US Constitution, but not the Bill of Rights

[Dante]

1) People like the Rand family will say things like they support the civil rights acts, but not parts of the acts. This to me seems like saying, you support the US Constitution but not the Bill of Rights.

2) On the other end you have people like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier @ USMB saying, one cannot say they support the troops, but not the mission.


---

1) Most things are compromises. I say compromises are successfully attained only when all sides agree to support the final result -- no ifs and or buts.

2) The problem with the second part of the above is not recognizing that support of the troops is not a compromise decision, but the mission can be and often is undertaken without a compromise. One man can define the mission after hopefully weighing all options. The mission can be won or lost. The support of the troops is not tied to the mission.

 

[Dante]

 

[caddis]

You can support the principles behind the act but not support the way it was enacted or interpreted...i.e. reverse discrimination....NOT hiring the more qualified white male because there was a less qualified minority available.


Title IX is another example. Everyone should support gender equity but Title IX levels the playing field by cutting male sports programs.

 

[Annie]

The Civil Rights Legislation is just that. It's not 'The Bill of Rights.' Now legislation should certainly be aligned with the Constitution, Bill of Rights included.

One can argue that legislation is unconstitutional, that is done regularly-it's one of the reason we have the judicial system.

 

[manifold]

I agree with and support the OP, but not parts of the OP.

 

[rikules]

1) People like the Rand family will say things like they support the civil rights acts, but not parts of the acts. This to me seems like saying, you support the US Constitution but not the Bill of Rights.

2) On the other end you have people like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier @ USMB saying, one cannot say they support the troops, but not the mission.


---

1) Most things are compromises. I say compromises are successfully attained only when all sides agree to support the final result -- no ifs and or buts.

2) The problem with the second part of the above is not recognizing that support of the troops is not a compromise decision, but the mission can be and often is undertaken without a compromise. One man can define the mission after hopefully weighing all options. The mission can be won or lost. The support of the troops is not tied to the mission.

"2) On the other end you have people like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier @ USMB saying, one cannot say they support the troops, but not the mission. "



The thing is....


when G bush the first was in offie and got involved in the gulf war cons like rush limbaugh and republicans all said;

"if you do NOT support the war then you do NOT support the troops...it is IMPOSSSIBLE! it can NOT be done!"

and I guarantee that daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier said "that's TRUE!!!!!!!!!!"
as did every moronicon in America.

however
when clinton was in office and got involved in that bosnian thingy the republicans had a closed door meeting from which they emerged and declared "we do NOT supprt the war thingy but we DO support the troops!"

and limbaugh immediatley got on the radio and explained how "you CAN support the troops even if you do NOT support the war"

and every con in America UNDERSTOOD how this was possible....no doubt, including daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier.

THEN.....comes bush the younger and the iraq thing and once again they FLIP FLOP and declare
"if you do NOT support the war then you do NOT support the troops...it is IMPOSSSIBLE! it can NOT be done!"

and once again deranged moronicons like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier FLIP FLOP along with all the other scumbag moronicons and understand just how "true" this is....

cons
what morons

 

[Dante]

1) People like the Rand family will say things like they support the civil rights acts, but not parts of the acts. This to me seems like saying, you support the US Constitution but not the Bill of Rights.

2) On the other end you have people like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier @ USMB saying, one cannot say they support the troops, but not the mission.


---

1) Most things are compromises. I say compromises are successfully attained only when all sides agree to support the final result -- no ifs and or buts.

2) The problem with the second part of the above is not recognizing that support of the troops is not a compromise decision, but the mission can be and often is undertaken without a compromise. One man can define the mission after hopefully weighing all options. The mission can be won or lost. The support of the troops is not tied to the mission.

"2) On the other end you have people like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier @ USMB saying, one cannot say they support the troops, but not the mission. "



The thing is....


when G bush the first was in offie and got involved in the gulf war cons like rush limbaugh and republicans all said;

"if you do NOT support the war then you do NOT support the troops...it is IMPOSSSIBLE! it can NOT be done!"

and I guarantee that daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier said "that's TRUE!!!!!!!!!!"
as did every moronicon in America.

however
when clinton was in office and got involved in that bosnian thingy the republicans had a closed door meeting from which they emerged and declared "we do NOT supprt the war thingy but we DO support the troops!"

and limbaugh immediatley got on the radio and explained how "you CAN support the troops even if you do NOT support the war"

and every con in America UNDERSTOOD how this was possible....no doubt, including daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier.

THEN.....comes bush the younger and the iraq thing and once again they FLIP FLOP and declare
"if you do NOT support the war then you do NOT support the troops...it is IMPOSSSIBLE! it can NOT be done!"

and once again deranged moronicons like daveman, the girlyman/boy soldier FLIP FLOP along with all the other scumbag moronicons and understand just how "true" this is....

cons
what morons

fair analysis