The Right To Win

Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one
seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their
ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have
been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but
outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama.
Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the
"glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a
ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was
that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the
slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the
votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there
would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does
any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White
House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a
right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter
rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining
what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists'
anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in
California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles--
not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA,
were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were
warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were
denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted
by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals
had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the
polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such
numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than
three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said "The Mormon
church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to
express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It
looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at
least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in
Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their
"gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel
no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we
got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s,
where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt
aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think-- and
awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that
mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to
obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are
willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate
intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far
any group will go.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma..._win?page=full

All OT.

On Nov 19, 4:27*pm, Chester wrote:

All OT.

http://tinyurl.com/lunw7

On Nov 19, 2:53*pm, wrote:
The Right To Win

Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one
seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their
ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have
been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but
outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama.
Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the
"glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a
ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was
that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the
slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the
votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there
would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does
any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White
House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a
right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter
rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining
what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists'
anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in
California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles--
not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA,
were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were
warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were
denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted
by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals
had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the
polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such
numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than
three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said "The Mormon
church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to
express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It
looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at
least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in
Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their
"gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel
no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we
got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s,
where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt
aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think-- and
awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that
mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to
obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are
willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate
intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far
any group will go.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...the_right_to_w...

I particularly enjoyed one of the blog responses to your second link.
I think it ridiculed the thesis of the book in exactly the correct
way:

"Actual political historians list five defining attributes of fascism:

1. Extreme nationalism

2. Racism/biological determinism

3. Militarism in both foreign policy and domestic social organization

4. Corporatist economics

5. Anti-leftism.


You know. Liberal stuff like that."

Quoting a book written by a political hack that endorsed Guliani is
hardly the way to "prove" an assertion. Try your own reasoning. But,
you'd have to have reasoning capabilities to do that, wouldn't you?

wrote:


Nobody is in favor of anarchy.

I am.

BTW: Fascism is the opposite of liberalism. If you hate liberals you
are with the fascists.