me for disliking feminism of today. I find it way too polarising and man-hating and depicting of women as victims.

I don't agree that there are any more genders than male and female - this is my opinion.

"In what quantifiable, meaningful manner would accepting that, affect your life in anyway?" It would mean pretending to agree with something I disagree with. Why does it bother you that I have different opinions?

Aye, I'd agree with most of that G. Though I'd personally think that there are three genders; male, female, intersex and three sexualities; straight gay, bi(asexual a fourth, though even there they tend to identify within the three others). That lot has solid research behind them. The 50 odd genders/sexualities does not.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Politics aside, I think there are some people on here - far more than most other places on the internet - who constantly feel compelled to express the harshest and most uncharitable opinion possible, whatever the topic.

It's most certainly not far more than elsewhere. I have read much much worse from all angles. The difference I reckon YD is that because this is an old style bulletin board where a divisive subject can get views from all sides, yay and nay, it's much more noticeable than in the general interwebs landscape of today where so called "echo chambers" are more in play. In Facebook/Whatsapp groups the consensus is well, a consensus, either because of only inviting like minded people in the first place, and/or blocking dissent if it comes up. In Reddit similar happens and even when dissent does show up it gets down voted so you're much less likely to see the contrary viewpoints. Here because of the linear nature of the conversations you see the contrary. For me anyway that's far more healthy an environment. People agreeing with me is good for the ego, but feck all use for the mind.

storker

Brian? wrote: »

The debate was at rock bottom mon amis.

Were you hoping to raise it with grammatically incorrect French?

ELM327

Brian? wrote: »

The whole left/right paradigm is outdated and should be dismissed in my opinion. I was being purposely facetious, in the face of what I saw as a pointless argument.

If it's a pointless argument why have you a) clicked into the thread, given that the title of the thread is the basis for this "argument" or b) continued it.


As Urban Dictionary is the one true source, I shall let it have my final say on this facetious and pointless debate.

Urban dictionary wrote:

left-winger
A Liberal who insists that their way of thinking or their politcal canidate (usually a democrat) would have stopped every bad thing that has ever happened to america, that everything would be fine if only a democrat would be in office to save the world. What happened last time a democrat was in office? O he just had an a affair with his secretary...thats not a bad thing is it?
Wow that left-winger thinks he knows everything.

s7ryf3925pivug

ELM327 wrote: »

If it's a pointless argument why have you a) clicked into the thread, given that the title of the thread is the basis for this "argument" or b) continued it.


As Urban Dictionary is the one true source, I shall let it have my final say on this facetious and pointless debate.

Clinton had great plans and was a third way centrist. His plans were bamboozeled by republicans, and he was ultimately knocked out of office altogether. On account of lying about adultery with a consenting adult. Not ideal, but pretty insignificant compared to the mountain of crap about Trump, or Roy Moore, or Kavanaugh... they can do what they like so long as they support the core aims of the republican party, and so long as the Republicans keep the majority.

GWB then took over, started a fake war at massive human and financial cost, that directly led to the foundation of Isis within prisons in Iraq, and greatly destabilized the middle east. Now we have huge numbers of refugees pouring in as a consequence, and the same people who are most dismayed by that are the ones who stick up for the people responsible for the situation.

rossie1977

It's interesting that we have many fans of the US Republican party on AH considering the closest party ideologically to them around this part of the world would be the DUP.