Hell just froze over.

[xxlt]

(02-19-2017, 09:08 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Are we talking classically liberal? Because if so you may have an argument. Progressives on the other hand, are about as far away from classically liberal as you can get without throwing people into gulag camps. 

But for SnG's I'll go through your list:

1. Defeat of fascism in WWII

Congrats. The Soviet Union was the biggest reason for the fall of Hitler. It's not like Stalin and his far left ideology went on to kill 20 million people (mostly his own citizens) but it's all good cuz he wasn't racist. People always seem to forget the important lesson here. Authoritarianism is bad m'kay.

2. Women's suffrage

"U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote."
http://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/19th-amendment

3. Abolition of Slavery

Again. Repubs.

4. American Revolution

That's about as classically liberal as you can get. I'll give you that one if you're talking about being classic liberalism, but we both know you're not.

5. Jesus

I didn't know you considered Jesus Christ to be a "fact", but good to know. Jesus loves you xxlt.

6. Aristotle

Feel free to read through this if you'd like, but I'd like to point out the title says "Aristotle's Political Theory" not "Aristotle's Political Fact"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/



Now I know this is coming, "but the parties switched!!!!" so here is my last thought. The parties didn't really switch as many like to claim. They evolved with time. Unfortunately both sides of the isle are rapidly evolving towards their own brand of authoritarianism. I hope for a day when we can go back to being classically liberal. Don't see it happening anytime soon though.

1. If you say so. And what happened to the Soviet Union?

2. OK. Thanks for the women's history moment.

3. Yep, good old conservative Repubs!

4. You know what you know. You know what I know. Do you know what you don't know? OK, I feel like I am channeling Don Rumsfeld, a man for whom I once had some respect, and it really creeps me out, so I am just going to stop. But, hey, "thanks for the gift." And be open to the possibility that you don't know what I am talking about, because, for the record, you don't.

5. I believe in the historical existence of the person referred to Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph - the guy in the Bible - that Jesus, not Quintana as much as I love that character). I did not know you did not believe in the historical existence of Jesus. Many historians seem to believe there was this historical Jesus person. So, they would consider his existence (though not his divinity) as much "fact" as the existence of Julius Caesar or Cleopatra. But since you seem uncomfortable with Jesus, you can chuck him off the board. He may or may not love me for giving that permission. The matter is of no great concern to me. Many figures about whom much has been written may also not be "fact." After all, we weren't there, so how do we know? As I often say, Jesus is just all right with me. But, in this case, we will let him go.

6. Oh come on, don't make me read it assuming "we both know" what you are thinking. I am sure I don't know what you think when you read that. What was your point? If you want to lump Aristotle with Jesus and Zeus, just cut to the chase and tell me. Or tell me your point if that was not it?

PS, you didn't know what was coming. I was not going to talk about party switching, or light switching, or House Party or House Party II. I also was not going to talk about the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, although I do think it was a good movie. But, thanks for practicing your telepathic powers on me and better luck next time on knowing what is coming.