Not in the slightest, I am merely pointing out that your assertion of doom and gloom can be applied to slavery. Very different Republican and Democrat parties from what they are today, though irrelevant to the debate and irrelevant to me as I support neither. Here you go this might help explain how the parties basically switched around the turn of the 20th Century - http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
I'm sorry that you don't get it. There are only so many ways to explain it. I have tried to dumb it down as much as possible. If one of my students gave me this much trouble he would get an F.
You are playing the race card and you are doing it badly. You see, I know the truth about the long history of racism in the democratic party. The parties never switched and the democrats are still the party of slavery and racism. [video=youtube;2RBFOTdY1yY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RBFOTdY1yY[/video]
Those are the definitions of belief and rights. The source and significance of those beliefs are diverse. Jefferson's observation was that some of those rights are universal. That no matter where you go in the world, no matter who you look at ... there are some beliefs that he claimed all humans share. The right that they are entitled to life and liberty are two of them. This is why he claimed that belief is unalienable. You can't separate it from being human. Joe believes he's owed a free coke or social security. Every human believes he has a right to live. Whether you believe in gods or not is irrelevant. That universality demonstrates something different about the latter, these unalienable rights that are natural to man. How you want to value that difference is a personal judgement, but the difference is demonstrable. *shrug* I don't put much value in dreams. If I found every human being reported the same dream... I might think that particular dream deserved more consideration.
I'm a democrat! Where do I buy my slave ??? Wait, I'm a Democrat but , unlike Republican Anti-Choicers I don't want to FORCE women to breed like slaves.....Gee, it gets confusing...
The slaves laborers are the brown ones the democrats are importing by the millions to baby sit, do their laundry, cut their lawns and cook their fast foods. You know, the ones they don't pay their taxes on their salaries like Clinton's Attorney General nominees. But I forgot, this is a thread about the democrats religious rites of human sacrifice and we must pay homage to the cultists needs in the name of progressive women's rights. It's better to treat women like sex slaves than potential mothers to our children in the cult of liberalism.
Interesting you say that. Hugh Hefner is pro choice. He loves being able to treat women as disposable semen recepticles, and he loves it even more when women WANT to be treated as disposable semen recepticles.
You thinly veiled attempts to belittle me are noted and ignored for the irrelevance they are, and "God" help education if you are a tutor. I get it very well, you just cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support your illogical assertion of "God given rights" and so must resort to attempts to belittle others.
and ALL are man made. Not true. Except that is not true of many countries and societies. Except they cannot be unalienable if they can be taken or given away, to be unalienable then no other authority but "God" or nature would be able to take them away REGARDLESS of what the person has done, nor would a person be able to give them away. Yes they do, but belief is not fact. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that one’s life is protected by man made laws. Nope, not when a person is stating as a fact that there are "God given rights" Again they cannot be natural to man, nature has no morals ... The rights humankind have are bestowed by humankind upon itself, nothing to do with God or Nature. Rights are based on moral and/or ethical judgements, nature has neither. Sorry it is not, there is nothing natural about natural rights. Natural - existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind, by suggesting that man has natural rights you are implying that those rights exist in or are derived from nature, rights do not exist in nature, nature has no more thought of humans being better than earthworms, it makes no allowances for the fact we are humans. Give me one example of a right derived (obtained) from nature please. I didn't say anything about dreams, I said ideas.
I apologize for being snide. I do think I have made a rational and thorough explanation of my opinion. You seem to just be dismissing it out of hand intentionally.
I've already covered this extensively: http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/386881-myth-southern-strategy.html http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/398066-myth-southern-strategy-part-ii.html I think I have another specific to party switch myth but it's difficult to find.
A right is a belief that you are due something. A man is certainly separable from his head, and therefore his life. His right, his belief, is not his life. If every human being believes he has a right to live, the belief that he has a right to live is inalienable. Beliefs are real, even if what is believed is not. Whether God is real or not, the belief in God exists in this world. It has caused tragic wars and great kindnesses, it has changed all our lives. Whether an idea is true or not is a different question than whether it exists or not.
apology accepted. No I am not dismissing it out of hand, I am asking you to provide the required evidence to your assertion of "God given rights", so far you haven't given a single thing that is evidence to the existence of "God given rights" .. you have given evidence that a group of people believe in "God given rights", believing in something does not make it a fact.
Plenty of evidence that debunks your attempts to debunk that they did switch. http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/reversal2.pdf that is just three, there are many others.
No a right is "Morally good, justified, or acceptable" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right Except that it is not inalienable, war, execution and self-defence killings remove this so called inalienable right, even though inalienable means "Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor:" .. if it can be taken away for what ever reason it is not inalienable. My thoughts are inalienable, my right to life is not. highlighted above is an appeal to popularity, just because the majority believe something to be real does not mean it is. Beliefs are not real except in the thoughts of the indicidual. They are an acceptance that something exists within the thoughts of the individual. By your logic the beliefs of people who hear voices in their head telling them what to do are real and as such should not be deemed as mental issues. After all if beliefs are real then those voices from God/Devil, whatever, must be real voices from God/Devil, whatever. Ergo it is nothing but a belief in "God given rights" and as such cannot be stated as a fact. No, in order for something to be true based on a "thing" then one must provide evidence that that "thing" exists.
You're quoting from right, the adjective. A right is a specific noun. A right is not a mass noun or an adjective. Scroll down to the noun description, look at the second entry. A right is an entitlement. A belief that you are owed or deserve something. Your life can be taken from you, your belief that you are owed that life cannot. If all men believe they have a right to live, that belief is inalienable. That right is inalienable.
Right- noun - A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something Still does not show that a belief is a fact. and neither do ALL people believe they have the right to live.
Something can exist, whether or not it is true. A lie exists. The works of Shakespeare exist. Bohr's atomic theory exists.
According to the first one - They can't nail it down any closer to a 76 year time frame? Come on. That's stupid. Frankly, the democrat were liberals all along. And they didn't switch on civil rights until the late 1960's early 1970's. Even in the article he claims the GOP of the 19th Century was on the side of big business and banks and democrats were for farmers and laborers. Same as today supposedly. The second article is based on the same story from liberal UC Davis professor Dr. Eric Rauchway as the first article. The last gives dates between 1876 and the 1970's. So they can't even say when this switch happened either. Even though the republicans are accused of being pro-business way back in 1896 (and before frankly) and the democrats didn't become pro-civil rights until the 1940's (not true) to the 1970's, the parties switched ideologies? Well, the truth is the republicans have always been for for civil rights. We didn't have pro-slavery, pro-lynching, pro-Jim Crow, pro-segregation in our policies and platforms. The democrat did for 100 years. I'd like for you to tell me when did the switch happen?
All of the above are based on a "thing" or "things" that exist. The lie is based on what is spoken, written, seen or heard. If a lie is not spoken, written, not seen or heard would it exist? Shakespeare's works exist based on the written word. If Shakespeare had not written then down would they exist? I don't know enough about atomic physics, but I suspect even Bohr's atomic theory is based on a "thing" or "things" that exist.
So you seem to think that the switch happened "over night", when it actually happened over a period of years. all political parties move direction, usually within the constraints of their base ideology .. It happened in the UK with the Labour party under Tony Blair, he moved the party from a centre-left to a more central (some even say a centre-right) party, same goes for the Conservatives, during Thatchers leadership the conservatives were a right-wing party, leaders after her moved the Conservatives to a centre position, now under Cameron they are moving again to the right. It is not a wham-bam thank you mam occurrence, it happens over a period of time
