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)   Absurd: Senate GOP blocks UN treaty affirming the rights of disabled people. Insane: Because they said it was a threat to US sovereignty   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 302
    More: Asinine, Senate GOP, disabled, John McCain, Americans with Disabilities Act  
•       •       •

2488 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2012 at 4:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



302 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-04 12:55:25 PM
From Wiki:

There are eight guiding principles that underlie the Convention:

--Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons
--Non-discrimination
--Full and effective participation and inclusion in society
--Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
--Equality of opportunity
--Accessibility
--Equality between men and women
--Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities



Clearly, this was a sinister UN plot to use disabled people as a pawn to covertly force agenda 21 on us, and overrun America. thank god the GOP saved us from such a dire threat!
 
2012-12-04 01:03:35 PM
I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty. I've read the whole thing and participated in meetings to select language. I'm pretty sure it doesn't include anything in there that would allow the UN to take over America... sure, the middle eastern countries included some language about making sure the disabled were protected in occupied territories to see if they could make israel look bad... but that was moved from the treaty into the non-binding preable.

also the mid-east countries took out all the language about allowing people with disabilities receive information about sexuality (which was stupid because as a non-discrimiantion treaty it only asked that they be given the same information as their non-disabled peers. So if your country is run by a bunch of primitive prudes that provide zero information on sexuality to its citizens, you were free to do that for the disabled as well).
 
2012-12-04 01:09:14 PM

kbronsito: I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty. I've read the whole thing and participated in meetings to select language. I'm pretty sure it doesn't include anything in there that would allow the UN to take over America... sure, the middle eastern countries included some language about making sure the disabled were protected in occupied territories to see if they could make israel look bad... but that was moved from the treaty into the non-binding preable.

also the mid-east countries took out all the language about allowing people with disabilities receive information about sexuality (which was stupid because as a non-discrimiantion treaty it only asked that they be given the same information as their non-disabled peers. So if your country is run by a bunch of primitive prudes that provide zero information on sexuality to its citizens, you were free to do that for the disabled as well).


Glad to see some comments from someone who actually read the treaty.

It's a shame our representatives didn't.
 
2012-12-04 01:14:16 PM
IIRC, this was the issue that Rick "Frothy Mixture" Santorum was pushing them on. So they actually went full retard--again. Wow.
 
2012-12-04 01:16:36 PM

Today's reprehensible treaty rejection in the Sen. should put to rest any hope that the US will ever ratify a serious int'l climate treaty.

- David Roberts (@drgrist) December 4, 2012
 

:(
 
2012-12-04 01:17:30 PM

Cyberluddite: IIRC, this was the issue that Rick "Frothy Mixture" Santorum was pushing them on. So they actually went full retard--again. Wow.


Yeah, isn't this the one that Santorum brought out his disabled child to shill against?
 
2012-12-04 01:19:49 PM
Full signature/ratification stats

As usual, we are on a fairly short list, and it is mostly populated by 3rd world hell holes and other places that no one visits.

Great F'n job America.
 
2012-12-04 01:24:49 PM
From a Boston.com article:

"The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia"

Yes, you read that right - Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty. Yet, here are comments from our elected officials (and their masters):

''I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society,'' said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

"The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will ''raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference.''

"The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty ''would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism.''
 
2012-12-04 01:37:07 PM
Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions.

Go die. Seriously. Crawl into a farking hole and pull it in after yourself. Repugnant, vile excuse for a human.
 
2012-12-04 01:38:23 PM
I hope a very large rock falls on Jim Inhofe's nuts.
 
2012-12-04 01:39:15 PM
For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

Nays - 38
Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
 
2012-12-04 01:49:47 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: From a Boston.com article:

language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will ''raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference.''



Quite the opposite. That language is meant to keep the disabled from a) being denied reproductive health care because they (and their potentially disabled offspring) are not worth the investment or b) being forced to have an abortion because they are not considered able to care for a child or c) being forcibly sterilized for the same reasons
 
2012-12-04 02:03:41 PM
Still f*cking that teabagger chicken.

Good luck with that, assholes.
 
2012-12-04 02:05:41 PM
damn, Rob Portman voted against it. farking retard.
 
2012-12-04 02:09:18 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Moran (R-KS)


Fitting.
 
2012-12-04 02:12:54 PM
WHY ARE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS NEVER A THREAT TO US SOVEREIGNTY TO REPUBLICANS? IT'S ONLY WHEN WE TRY TO HELP PEOPLE?
 
2012-12-04 02:15:22 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: For the record (and the dumpsters of history), here are your 38 elected senators who have a problem with equal treatment for disabled people. Notice what they all have in common with each other???

Nays - 38
Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


And if they had less R's voting against it the GOP leadership would have forced some other R to take the dagger and vote against. Voting for any R is the same outcome as voting for the most extreme one.
 
2012-12-04 02:33:52 PM

kbronsito: I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty.


What do you do for a living?

Or did you do this for fun?
 
2012-12-04 02:36:19 PM
Republicans, please grow the fark up.
 
2012-12-04 02:38:56 PM

Corvus: WHY ARE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS NEVER A THREAT TO US SOVEREIGNTY TO REPUBLICANS? IT'S ONLY WHEN WE TRY TO HELP PEOPLE?


You've kind of answered your own question there.
 
2012-12-04 02:40:42 PM
they must really like the color blue, because that's what's going to happen in the midterm, a nice blue wave of sanity washing over the country.
 
2012-12-04 02:40:58 PM
Screw you Toomey.
 
2012-12-04 02:41:17 PM
How far do the Republicans have to go before Americans toss them all out of work?

Or, similar question...what will it take to educate the American voters who don't understand what damage the far right is doing?

Jesus farking Christ.
 
2012-12-04 02:43:55 PM
It's a slippery slope:

* first they want us to treat minorities and women like actual people, instead of hired hands and sexual pincushions like God intended
* now they want us to pander to the cripples and pretend like they aren't useless dead weights on society
* next they'll want us to pay for everyone's health care, so the genetically inferior plebian class can breed in even greater numbers than they already do
* then they'll take away our guns
* and then they'll take away our freedom

Why do you hate America, subby?
 
2012-12-04 02:44:12 PM

Rev.K: kbronsito: I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty.

What do you do for a living?

Or did you do this for fun?


I've worked for various funders. At that time I was working for a foundation that financed a bunch of disability rights activists from developing countries to attend the UN negotiations. This was the first UN treaty to incorporate NGOs at every step of the way. I was just supposed to do the funder thing and observed... but they needed able bodied people to push wheelchairs and guide blind people and they needed people to do interpretation during the off hours that the UN didn't pay for it. So I did all those things.
 
2012-12-04 02:45:13 PM
There is no inclusion of the morally disabled. We need special parking too!
 
2012-12-04 02:50:29 PM
maybe the UN should have thought about this before they decided not to support us in our various wars of conquest. and maybe all those disabled americans should have thought about that before the signed up to fight in our various wars of conquest.
 
2012-12-04 02:51:51 PM
Look, you libtards don't understand about what US Sovereignty means. Let me explain it to you.

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.
 
2012-12-04 02:52:35 PM

kbronsito: Rev.K: kbronsito: I attended several of the negotiation rounds for this treaty.

What do you do for a living?

Or did you do this for fun?

I've worked for various funders. At that time I was working for a foundation that financed a bunch of disability rights activists from developing countries to attend the UN negotiations. This was the first UN treaty to incorporate NGOs at every step of the way. I was just supposed to do the funder thing and observed... but they needed able bodied people to push wheelchairs and guide blind people and they needed people to do interpretation during the off hours that the UN didn't pay for it. So I did all those things.


That's pretty awesome. I love it when Farkers are able to give the inside story.
 
2012-12-04 02:52:54 PM

kbronsito: Quite the opposite. That language is meant to keep the disabled from a) being denied reproductive health care because they (and their potentially disabled offspring) are not worth the investment or b) being forced to have an abortion because they are not considered able to care for a child or c) being forcibly sterilized for the same reasons


c) is quite the issue, actually. Especially in places most Americans can't identify on a map, but where they actually take the UN seriously because of all the aid they provide.

In Swaziland, for example, 25% of the population has HIV, and that population is growing, not shrinking. There have been serious proposals to forcibly sterilize all HIV-positive citizens, regardless of their behavioral risk (ie, even if you were born with it or contracted it from a lying cheating partner), as a way of stopping the spread of the disease.

And that's just HIV. It's my understanding that it's the same for pretty much every other disability as well, but HIV is the one I've personally worked with and know the most about.
 
2012-12-04 02:53:37 PM
The treaty was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and President Barack Obama signed it in 2009.

That's right. GWB is a RINO now.
 
2012-12-04 02:53:56 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Look, you libtards don't understand about what US Sovereignty means. Let me explain it to you.

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.


+1
 
2012-12-04 02:56:41 PM
So my take away from this is that the GOP is actually starting to enjoy the wilderness; since they are evidently begging voters to keep them wandering in it.
 
2012-12-04 02:56:58 PM

wxboy: GWB is a RINO now.


*cue movie trailer guy*

"In a world...where GWB is a RINO...one group stands for freedom...and more freedom. Coming this summer...The Tea Party - It's freedom, or the tther thing."
 
2012-12-04 02:57:00 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Look, you libtards don't understand about what US Sovereignty means. Let me explain it to you.

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.

 
2012-12-04 02:58:43 PM
Ack...what I meant to say there was: "oh, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder".
 
2012-12-04 03:03:24 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions.


Holy f*cking sh*t do these people ever stop thinking of ways to get into other people's vaginas?
 
2012-12-04 03:04:48 PM
I want to find out if Cuba voted for it at the UN.

It will make some nice fodder in my strongly-worded letter to Senator Rubio.
 
2012-12-04 03:06:14 PM

sweetmelissa31:

Holy f*cking sh*t do these people ever stop thinking of ways to get into other people's vaginas?



I don't.
 
2012-12-04 03:08:24 PM

dahmers love zombie: Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions.

Go die. Seriously. Crawl into a farking hole and pull it in after yourself. Repugnant, vile excuse for a human.


Obsessive little f@cker isn't he?

Of he'd ma aged to find traces of the homosexual agenda in it, then we'd have a hat trick of stupid.
 
2012-12-04 03:09:17 PM
If he'd managed

Stupid fat thumbs
 
2012-12-04 03:10:12 PM

Diogenes: I want to find out if Cuba voted for it at the UN.

It will make some nice fodder in my strongly-worded letter to Senator Rubio.


Cuba voted for the treaty and ratified it.

Source
 
2012-12-04 03:16:16 PM

kmmontandon: sweetmelissa31:

Holy f*cking sh*t do these people ever stop thinking of ways to get into other people's vaginas?


I don't.


Yeah but you're not making policy.
 
2012-12-04 03:17:57 PM

kmmontandon: sweetmelissa31:

Holy f*cking sh*t do these people ever stop thinking of ways to get into other people's vaginas?


I don't.


But you'll eventually get out.
 
2012-12-04 03:17:58 PM

trivial use of my dark powers: If he'd managed

Stupid fat thumbs


your thumbs sound like quite the disability. as fark's UN representative, it is my duty to take away your US citizenry and teach you french.
 
2012-12-04 03:21:18 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Look, you libtards don't understand about what US Sovereignty means. Let me explain it to you.

Sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and the UN is one between sovereign entities.




Yes and no. The UN is sovereign in a sense, but not in the sense that you're implying, which is to say a sovereign state.The UN isn't a sovereign state. It's an organization OF sovereign states. It has no authority in and of itself beyond what its members agree to grant it.

Think about it: your state is composed of counties or parishes, depending on where you live. But it is the state that is sovereign, not the counties/parishes. They have exactly as much authority as the state chooses to delegate, and no more.

The UN is the inverse of that. It is like a 'state' where the counties are sovereign, but the 'state' itself has no authority.

Consider these two passages stolen shamelessly from the relevant Wikipedia articles, both of which are authoritative enough for a Fark argument:

The definition of a sovereign state:

A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.[1] It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[2] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

1. The UN has no geographic area.
2. It has no permanent population
3. It is entirely dependent on donations (dues) from member organizations for its survival (yes, it gets monies from other sources, but not enough to operate on)

In short, it fails all 3 tests for status as a sovereign state.

Nor does it see itself as such a state:

Shortly after its establishment the UN sought recognition as an international legal person due to the case of Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations[6] with the advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The question arose whether the United Nations, as an organisation, had "the capacity to bring an international claim against a government regarding injuries that the organisation alleged had been caused by that state."[7]

The Court stated: the Organization was intended to exercise and enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying functions and rights, which can only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to operate upon an international plane ... Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Organization is an international person. That is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State ... What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and that it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.[8]

In summary: the UN is at best a sovereign person, and is in no way a sovereign state. Sorry, but you fail.
 
2012-12-04 03:24:01 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Diogenes: I want to find out if Cuba voted for it at the UN.

It will make some nice fodder in my strongly-worded letter to Senator Rubio.

Cuba voted for the treaty and ratified it.

Source


Letter's on its way.
 
2012-12-04 03:25:31 PM

kbronsito: Quite the opposite. That language is meant to keep the disabled from a) being denied reproductive health care because they (and their potentially disabled offspring) are not worth the investment or b) being forced to have an abortion because they are not considered able to care for a child or c) being forcibly sterilized for the same reasons


That doesn't sound very "pro-life" to me. 

Whattup GOP?
 
2012-12-04 03:29:01 PM

whistleridge: In summary: the UN is at best a sovereign person, and is in no way a sovereign state. Sorry, but you fail.


I think he was being facetious.
 
2012-12-04 03:32:46 PM

Trivia Jockey: whistleridge: In summary: the UN is at best a sovereign person, and is in no way a sovereign state. Sorry, but you fail.

I think he was being facetious.


wistleridge really misunderestimated him there.
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report