If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 08:37:06 AM
The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!
 
2011-09-21 08:37:10 AM

log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?


It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.
 
2011-09-21 08:38:24 AM

Karac: DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.

How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)


Shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
 
2011-09-21 08:39:47 AM

WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!


Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.
 
2011-09-21 08:42:39 AM

Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.


No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.
 
2011-09-21 08:43:48 AM
America is full of human garbage. What are you stupid assholes shocked about?
 
2011-09-21 08:46:42 AM
How come women get all these rights that I don't get?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:04 AM

DarnoKonrad: Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages


Yeah, great. Now the husband has to pay a dowry before he can go bang his 11-year-old wife

Why, they're practically Vermont over there.
 
2011-09-21 08:47:13 AM

Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.


Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....
 
2011-09-21 08:47:35 AM

liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.


And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:56 AM

MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.


Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures. The reason Europe doesn't get in fights about abortion is because they decided it through the legislatures, not the courts. In some European countries it is legal (uk, germany), others it is not (ireland & poland). It should not be decided by a treaty with the rest of the world, it should be decided in our state legislatures.

No one is falling for your shaming language anymore.

/1-10 says you pull the race card over states rights
 
2011-09-21 08:53:47 AM
US ranks 8th in Women's rights. OMG, we must sign this worthless treaty now!! And then we must continue to name post offices and government buildings!!!

Are Farklibs really upset about not taking the time to sign a worthless treaty? Would it truly expand the women's treatment in the US. We already have laws regarding women's rights, signing the treaty is redundant. Stop wasting time on useless shiat. There's more important things to work on at the moment.
 
2011-09-21 08:54:27 AM

Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....


They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.
 
2011-09-21 08:55:38 AM
[shutyourwhoremouthwhenmuppetsaretalking.jpg]
 
2011-09-21 08:56:16 AM

coco ebert: So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.


Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:08 AM

FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?


FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:10 AM

beta_plus: MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.

Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.


Actually, it's conservatives who tend to both have more kids and live in relative poverty. I wouldn't blame being conservative, however... they've been consistently lied to.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures.

I disagree. Civil rights are not up to mob rule. If there are rights to privacy and bodily autonomy, then the rest of society doesn't get to vote on whether someone can exercise their rights. But please, go ahead - argue that there are no such rights and that a woman has no "American sovereinty [sic]".
 
2011-09-21 08:57:31 AM

EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.


Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?
 
2011-09-21 08:59:09 AM

shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare


That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.
 
2011-09-21 09:01:38 AM

liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....
 
2011-09-21 09:01:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.


Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.
 
2011-09-21 09:02:59 AM
Clearly women's rights are being held back by a three decade old treaty failing to be ratified.

liam76: But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:14 AM
So lets see...

Its worthless so why bother, abortion bad, it will destroy our sovereignty, its only meant to harass the right wing, the classic "you let the right block it so you're just as guilty", and the guy who doesn't understand that it was already signed just not ratified.

The talking point dispenser must be on the fritz.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:41 AM

liam76: FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".


Wrong.

And our nation whined that they just couldn't get rid of all those land mines on the border between the Koreas that we have there. But we're one of about 6 nations that did not sign it.. mostly the few who still make them.
 
2011-09-21 09:06:00 AM

log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,


That's my favorite one.
 
2011-09-21 09:07:55 AM
This treaty can not be ratified. For if it is, after Bevets kicks his wife in the head with steel toed boots until emergency services come, after she emerges from the coma, and goes home to give him "one more chance": when he attacks her next, she will shoot him. In America, everyone has the right to self-defense except a woman who is knocking boots with the guy who has decided to kill her. And that's the way it should be, right Bevets?
 
2011-09-21 09:08:40 AM

shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?


"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.
 
2011-09-21 09:09:18 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


*There - grrr fark needs an edit button
 
2011-09-21 09:10:40 AM

liam76: FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?

FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.


The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.

And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:12 AM
Women will never be the equals of men. Ink on paper will never change that.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:15 AM

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


Heh...

Those poor put upon dears... First we've got hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Jay Leno trying to make these conservatives look bad and now the U.N. When will this oppression stop!?!

You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:16 AM

Methadone Girls: Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police?


Because they're going to kick your ass and get away with it.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:28 AM
Cr@p, I forgot the part where Bevets' wife goes to prison. My stupid comment above makes zero sense without that point.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:42 AM
Women are tools to be used in the US. This has been true forever and will never change. We are a nation of bigots and cannot be fixed.
 
2011-09-21 09:12:28 AM
Also, I have Bevets on ignore , people. I encourage you all to consider that option.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:06 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:16 AM

EWreckedSean: log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?

It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values.


Do you get a script of what to post here everyday? Why do you hate women?
 
2011-09-21 09:14:00 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.

Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.


No, if we sign it, we commit ourselves to removing the 155 mile long land mind field that protects South Korea from the North. That is basically the reason we refuse to consider it.
 
2011-09-21 09:14:29 AM

keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.


A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.
 
2011-09-21 09:15:20 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.


Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.
 
2011-09-21 09:17:25 AM

Aarontology: keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.

A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.


What a thousand 9/11s might look like:

www.mediabistro.com
 
2011-09-21 09:20:15 AM

EWreckedSean: illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.


Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.
 
2011-09-21 09:21:27 AM

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


It made me lol too.
 
2011-09-21 09:22:18 AM

serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?


You want an abortion?
 
2011-09-21 09:22:20 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.

Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.


Well I think their financial issues tended to be access to Iraqi oil.
 
2011-09-21 09:25:56 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?
 
2011-09-21 09:28:22 AM

Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?


I never suggested there was. If I had to guess, the real reason behind it was because the neo-cons actually thought they could easily establish a pro-American, secular government in the heart of the middle east to counter Iran in the region. I mean that's why we supported Iraq all through the 80s to begin with.
 
2011-09-21 09:29:09 AM

Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?


I think the implication is that you need a grandiose, noble reason to NOT invade.

/"It would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands" apparently not noble enough
 
2011-09-21 09:29:31 AM

serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?


There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?
 
2011-09-21 09:30:21 AM

FuturePastNow: The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.


For the first point, try "them" in the future.

For the second, fair enough. I believe it is part of a womens rights issue, but it isn't in a vaccuum.

FuturePastNow: And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like


When you claim it won't happen because "republicans are evil" make no peep about dems not doing anything about it in the past and make no complaints about dems not pushing for it, it doesn;t coem off as an honest critique over the issue.


shivashakti: liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don't let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.

I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....


When those people sign a treaty that lets them have access to technology they otherwise wouldn't have access to in exchange for not using nukes, then no it isn't hypocritical.


Aarontology: This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American


It is "anti-american" to ignore the history of the non-proliferation treaty, and pretend that US is demanding countries make no nukes unilaterally.
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report