Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2497 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2012 at 4:51 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2012-12-04 03:36:39 PM  

Diogenes: 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.


Also note that the treaty has been ratified by China, Iran, Russia, and Myanmar.

So basically, just about every major human rights violator has signed on, but not America.
 
2012-12-04 03:37:51 PM  

sweetmelissa31: But you'll eventually get out.


Define "eventually"
 
2012-12-04 03:41:29 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Diogenes: 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.

Also note that the treaty has been ratified by China, Iran, Russia, and Myanmar.

So basically, just about every major human rights violator has signed on, but not America.


USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-12-04 03:47:37 PM  
Holy crap- poor Bob Dole... Brought out for support-only to be farked by his own party.
 
2012-12-04 03:49:49 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Diogenes: 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.

Also note that the treaty has been ratified by China, Iran, Russia, and Myanmar.

So basically, just about every major human rights violator has signed on, but not America.


This treaty was signed onto by the most number of countries in the shortest amount of time than any other UN Convention. There is absolutely zero controversial items in there other than the use of the words "reproductive rights" which contrary to derp dogma, does not = abortion.

I think the vatican refused to sign it on that basis alone too... but their delegate wasn't even paying attention during most of the negotiations. He spent most of the time checking out the rack of the hot palestinian representative. All male diplomats were jealous that the observer states get some cozy seat in the back all by themselves, because she was HAWT. Jokes about the vatican delegate actually not being a pedophile were traded by various diplomats at some point... fun was had by all. (The singapore delegation also had a few hotties). Sorry... I took no pics
 
2012-12-04 03:58:12 PM  
kbronsito: Keep the stories coming please! Great stuff!
 
2012-12-04 04:03:07 PM  

thomps: 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.


I wasn't so much responding to him as I was to the likely hordes of liters who will come later and take him very very seriously :p
 
2012-12-04 04:07:19 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???


Here are the Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to protect American women from being raped overseas while working for defense contractors (in 2010):

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
 
2012-12-04 04:07:59 PM  
What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.
 
2012-12-04 04:12:33 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.


The worst part is, these fools keep getting elected.
 
2012-12-04 04:15:54 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.


Then you had better not read this, because this Congress is likely to reject a much-needed climate change treaty.
 
2012-12-04 04:16:01 PM  

mrshowrules: 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???

Here are the Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to protect American women from being raped overseas while working for defense contractors (in 2010):



That Venn diagram is about 1 micron away from being concentric circles.

Ass. Holes.
 
2012-12-04 04:16:01 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

The worst part is, these fools keep getting elected.


Serious. How in the hell has not every sane person not left the GOP by now?
 
2012-12-04 04:18:53 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: mrshowrules: 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???

Here are the Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to protect American women from being raped overseas while working for defense contractors (in 2010):


That Venn diagram is about 1 micron away from being concentric circles.

Ass. Holes.


Here are the pro-rape and anti-disabled Senators:

Alexander (R-TN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
 
2012-12-04 04:19:14 PM  

Corvus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.

The worst part is, these fools keep getting elected.

Serious. How in the hell has not every sane person not left the GOP by now?


They have. They all lost in primary elections. Hell, when even Dick Armey jumps ship, you know they're too far gone.
 
2012-12-04 04:25:43 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: What the holy hell? I'm close to tears with disappointment in our country. What the fark are these people trying to do to? I just cannot understand how it is possible that there are people who think this way, much less enough people who think this way who are in charge of farking policy. Goddammit.


It's okay- as a gimp myself, many think of us as being less than human.

For the GOP, it's easy to ignore the handicapped because of many reasons:
1) our handicap is a direct result of our sin or parents sin
2) both social and natural Darwinism means we are not supposed to survive- so why bother
3)They are jealous of all the Freebies we get-like having to spend extra money to be mobile.
4) GOP fears those of us with genetic mutations will rise with our mutant powers and overthrow the "normals" Somehow they haven't realized we don't get nifty eye blasts or the ability to mentally manipulate clothing on women so that they fall off. They try to cover up, but it's too late; I've seen everything.

Nope: it's just willfully ignorant GOPers trying to fark over Obama.
 
2012-12-04 04:36:48 PM  

mrshowrules: Here are the pro-rape and anti-disabled Senators:

Alexander (R-TN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


I have met Richard Burr on a number of occasions, ranging from formal work settings to fund raisers to private charity events. Every. single. farking. time he was a douche's douche, going out of his way to verbally fellate Tom Coburn, and basically doing his utmost to prove that he could be the stoogiest stooge who ever stooged when it came to corporate interests. What a tool.
 
2012-12-04 04:49:13 PM  
I think they are worried that if we give equal treatment to the disabled, next thing you know, the mentally disabled will be winning elections and you'll have morons voting down sensible treaties in the Senate and....oh.
 
2012-12-04 04:52:09 PM  

naughtyrev: I think they are worried that if we give equal treatment to the disabled, next thing you know, the mentally disabled will be winning elections and you'll have morons voting down sensible treaties in the Senate and....oh.


Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum all ran for the presidency this year. I think that ship has sailed.
 
2012-12-04 04:55:50 PM  
If you're a Republican or vote Republican, there's something fundamentally wrong with you. This becomes more truth and less "painting with a broad brush" every day.

Oh well, at least you really stuck it to the Libs, right?
 
2012-12-04 04:57:00 PM  
And yet everyone gets all offended when I suggest we should start executing these people.
 
2012-12-04 04:57:23 PM  
You'd think retards would want to support this treaty. But, 38 of them hate it.
 
2012-12-04 04:58:02 PM  

The Why Not Guy: If you're a Republican or vote Republican, there's something fundamentally wrong with you. This becomes more truth and less "painting with a broad brush" every day.

Oh well, at least you really stuck it to the Libs, right?


Those libs in Syria, China, and Cuba sure do have egg on their faces!
 
2012-12-04 04:58:19 PM  

James F. Campbell: these people


Republicans, I mean. Not disabled people.

Although I suppose they might classify as mentally, ethically, and morally disabled.
 
2012-12-04 04:59:22 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: kbronsito: Keep the stories coming please! Great stuff!


I second this emotion.

Had a good conversation with a woman who worked on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We signed that one at least. We were the last major country to sign it, but we signed it.
 
2012-12-04 05:00:30 PM  
The treaty was in a large part based on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Modern Republicans are nothing short of evil.
 
2012-12-04 05:00:46 PM  
Model "Christian" Conservatives
 
2012-12-04 05:01:26 PM  
So, the GOP shoots down a disabled rights treaty that would require us to do what we've already done and continue to willingly do, modeled after our own laws, which made us a world leader in disabled rights, because they're paranoid, misogynistic little oppositional farks

fark you, Neanderthals.

/sincere apology to any Neanderthals or paranoid misogynists who were offended at being compared to modern Republicans.
 
2012-12-04 05:01:45 PM  
<i>There are eight guiding principles that underlie the Convention:</i>

And there are 8 guiding letters that underlie the Republican vote -- P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A
 
2012-12-04 05:02:00 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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


Well, there's the problem.

Today's Republican Party has no dignity, so they don't see why anyone else should have it.
 
2012-12-04 05:02:31 PM  
Rand Paul is on that list eh? That's a shocker.
/Ban Ki Moon is the aqua buddha
 
2012-12-04 05:02:52 PM  
"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.

Honestly, you republicans manage to sound even dumber now.

Please go away, you're everything wrong with america.
 
2012-12-04 05:04:47 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty.


I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.
 
2012-12-04 05:05:07 PM  
Where can I sign one of those "Conservatives Want to Secede" petitions?
 
2012-12-04 05:05:33 PM  
Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?
 
2012-12-04 05:05:50 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: There is no inclusion of the morally disabled. We need special parking too!


Perhaps if the morally disabled were included, the GOP would vote for it as a matter of self-interest.
 
2012-12-04 05:07:43 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


Disabled Americans occasionally travel to other countries.
 
2012-12-04 05:08:12 PM  
Ok, so you don't like the UN or Obama. Fine, we get that. But Republicans, you claim you are the party of Jesus. So ask yourselfs, what would Jesus vote?
 
2012-12-04 05:08:47 PM  
John McCain, Bob Dole, and John Kerry all came together to support this bill... but they were voted down by the new Republican Party. If you think you're voting for the GOP of Reagan, or even of the Clinton-era, you're just wrong... these people are through and through whackjobs.
 
2012-12-04 05:09:35 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


That should be a reason not to hesitate to endorse and pass it. But this is about a paranoid fear of one world government that gets projected on to the UN, resulting in a belief that the US should never, ever be beholden to the UN on anything.
 
2012-12-04 05:09:51 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


considering only human trash voted against it, probably safe to bet that it wouldn't have hurt to pass the treaty.
 
2012-12-04 05:09:59 PM  

Arkanaut: I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.


There were no 22 Dems. Treaties require a 2/3s vote and all Nays were Republicans.
 
2012-12-04 05:09:59 PM  
Family Values. It's just a really f*cked up family.
 
2012-12-04 05:10:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?

Disabled Americans occasionally travel to other countries.


Who the hell lets them out of their cages?!?
 
2012-12-04 05:10:37 PM  
It is an understatement to say that we are not dealing with rational actors. Honestly, someone get these guys professional help. They need therapy.
 
2012-12-04 05:11:26 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


The treaty was actually based on the ADA... the idea of the treaty was to say that the US is going to be global leaders on the issue of fair treatment of the disabled, as the treaty encompasses what has been US law for more than 20 years. Instead of being the global leaders, the GOP has yet again chosen a position of cowardess, refusing to affirm our commitment to veterans who lose sight or limbs, refusing to affirm our commitment to caring for disabled children... all because they're afraid of imaginary black helicopters. The idea that half our country votes for these shiatstain pansies sickens me.
 
2012-12-04 05:13:08 PM  
[Professor Farnsworth] I don't want to live in this state anymore [/Professor Farnsworth]
 
2012-12-04 05:13:22 PM  
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -Isaac Asimov

This sums up the current GOP
 
2012-12-04 05:13:45 PM  
Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

To make us feel better? To try and shame other countries that don't care what we think?

All the faux concern for the disabled is duly noted.
 
2012-12-04 05:14:00 PM  
Oh ffs. At this rate, the next time I travel abroad I'm going to have to tell people I'm from Canada just so I don't have to deal with the inevitable "WTF is wrong with your Republican party?" questions.

/I wish we knew what was wrong with them...we might be able to fix them if we knew.
 
2012-12-04 05:15:18 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


Not only do we have the ADA, the treaty was modeled after it. It was a treaty in which the rest of the world was literally told to act more like America. Which is apparently a threat to America.
 
2012-12-04 05:15:28 PM  

bulldg4life: You'd think retards would want to support this treaty. But, 38 of them hate it.


[slowclap.gif]

bravo, sir, bravo
 
2012-12-04 05:16:11 PM  
Well this is a treaty with the UN, so obviously the UN is going to make all Americans move to reservations and those aren't usually very nice.


So, I'm concerned too.
 
2012-12-04 05:16:19 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 BOTH of my senators (much as it pains me to have to call them that, but that's what I get for living in Kentucky) voted against it. Not that this is any surprise, they ARE two of the biggest pigfarkers in Congress. But still- way to go, asswipes.

I rarely actually directly contact them about things since it's generally pointless, but this is so pants-on-head stupid that I think it's merited....

The funny thing (to me at least) is that their pledge not to sign anything in a lame duck session was almost certainly because they expected to have won the Senate and didn't want the outgoing losers to ramrod things through. Instead, they lost and are just acting like ever more sore losers.
 
2012-12-04 05:16:24 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Ok, so you don't like the UN or Obama. Fine, we get that. But Republicans, you claim you are the party of Jesus. So ask yourselfs, what would Jesus vote?


He probably would have voted for the ADA which we currently have. What's your point?
 
2012-12-04 05:17:42 PM  

firefly212: John McCain, Bob Dole, and John Kerry all came together to support this bill... but they were voted down by the new Republican Party. If you think you're voting for the GOP of Reagan, or even of the Clinton-era, you're just wrong... these people are through and through whackjobs.


There is something we can do to combat this. 2014 will be coming up quickly enough, so if you want to take back the country, do these things:

1) help disadvantaged people get state IDs and register to vote.

2) volunteer and fundraise for your local Democratic party.

3) Start making a list of every single one of these things for easier access when reaching out to those that don't vote.

4) Start petitioning to make Election Day a national holiday, or press for more absentee voting.

The party didn't end because Obama got reelected. The Republicans have been playing a long game and will drag their heels as long as they have the power to do so. If we work hard, we can certainly rob them of their power to do that and actually get things done in this country instead of being blocked by ignorant, stupid, and paranoid old assholes.
 
2012-12-04 05:17:50 PM  
Well after Santorum (warning: WND derp) came out against the action, you know there was no chance for it.
 
2012-12-04 05:18:13 PM  
i am going to write a form email to the effect that the senator receiving it is a dummy and not fit to be in congress. then i'm going through the no votes and emailing each and every one. it may take a couple of hours and won't do much for anyone but me but i'm doing it anyway.

need to figure out how to cut and paste my personal info into their email submital forms.
 
2012-12-04 05:19:38 PM  
Somebody else used the phrase "predictably retarded" in another thread. I think it's quite a fitting way to describe the GOP as a whole lately. This incident is just further evidence of that fact.
 
2012-12-04 05:19:42 PM  
So apparently the Senator from Idaho

Crapo (R-ID)

Sounds about right
 
2012-12-04 05:19:53 PM  

Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?


Offers you protections when you travel abroad.
 
2012-12-04 05:20:42 PM  

mrshowrules: 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???

Here are the Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to protect American women from being raped overseas while working for defense contractors (in 2010):

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


You clearly never read his bill. It didn't address protecting women from rape.

It requires literacy to realize this.
 
2012-12-04 05:20:58 PM  

Diogenes: Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

Offers you protections when you travel abroad.


does brain damage caused by republicanism count under the treaty though?
 
2012-12-04 05:21:27 PM  

degenerate-afro: Well after Santorum (warning: WND derp) came out against the action, you know there was no chance for it.

The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:

"In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."


fark you, Rick Santorum, you worthless inhuman piece of festering shiat.
 
2012-12-04 05:21:32 PM  
But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,

This is all you need to know right here.
 
2012-12-04 05:21:58 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but we have the ADA in this country. Did we need to sign on to something saying we'd obey our own laws?


No, if you want to look like a fool in the international community.
 
2012-12-04 05:22:33 PM  
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


Scorecards. Pledges. Why does the GOP make a mockery of our political system?
 
2012-12-04 05:23:01 PM  

Pincy: But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty


yep, pledges trump treaties every time...
 
2012-12-04 05:24:12 PM  
What the F*CK is wrong with these people.

Since we already have the ADA, why shouldn't we have gone ahead and signed this, which is essentially saying the same thing? Why?

Because the UN proposed it. And these dingalings think that means something. It means that they watch "Conspiracy Theory starring Jesse Ventura" and think it's a documentary.
 
2012-12-04 05:24:44 PM  

Citrate1007: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -Isaac Asimov

This sums up the current GOP


Yes. And it's also a media criticism...despite the accusation of liberal bias, the media has a fairness bias - it attempts to show "both sides" of every story even when some stories don't have an "other side".
 
2012-12-04 05:26:04 PM  

Diogenes: Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

Offers you protections when you travel abroad.


Elaborate on these protections. Non-signatory countries won't honor any protections and signatories would almost universally guarantee them.
 
2012-12-04 05:26:24 PM  

Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

To make us feel better? To try and shame other countries that don't care what we think?

All the faux concern for the disabled is duly noted.


Let me put it this way...if the GOP is willing to reject a fairly uncontroversial treaty like not farking over disabled people, what do you think they'll do if something more important came along, like a treaty to address global warming?
 
2012-12-04 05:27:53 PM  

i45.tinypic.com

"Suck it. Who has the last laugh now?"

 
2012-12-04 05:28:05 PM  

jj325: 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


Scorecards. Pledges. Why does the GOP make a mockery of our political system?


It's all they have got. Otherwise they might have to do actual legislating. Why uphold the Constitution when you can uphold pledges that allow them to do absolutely nothing while pretending they have principles?

Congresspeople are some of the biggest welfare queens in the country.
 
2012-12-04 05:28:31 PM  

Mrbogey: You clearly never read his bill. It didn't address protecting women from rape.

It requires literacy to realize this.


umm:
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) introduced an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would prevent the federal government from funding contractors whose employee contracts prevent workers from pursuing allegations of rape against co-workers.

I can see the BS you are trying to pretend. I think you are pretending since it's after the fact that doesn't stop rape but if you believe that then you would think rape laws also have no affect because they are also after the fact.

You are wrong punishing people for crime does protect people.
 
2012-12-04 05:28:41 PM  
Screw em. Why must we pull along the gene pool / evolutionary rejects and even put them up on a pedestal?
 
2012-12-04 05:29:45 PM  
FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.

/RON PAUL!!!11!
 
2012-12-04 05:31:16 PM  

Mrbogey: Non-signatory countries won't honor any protections and signatories would almost universally guarantee them.


you would think but the country's laws that the treaty was modeled after didn't even sign it.
 
2012-12-04 05:31:38 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.

/RON PAUL!!!11!


But GOP have no problem with them when they are for trade agreements.
 
2012-12-04 05:31:56 PM  
I had to read the document to understand the context. I was wondering if there was some nasty piece in the treaty that Republicans disagreed with and the media jumped the gun.

Then I remembered it was Republicans this is talking about and read the article. Goddamnit, Repbulcians.
 
2012-12-04 05:33:02 PM  

92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...


Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.
 
2012-12-04 05:33:12 PM  

Trivia Jockey: No, if you want to look like a fool in the international community.


I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.
 
2012-12-04 05:34:00 PM  

Corvus: Uranus Is Huge!: FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.

/RON PAUL!!!11!

But GOP have no problem with them when they are for trade agreements.


That's because only a truly enlightened mind can entertain opposing viewpoints simultaneously with cracking under the strain.

Duh.
 
2012-12-04 05:34:56 PM  
Do you think the rest of the world just scratches their head in confusion at the United States? Heck, I'm American and I don't know why we allow what we do half the time. For instance, try explaining the history of the United Nation follow by the current stance of the United States with the United Nation .... and it sounds completely farked.
 
2012-12-04 05:35:39 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Corvus: Uranus Is Huge!: FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.

/RON PAUL!!!11!

But GOP have no problem with them when they are for trade agreements.

That's because only a truly enlightened mind can entertain opposing viewpoints simultaneously with cracking under the strain.

Duh.


...without...
 
2012-12-04 05:36:24 PM  

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Trivia Jockey: No, if you want to look like a fool in the international community.

I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.


If troll: -10/10, way too obvious, and poorly worded
If serious: You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.
 
2012-12-04 05:36:28 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.

/RON PAUL!!!11!


What if Ron Paul found out that the U.N was going to use disabled people to confiscate everyone's guns and make everyone have abortions. Think about it !!!!111!
 
2012-12-04 05:36:31 PM  
Here's my question: If the treaty does nothing and requires no changes in U.S. law, then why sign it? (Or any other non-self-executing treaty, for that matter?)

The laws that other nations want to have should be none of the U.S. government's business, either. If other countries want to give more rights and protections for the disabled, good for them. If they don't, what's it to us?

Laws and treaties are supposed to be more than exercises in narcissism and national self-esteem building.

/used to respect "international law"
//I got over it
 
2012-12-04 05:36:39 PM  
It was,
 
2012-12-04 05:36:44 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Do you think the rest of the world just scratches their head in confusion at the United States?


every country has their conservatives and liberals so hopefully they just look at it like that...
 
2012-12-04 05:37:13 PM  

thomps: 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.


Mais non!
 
2012-12-04 05:39:06 PM  

Mrbogey: Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you.


Something you surely have never done.

*rolls eyes*
 
2012-12-04 05:39:26 PM  
BLAH HELICOPTERS!
 
2012-12-04 05:39:28 PM  

Mrbogey: 92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...

Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.


That's funny coming from someone with no credibility. You are laughed out of most threads and still have the nerve to call other people out.
 
2012-12-04 05:41:23 PM  

Cletus C.: Not trying to start something, but...


Of course you aren't. You're just asking, is all.
 
2012-12-04 05:41:30 PM  
Can someone explain to me how this treaty would interfere with home schooling?

Usually I can point and laugh at the twisted logic in Derp, but in this case I can't even identify the supposed logic that's twisted.
 
2012-12-04 05:42:03 PM  

CynicalLA: Mrbogey: 92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...

Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.

That's funny coming from someone with no credibility. You are laughed out of most threads and still have the nerve to call other people out.


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
dummy calls the Republicans who voted for this treaty "traitors". Bogey says "that's dumb". You and Diogenes say "nu-uh you're dumb"?
 
2012-12-04 05:44:28 PM  

InmanRoshi: Can someone explain to me how this treaty would interfere with home schooling?


If your house doesn't have the Eurozone mandated accessibility requirements for the handicapped, you are violating international law to hold classes there even if your kids aren't handicapped and you are liable to be hauled up to the Hague for trial, bypassing your Constitutional protections.
 
2012-12-04 05:45:05 PM  

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.


People dun did told me that I shouldn't dip nacho cheese on my Krispy Kreme, but I tell them frenchie homos just watch me.
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-04 05:45:18 PM  

Corvus: I can see the BS you are trying to pretend. I think you are pretending since it's after the fact that doesn't stop rape but if you believe that then you would think rape laws also have no affect because they are also after the fact.


There was no provisions prohibiting the pursuing of criminal charges in the work contract. Your summary blurs the issue, no surprise. The issue was pursuing civil liabilities against the corporation for crimes that occur.

Al Franken built a straw.an and you e beat the hell out of it.

You must be pissed over our support of Morsi in Egypt considering all the rape.
 
2012-12-04 05:45:54 PM  

sprawl15: InmanRoshi: Can someone explain to me how this treaty would interfere with home schooling?

If your house doesn't have the Eurozone mandated accessibility requirements for the handicapped, you are violating international law to hold classes there even if your kids aren't handicapped and you are liable to be hauled up to the Hague for trial, bypassing your Constitutional protections.


snark like typing detected.
 
2012-12-04 05:46:17 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Grand_Moff_Joseph: kbronsito: Keep the stories coming please! Great stuff!

I second this emotion.

Had a good conversation with a woman who worked on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We signed that one at least. We were the last major country to sign it, but we signed it.


Fark him. We gets picks of the hot Palestinian representative, or we brings out the hot oil.
 
2012-12-04 05:46:36 PM  
92myrtle, you forgot Dick Lugar.

So of the eight Republicans who voted in favor, four of them will no longer be Senators in a month and a half.
 
2012-12-04 05:48:09 PM  

InmanRoshi: Can someone explain to me how this treaty would interfere with home schooling?

Usually I can point and laugh at the twisted logic in Derp, but in this case I can't even identify the supposed logic that's twisted.


It's simple: the treaty might encourage things like building ramps for wheelchair access, which involves physics, which is probably some of that satanic science.
 
2012-12-04 05:48:09 PM  
I came here to say the disabled are part of the 47% moocher class.

/Didn't come to make sure nobody else did first.
 
2012-12-04 05:48:25 PM  
Bob Dole and John McCain were for the ratification. And that was not enough for the Republicans. Wow.
 
2012-12-04 05:49:46 PM  

CynicalLA: Mrbogey: 92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...

Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.

That's funny coming from someone with no credibility. You are laughed out of most threads and still have the nerve to call other people out.


What's amusing is that 92myrtle was talking about the GOP traitors who voted for the treaty.
 
2012-12-04 05:50:53 PM  

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: Mrbogey: 92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...

Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.

That's funny coming from someone with no credibility. You are laughed out of most threads and still have the nerve to call other people out.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
dummy calls the Republicans who voted for this treaty "traitors". Bogey says "that's dumb". You and Diogenes say "nu-uh you're dumb"?


You must have horrible memory.
 
2012-12-04 05:51:08 PM  
What the fark is WRONG with these people. You vote against THIS??
 
2012-12-04 05:52:30 PM  

Diogenes: Mrbogey: Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you.

Something you surely have never done.

*rolls eyes*


I can't think of a single time I e used the word that didn't involve someone actually committing betrayal.

I try not to whip up eliminationist rhetoric.

Note all the silence over those who do from faux civil libertarians.
 
2012-12-04 05:56:06 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: Mrbogey: 92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who...

Labeling people who voted against your desires as traitors reveals a lot about you. Specifically why you should be ignored in serious discussions on govt.

That's funny coming from someone with no credibility. You are laughed out of most threads and still have the nerve to call other people out.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
dummy calls the Republicans who voted for this treaty "traitors". Bogey says "that's dumb". You and Diogenes say "nu-uh you're dumb"?

You must have horrible memory.


I don't need much of a memory at all to see an exchange in a thread and say "WTF?"
 
2012-12-04 05:56:46 PM  

The Troof hurts: Princess


Yes, he would. But then would he turn around and deny bread to another after giving bread to the first? Would you kindly remind me what Jesus said about hypocrits?
 
2012-12-04 05:59:19 PM  

skullkrusher: I don't need much of a memory at all to see an exchange in a thread and say "WTF?"


That's the same reaction I get when I come across any of your daily posts.
 
2012-12-04 06:00:06 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: What the fark is WRONG with these people. You vote against THIS??


Hey, there's a Republican Senator right now! Let's ask

i159.photobucket.com

"Senator, could you explai - ...um...are you almost done?"
 
2012-12-04 06:00:17 PM  
I'm late to this party and relatively certain no one will read this, but I have to ask: Who cares?

The U.S. is already one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to providing for the disabled. Here we have both the federal ADA, and most states have something roughly equivalent. The majority of other countries, even those we often consider to be more progressive or advanced than us, have no similar law.

Spend some time traveling with a disabled person in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East and you'll quickly see the differences. Sidewalks and doorways are not wide enough to accommodate a standard size wheelchair. Buildings that can only be accessed by stairs are everywhere. No one has a handicapped friendly public rest room (and if they did it probably wouldn't matter, since there's a decent chance it would be on another floor of the building that can only be reached by stairs).

We have laws that forbid discrimination in the work place and in public accommodations. We have laws that require reasonable accommodations in housing, education, and employment. In short, we already do all that the treaty would require and more. It would serve no purpose here, other than to make future changes to disability law more difficult to implement for fear of violating our treaty obligations.
 
2012-12-04 06:00:20 PM  
I've lurked the fark politics tab for years. I love me some good ol' fashion political bullsh#ting. But this is seriously bothering me. WTF is wrong with republicans. This seems somewhere beyond derp, have they really lost their sh#t that bad. I need to drink the stupid away. Sigh.
 
2012-12-04 06:00:58 PM  

Pincy: But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,

This is all you need to know right here.


Oh, WELL then. They pledged not to do their jobs? My apologies! I'm sure that pledge has nothing to do with the fact in September they were still thinking they'd have a Majority in the Senate to work with come January. So they pledged to run out the clock and fark over a bunch of people in the process.

Fark those 38 cocksuckers.
 
2012-12-04 06:03:09 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: I don't need much of a memory at all to see an exchange in a thread and say "WTF?"

That's the same reaction I get when I come across any of your daily posts.


You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".
I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.
 
2012-12-04 06:03:41 PM  

Talondel: I'm late to this party and relatively certain no one will read this, but I have to ask: Who cares?

The U.S. is already one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to providing for the disabled. Here we have both the federal ADA, and most states have something roughly equivalent. The majority of other countries, even those we often consider to be more progressive or advanced than us, have no similar law.

Spend some time traveling with a disabled person in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East and you'll quickly see the differences. Sidewalks and doorways are not wide enough to accommodate a standard size wheelchair. Buildings that can only be accessed by stairs are everywhere. No one has a handicapped friendly public rest room (and if they did it probably wouldn't matter, since there's a decent chance it would be on another floor of the building that can only be reached by stairs).


It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.
 
2012-12-04 06:03:51 PM  
Republicans are complete, utter scum. This should surprise nobody. If you vote Republican, you are an asshole, period. There are different CATEGORIES of asshole, sure (Rich asshole, fundamentalist asshole, bigoted asshole, just plain stupid asshole, etc.), and combinations thereof, but no matter which category you fall under, YOU. ARE. AN. ASSHOLE.
 
2012-12-04 06:04:02 PM  

Talondel: I'm late to this party and relatively certain no one will read this, but I have to ask: Who cares?

The U.S. is already one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to providing for the disabled. Here we have both the federal ADA, and most states have something roughly equivalent. The majority of other countries, even those we often consider to be more progressive or advanced than us, have no similar law.

Spend some time traveling with a disabled person in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East and you'll quickly see the differences. Sidewalks and doorways are not wide enough to accommodate a standard size wheelchair. Buildings that can only be accessed by stairs are everywhere. No one has a handicapped friendly public rest room (and if they did it probably wouldn't matter, since there's a decent chance it would be on another floor of the building that can only be reached by stairs).

We have laws that forbid discrimination in the work place and in public accommodations. We have laws that require reasonable accommodations in housing, education, and employment. In short, we already do all that the treaty would require and more. It would serve no purpose here, other than to make future changes to disability law more difficult to implement for fear of violating our treaty obligations.


You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?
 
2012-12-04 06:05:11 PM  

skullkrusher: You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".
I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.


A lot ASSumptions right there. I wouldn't expect anymore from you and keep up the good work.
 
2012-12-04 06:05:49 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)


They're all cowards who would rather run away from imaginary black helicopters than lead the world in human rights. Traitors to the American way, every one of them.
 
2012-12-04 06:05:50 PM  

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?


westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-04 06:09:29 PM  

Epicfarker: I've lurked the fark politics tab for years. I love me some good ol' fashion political bullsh#ting. But this is seriously bothering me. WTF is wrong with republicans. This seems somewhere beyond derp, have they really lost their sh#t that bad. I need to drink the stupid away. Sigh.


Remember the phrase "predictably retarded." It is the only succinct way to describe the GOP these days any more.
 
2012-12-04 06:09:36 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".
I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.

A lot ASSumptions right there. I wouldn't expect anymore from you and keep up the good work.


no, no ASSumptions needed. It's right here in the thread. CapeFearCadaver also noticed.
 
2012-12-04 06:10:18 PM  

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Trivia Jockey: No, if you want to look like a fool in the international community.

I've literally never understood this argument. Who the fark cares what we look like to the international community? If the international community jumped off a bridge would we look like an asshole for not following along? This is the United States, we do what we want, when we want, however we want and life is pretty great living here aside from when you libs want to tax us all to death. Screw the UN and the international community.


We had a chance to look like global leaders on human rights, ratifying a treaty based on what has been US law for more than 20 years, affirming our commitment to our injured veterans, disabled children, and people with other disabilities. If we want to be global leaders, we need to act like it... The GOP biatched on Libya, Egypt, and a number of other serious issues about how we're "leading from behind" or "not acting like the leader of the free world"... but when they have the chance to lead, they're too afraid to actually do it.
 
2012-12-04 06:10:43 PM  

whistleridge: Yes and no.

..
Thanks for that. Interesting reading, gives me nifty things to google.
 
2012-12-04 06:11:16 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: The Troof hurts: Princess

Yes, he would. But then would he turn around and deny bread to another after giving bread to the first? Would you kindly remind me what Jesus said about hypocrits?


Who is being denied anything? Anyone with disabilities has far more rights here than in almost any other country on the planet. How does some BS UN treaty affect this?
 
2012-12-04 06:13:04 PM  

LordJiro: Republicans are complete, utter scum. This should surprise nobody. If you vote Republican, you are an asshole, period. There are different CATEGORIES of asshole, sure (Rich asshole, fundamentalist asshole, bigoted asshole, just plain stupid asshole, etc.), and combinations thereof, but no matter which category you fall under, YOU. ARE. AN. ASSHOLE.


I think there are some delusional people out there who think they're still voting for Nixon like republicans (started the EPA) or maybe reasonable conservatives... but they don't understand that the GOP isn't that party any more, and these black helicopter loons who are afraid of Rusty Shackleford, the NIH, and Roswell's aliens are now the core of their senate and congressional delegations.
 
2012-12-04 06:13:15 PM  
The rest of the world hates us because of our freedom. Riiiiight.
 
2012-12-04 06:13:47 PM  
It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.
 
2012-12-04 06:14:49 PM  

The Troof hurts: Princess Ryans Knickers: The Troof hurts: Princess

Yes, he would. But then would he turn around and deny bread to another after giving bread to the first? Would you kindly remind me what Jesus said about hypocrits?

Who is being denied anything? Anyone with disabilities has far more rights here than in almost any other country on the planet. How does some BS UN treaty affect this?


The UN treaty is actually based on the US ADA... the idea here was that we could lead the world and affirm our commitment to those rights... instead, just like through so many other issues, the party that talks about leading the world shows just how unprepared it is to actually do it.
 
2012-12-04 06:15:33 PM  
FTA: 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."

"Dammit, if we can't teach our retarded kids how to hate, and can't get 'em to breed more retarded kids we can fill with hate, the nation's at risk of becoming rational!"

Good job, GOP. Once again, your teabagger Tafurs have made this country come full-circle - a couple of decades ago, we proposed the very legislation used to drive this global effort, only to have us reject it because we've managed to become that much dumber in just a couple of decades.

Every time Republicans gain any power, any at all, the country loses progress and the rest of the world continues to move on. Heckuva job, GOP. Heckuva job. You're the "Party of No", all right, even at your own expense.
 
2012-12-04 06:15:55 PM  

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".
I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.

A lot ASSumptions right there. I wouldn't expect anymore from you and keep up the good work.

no, no ASSumptions needed. It's right here in the thread. CapeFearCadaver also noticed.


Please never respond to me and I will do the same. You are the most annoying person on this site. The guy I was responding to has lied many times and that's all I was commenting on. Get back to your regular circle-jerk.
 
2012-12-04 06:16:13 PM  

The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.


Leadership is more than a feelgood measure, but I wouldn't expect a conservative to understand that. After 7 years of feelgood speeches about terrorism and no leadership, we've all figured out that the GOP is all talk, no leaders.
 
2012-12-04 06:16:44 PM  

The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.


Yes it is. So why block it?
 
2012-12-04 06:18:09 PM  
FARK YOU RON JOHNSON!!!
 
2012-12-04 06:19:26 PM  

flux: The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.

Yes it is. So why block it?


Because apparently it is a meaningless treaty that can do no good in other countries, while simultaneously giving the UN the power to send the black helicopters swooping in to arrest home schooling parents and force abortions on everybody in the US.
 
2012-12-04 06:24:35 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Because apparently it is a meaningless treaty that can do no good in other countries, while simultaneously giving the UN the power to send the black helicopters swooping in to arrest home schooling parents and force abortions on everybody in the US.


And you joke, but:

MUST OPPOSE another UN TREATY! THE CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of the DISABLED - we have the law already and do not need FOREIGNERS meddling in OUR BUSINESS!
--------------
excerpt:

Also see Article 4, Section 1(h):

To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, including new
technologies, as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities;

This language is potentially pro-abortion:

Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes; (Article 25, section a)

Articles 34 and 35 mandates another UN Committee that the USA has to report to. I will say it again: The Constitution forbids mandated reports to foreign committees! No patriotic American can support that!
 
--------------

So, yeah. Foreigners. Abortions. Okay.
 
2012-12-04 06:24:39 PM  

flux: The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.

Yes it is. So why block it?


Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example. Why does the UN have any bearing on this? These countries should have passed their own version of the ADA by now if they were serious about helping disabled folks. Instead, they sign on to a treaty with no balls as a feelgood measure. We still lead the world. Everyone needs to calm down with the faux-rage.
 
2012-12-04 06:25:29 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Holy crap- poor Bob Dole... Brought out for support-only to be farked by his own party.


You're talking about a man who sponsored two different universal-insurance/individual-mandate health bills in his time in the Senate. He couldn't make the Kansas House of Reps at this point, let alone be the national VP or Presidential nominee. I'm not sure who thought (okay, McCain probably) trotting him out would help. The current GOP hates guys like Dole.
 
2012-12-04 06:26:13 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: You just white knighted for a guy who is saying that the Republicans who voted for this treaty are "traitors".
I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot. I'll make a note of it.

A lot ASSumptions right there. I wouldn't expect anymore from you and keep up the good work.

no, no ASSumptions needed. It's right here in the thread. CapeFearCadaver also noticed.

Please never respond to me and I will do the same. You are the most annoying person on this site. The guy I was responding to has lied many times and that's all I was commenting on. Get back to your regular circle-jerk.


Ahh the peanut gallery ad hom. Your specialty.
 
2012-12-04 06:27:49 PM  

Headso: Mrbogey: Non-signatory countries won't honor any protections and signatories would almost universally guarantee them.

you would think but the country's laws that the treaty was modeled after didn't even sign it.


See...this is an actual diplomatic problem. A real, live issue, the sort that has been plaguing us throughout the history of politics, where all a country has to do after passing a law banning sign language or some other idiocy is say "Wait--even the folks this law is MODELED after didn't sign it! Why should we care?!".

And there was no f**king reason for it.

The GOP is seriously disturbing lately.
 
2012-12-04 06:32:38 PM  

PsiChick: Headso: Mrbogey: Non-signatory countries won't honor any protections and signatories would almost universally guarantee them.

you would think but the country's laws that the treaty was modeled after didn't even sign it.

See...this is an actual diplomatic problem. A real, live issue, the sort that has been plaguing us throughout the history of politics, where all a country has to do after passing a law banning sign language or some other idiocy is say "Wait--even the folks this law is MODELED after didn't sign it! Why should we care?!".

And there was no f**king reason for it.

The GOP is seriously disturbing lately.


lately?
 
2012-12-04 06:53:10 PM  
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

You sick f*cks.

You owe that man for decades of faithful service. Yet you rip open his ostomy bag, tear out his catheter and rub it all over his face.

You people sicken me.
 
2012-12-04 06:55:03 PM  
GOP motto, 2012 version: Party Before Country, Ideology Before Reason.
 
2012-12-04 06:55:38 PM  

The Troof hurts: Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example. Why does the UN have any bearing on this?


Well, to start, I'm not all that worked up about it, and Lee, the guy who spearheaded the block, is my senator. It isn't going to change a thing for disabled US citizens, obviously. This is just the most recent iteration of this strange American Isolationism that we see a lot from tea-party-backed congresspersons. We live in an increasingly global culture, in an undeniably global economy, and the UN is crafting these treaties to improve the standard of living worldwide. That's the mission, here: let's make everyone's lives a little better. But when these treaties come to us, we slap them away like a petulant child, for no other reason than to say "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, NERRRR!" I think it's immature, and I'd like to see the US approach the world (and the UN) in a spirit of cooperation and mutual betterment rather than suspicion and paranoia.
 
2012-12-04 07:04:06 PM  
I'm sorry but we're well past the point now... Why are you even trying to defend anything the UN does anymore?

They are nothing without the United States and would cease to exist in no time at all without us and yet they are a favorite tool of anyone who hates this country to bash it over the head with.

Including American liberals.

I'm still waiting for Al "Very Concerned About Rape" Franken to propose defunding any organization whose employees have repeatedly been found to have committed rape or employed under aged prostitutes. I'm all for it. Aren't you? If you are then start writing to Obama and Franken, and ask them to withdraw all support and funding for the UN.
 
2012-12-04 07:07:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Ahh the peanut gallery ad hom. Your specialty.


skullkrusher: I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot.


Mommy! That cocksucker called me a name!
 
2012-12-04 07:12:16 PM  

The Why Not Guy: skullkrusher: Ahh the peanut gallery ad hom. Your specialty.

skullkrusher: I knew you were an idiot. I just didn't know you were a Republican idiot.

Mommy! That cocksucker called me a name!


Wasn't from the peanut gallery. Fail more, if possible
 
2012-12-04 07:13:10 PM  
Seriously, how can anyone justify voting for these assholes?
 
2012-12-04 07:13:58 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).


What is your job?
 
2012-12-04 07:17:12 PM  
The senate repubs lost the one iota of respect i had for them.
 
2012-12-04 07:23:36 PM  
Someone here actually thinks their opinion is highly regarded and not part of the same peanut gallery. Too funny.
 
2012-12-04 07:27:36 PM  

CynicalLA: Someone here actually thinks their opinion is highly regarded and not part of the same peanut gallery. Too funny.


I love how he whines about ad homs while calling other people idiots.
 
2012-12-04 07:29:15 PM  

Mrbogey: You clearly never read his bill. It didn't address protecting women from rape.

It requires literacy to realize this.


I followed the details of this amendment very carefully, it passed despite GOP resistance and it is indeed protecting women from rape and preventing cases of rape being swept under the rug.
 
2012-12-04 07:29:49 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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!


Well #5 and #7 is counter to GOP policy. So of course they would vote against that pile of shocializt herp derp....
 
2012-12-04 07:30:21 PM  

The Why Not Guy: CynicalLA: Someone here actually thinks their opinion is highly regarded and not part of the same peanut gallery. Too funny.

I love how he whines about ad homs while calling other people idiots.


A hypocrite and a douche. What a great combination.
 
2012-12-04 07:34:18 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Holy crap- poor Bob Dole... Brought out for support-only to be farked by his own party.


Bob Dole's GOP was a very different party. I voted for guys with an R next to their name back then. I don't anymore. A combination of things - I got smarter and boy did the republicans get stupid.
 
2012-12-04 07:35:06 PM  

kbronsito:
I think the vatican refused to sign it on that basis alone too... but their delegate wasn't even paying attention during most of the negotiations. He spent most of the time checking out the rack of the hot palestinian representative. All male diplomats were jealous that the observer states get some cozy seat in the back all by themselves, because she was HAWT. Jokes about the vatican delegate actually not being a pedophile were traded by various diplomats at some point... fun was had by all. (The singapore delegation also had a few hotties). Sorry... I took no pics


I appreciate these posts, but some friendly advice: if you want to get confirmed as Secretary of State, you REALLY need to keep your fark account on the DL, ambassador.
 
2012-12-04 07:39:08 PM  

The Troof hurts: Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example.


Bob Dole would be the first one to tell you that passing the ADA would be a serious uphill battle today. It passed by basically voice votes in 1990. Supermajorities that even 'post office renaming' bills don't get any longer (because of the "Representative X voted with Nancy Pelosi 88% of the time!" ads). Of the over 40 GOP Senators that voted against this, I'm willing to go on a limb and say at least 30 would vote to repeal the ADA if they could.
 
2012-12-04 07:41:39 PM  

flux: Philip Francis Queeg: Because apparently it is a meaningless treaty that can do no good in other countries, while simultaneously giving the UN the power to send the black helicopters swooping in to arrest home schooling parents and force abortions on everybody in the US.

And you joke, but:

MUST OPPOSE another UN TREATY! THE CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of the DISABLED - we have the law already and do not need FOREIGNERS meddling in OUR BUSINESS!
--------------
excerpt:

Also see Article 4, Section 1(h):

To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, including new
technologies, as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities;

This language is potentially pro-abortion:

Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes; (Article 25, section a)

Articles 34 and 35 mandates another UN Committee that the USA has to report to. I will say it again: The Constitution forbids mandated reports to foreign committees! No patriotic American can support that!  
--------------

So, yeah. Foreigners. Abortions. Okay.


What does 'potentially pro-abortion' even mean? Does that mean it could just as easily be potentially anti-choice?
 
2012-12-04 07:50:39 PM  

CynicalLA: The Why Not Guy: CynicalLA: Someone here actually thinks their opinion is highly regarded and not part of the same peanut gallery. Too funny.

I love how he whines about ad homs while calling other people idiots.

A hypocrite and a douche. What a great combination.


You guys are made for each other. Seriously.
 
2012-12-04 07:54:56 PM  
IF I CAN'T STOMP ON CRIPPLES AND RETARDS THEN THIS AIN'T AMERICA!!!!!!
 
2012-12-04 08:01:02 PM  
Turn off the goddamn Talk Radio and spend some time trying to remember how to be decent human beings. Farking sociopaths.
 
2012-12-04 08:02:00 PM  
republicans are scum.
 
2012-12-04 08:03:08 PM  

randomjsa: I'm sorry but we're well past the point now... Why are you even trying to defend anything the UN does anymore?

They are nothing without the United States and would cease to exist in no time at all without us and yet they are a favorite tool of anyone who hates this country to bash it over the head with.

Including American liberals.

I'm still waiting for Al "Very Concerned About Rape" Franken to propose defunding any organization whose employees have repeatedly been found to have committed rape or employed under aged prostitutes. I'm all for it. Aren't you? If you are then start writing to Obama and Franken, and ask them to withdraw all support and funding for the UN.


Nice to know you're against helping and protecting the disabled on a worldwide level, farkshiatter. Crawl back into the cess pit with the rest of the vermin.
 
2012-12-04 08:03:53 PM  
These farking cretins cry about sovereignty when they can't whore the dollar to China or the flag to Israel fast enough?
 
2012-12-04 08:04:16 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.


That was GW Bush, right?
 
2012-12-04 08:08:34 PM  

thomps: 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.


wistleridge didn't get his edumakashun.
 
2012-12-04 08:15:05 PM  
Look, "conservatives", your name and stance doesn't mean you have to oppose anything and everything involving moving forward because of "principle".

You can accept that time moves always forward.
You can accept that nothing ever stays the same.
You can accept that treating all human beings as humans beings is a GOOD thing.
You can accept that equality for everyone is a GOOD thing.
You can accept that caring for the disabled is a GOOD thing.
You can accept that the world is not going to end because you decided to take a step into the 21st century.

Or, you can continue to be whiny stubborn little brats and be left to extinction. No skin off of our backs. But STOP trying to take everyone else with you.
 
2012-12-04 08:17:19 PM  

Arkanaut: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.


There were no 22 Dems who voted against. In order to ratify an international treaty, the senate must pass the treaty by 66% or 75%, I'm not sure. It's not a simple majority. So with 38% against, it failed to pass the senate.
 
2012-12-04 08:21:57 PM  

Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

To make us feel better? To try and shame other countries that don't care what we think?

All the faux concern for the disabled is duly noted.


The ADA may seem bureaucratic, but it is not just a faux concern for the disabled. Building codes are now required to be built to accommodate wheelchairs and the visually impaired. There are physical and real changes occurring. It's not just having to check off a long list of ornery requirements.
 
2012-12-04 08:23:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.


That assumes that other governments would base their decision to adopt or reject the treaty on what we here in the US do with it, which is not only unfounded but contradicted by the article:

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens.

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?


I get that it doesn't matter if the US joins the treaty or not, unlike the vast majority of people posting in this thread. Countries that want to join and be bound by the treaty (including the 126 that already have) are still free to do so. This vote doesn't have any impact on them.

Joining the treaty would not have affected current law in the US one bit (and that is according to those who supported it). The only way it may have benefited Americans is if the US joining the treaty encouraged other countries to join, but as I already pointed out, that argument is specious at best. But hey, count on Fark to make a big deal out of something that won't actually do a damn thing to actually help the disabled.
 
2012-12-04 08:24:53 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FACT: ALL treaties are a threat to our sovereignty.


Actually, that's what's going on here. This is the lasting legacy of the Jesse Helms - John Bolton axis in Republican foreign policy. The theory is that all treaties are bad even when they're harmless. The more treaties that are signed, the more international governance is created and the less freedom of action there is left for states (nevermind that the U.S. would never take those actions).

The Republicans want the U.S. to have absolute freedom of action in all manners so as to never have obligations. This isn't a policy based on rationalism, it's one based on very, very rigid adherence to theoretical dogma.
 
2012-12-04 08:25:20 PM  

The Troof hurts: flux: The Troof hurts: It's a feelgood measure. Big deal. Wake me up when they get rid of the ADA.

Yes it is. So why block it?

Why get worked up about it? We already lead the world by having the ADA as an example. Why does the UN have any bearing on this? These countries should have passed their own version of the ADA by now if they were serious about helping disabled folks. Instead, they sign on to a treaty with no balls as a feelgood measure. We still lead the world. Everyone needs to calm down with the faux-rage.


Hm, looks like the server crash ate my reasoned, logical response to this. Let's try it again. Ahem:

It's PRECISELY because people respond like this that the Republicans get away with this tripe, and keep getting reelected. "We already have this! We can't keep helping other people! They should do stuff like this by themselves! Let them figure it out! We're good enough; if they're unhappy, it's their problem!"

Does any of that sound familiar? Does it sound like something Republicans would rally behind?
 
2012-12-04 08:25:27 PM  
Every day I am more and more convinced that the U.S. is almost full of total idiots and that we're coming towards a point where the entire thing is going to explode. I don't see how things can continue when we've got idiots like this in just about every American institution out there. And it's getting worse.
 
2012-12-04 08:33:54 PM  

Talondel: Philip Francis Queeg: It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.

That assumes that other governments would base their decision to adopt or reject the treaty on what we here in the US do with it, which is not only unfounded but contradicted by the article:

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens.

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?

I get that it doesn't matter if the US joins the treaty or not, unlike the vast majority of people posting in this thread. Countries that want to join and be bound by the treaty (including the 126 that already have) are still free to do so. This vote doesn't have any impact on them.

Joining the treaty would not have affected current law in the US one bit (and that is according to those who supported it). The only way it may have benefited Americans is if the US joining the treaty encouraged other countries to join, but as I already pointed out, that argument is specious at best. But hey, count on Fark to make a big deal out of something that won't actually do a damn thing to actually help the disabled.


Except that the Senate has bills that do effectively nothing all the damn time. Blocking this out of some absurd notion that it somehow breeches US sovereignty (or something something abortions!) is ridiculous. It's basically saying we won't reaffirm the rights of disabled people because NEENER NEENER YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO! It's the kind of gesture that makes us look like idiotic assholes, which is something to be reasonably perturbed about.
 
2012-12-04 08:34:09 PM  
It's getting to the point where a fella can't even go over the top rhetorically anymore.

/damn Poe's Law
 
2012-12-04 08:35:07 PM  
USA: Hey, we've invented this set of rules that prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.
The world: That's pretty cool! Can we implement this worldwide?
USA: Fark you! Get orf moi laaaand!
 
2012-12-04 08:45:44 PM  
Attention veterans and seniors:

Forget FOXNEWS and right-wing fantasies and take another look at the Democratic Party.
You know, we don't really want to destroy the country.

/srsly, why would we do that?
 
2012-12-04 08:51:35 PM  
What's most telling that this is about UN distrust and American isolationism is that, of all the potential detrimental effects Lee could have wrung out of a chip-on-shoulderly skeptical reading of the treaty, he focused on homeschooling. What crowd do you think that hook was baited for?
 
2012-12-04 09:00:05 PM  

Arkanaut: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.


That was indeed, the very definition of "farking Cold".
 
2012-12-04 09:00:24 PM  

hawcian: Talondel: Philip Francis Queeg: It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.

That assumes that other governments would base their decision to adopt or reject the treaty on what we here in the US do with it, which is not only unfounded but contradicted by the article:

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens.

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?

I get that it doesn't matter if the US joins the treaty or not, unlike the vast majority of people posting in this thread. Countries that want to join and be bound by the treaty (including the 126 that already have) are still free to do so. This vote doesn't have any impact on them.

Joining the treaty would not have affected current law in the US one bit (and that is according to those who supported it). The only way it may have benefited Americans is if the US joining the treaty encouraged other countries to join, but as I already pointed out, that argument is specious at best. But hey, count on Fark to make a big deal out of something that won't actually do a damn thing to actually help the disabled.

Except that the Senate has bills that do effectively nothing all the damn time. Blocking this out of some absurd notion that it somehow breeches US sovereignty (or something something abortions!) is ridiculous. It's basically saying we won't reaffirm the rights of disabled people because NEENER NEENER YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO! It's the kind of gesture that makes us look like idiotic assholes, which is something to be reasonably perturbed about.


Republicans and their shills and trolls on Fark don't give a fart in a hurricane about anything other than their petty little hatreds. For a group that calls themselves "The Party of Personal Responsibility" and prides themselves on being followers of Jesus Christ, they do everything they can to shirk responsibility and do the exact opposite of what Jesus and God taught and commanded.
 
2012-12-04 09:05:53 PM  
I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.

Except that there were no 22 Dems who voted against the treaty. Both sides are not equally bad.
 
2012-12-04 09:06:12 PM  

Lipo: damn, Rob Portman voted against it. farking retard.


Yep...looking forward to voting against that cockbag.
 
2012-12-04 09:07:36 PM  

Arkanaut: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.


There weren't any Democrats who voted against it. Where did you hear that?
 
2012-12-04 09:08:08 PM  

Arkanaut: I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.


Looking at the 38 Nays in the vote log, I don't see a single "D" next to any of the names.
 
2012-12-04 09:09:01 PM  

Talondel: Philip Francis Queeg: It appears that YOU care about the positive affect it might have for disabled American citizens who travel abroad.

That assumes that other governments would base their decision to adopt or reject the treaty on what we here in the US do with it, which is not only unfounded but contradicted by the article:

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens.

qorkfiend: You don't get what the UN is all about, do you?

I get that it doesn't matter if the US joins the treaty or not, unlike the vast majority of people posting in this thread. Countries that want to join and be bound by the treaty (including the 126 that already have) are still free to do so. This vote doesn't have any impact on them.

Joining the treaty would not have affected current law in the US one bit (and that is according to those who supported it). The only way it may have benefited Americans is if the US joining the treaty encouraged other countries to join, but as I already pointed out, that argument is specious at best. But hey, count on Fark to make a big deal out of something that won't actually do a damn thing to actually help the disabled.


Yeah best to stand with the great minds like Rick Santorum who reject this treaty to save us from the evil UN, We are all better off due to the herooic satnd of the Republicans in the Senate. Their action will go down in history for the aid they have given to the most defenseless amongst us.Truly nothing even slightly positive could have come from,it. The US must stand alone agains this nefarious and dastardly plot.
 
2012-12-04 09:17:43 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: The Republicans want the U.S. to have absolute freedom of action in all manners so as to never have obligations. This isn't a policy based on rationalism, it's one based on very, very rigid adherence to theoretical dogma.


There's no sense bringing sense into this conversation. The more conservative Republicans, the ones that are determined to see the U.S.A. not as part of a global community, bound by the same rules as the rest of the world, but as its eventual lord and master, push back as a matter of dogma against anything that smacks of global community. It's bizarre, but it's consistent.
 
2012-12-04 09:18:48 PM  

dericwater: The ADA may seem bureaucratic, but it is not just a faux concern for the disabled. Building codes are now required to be built to accommodate wheelchairs and the visually impaired. There are physical and real changes occurring. It's not just having to check off a long list of ornery requirements.


The ADA isn't the issue discussed here.

mrshowrules: I followed the details of this amendment very carefully, it passed despite GOP resistance and it is indeed protecting women from rape and preventing cases of rape being swept under the rug.


You clearly have a very loose definition of "carefully".

The text:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

It states that they can not arbitrate away two things. Claims under Title VII of the CRA of 1964 and tort arising from criminal issues. None of that is designed to prevent rape nor keep it from not being prosecuted criminally.

Now, usually when someone realizes their belief is wrong and that they slurred people so viciously they tend to feel bad. I'd consider it quite a thrill if you had a epiphany from this.
 
2012-12-04 09:18:52 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Arkanaut: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Even Farking CHINA ratified this treaty.

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng (you know, the blind Chinese lawyer/activist) can come out and say something about this. A lot of Republicans like him because he once defended a woman who was forced to get an abortion, but his big crusade is actually about rights of the disabled. I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that some of his sponsors voted against his cause.

Also, this is just appalling:

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam;...

I can't help but feel sorry for Bob Dole, dragging his old ass all this way to Washington just to see his own party trash his cause.

I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.

There weren't any Democrats who voted against it. Where did you hear that?


Dog Welder: Arkanaut: I'd also want to know who the 22 Dems were who voted against this treaty, and what they got in return.

Looking at the 38 Nays in the vote log, I don't see a single "D" next to any of the names.


I thought it was 61-38 against -- others have already corrected me on this issue. I didn't realize that a supermajority was required.
 
2012-12-04 09:25:11 PM  
"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.

My Senator ladies and gentlemen.
 
2012-12-04 09:55:27 PM  
Well, if the current Yay votes remain in place, the Dems can get a couple of votes closer when the new Senators come in.
 
2012-12-04 10:01:43 PM  
The real reason why the republicans voted against this treaty is because even though we don't really have to change pretty much anything we do by signing it, we would have to submit a report to the UN with information about how the disabled are treated in our country. And sometimes... Americans just have to execute people with cognitive disabilities. Capital punishment of retards coerced into confessing to a murder is a proud American tradition. Now there are some American legal restrictions on free-for-all retard executions. But we've left enough loopholes to let Texas do it every now and then. It's kind of like when Louisiana was the only state that still allowed cock-fighting. But then they caved to those animal rights wusses. But I digress...

If we sign this treaty, then whenever we are having a good olde American retard execution; those America-haters at the UN will probably write a note on our report telling us how it's not cool to execute people with cognitive disabilities. Who are those people to tell us how to celebrate our country? Back when he was governor of TX, America's greatest president executed a handful of men with IQs under 60 and then vetoed against a Texas law to ban the execution of the retarded. YEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAAA! If executing retards and loving America is wrong, then Republicans don't want to be right! Fark the UN and FARK the retarded!!!
 
2012-12-04 10:02:12 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, if the current Yay votes remain in place, the Dems can get a couple of votes closer when the new Senators come in.


sweet! I hope this meaningless piece of congressional business is resolved in the affirmative post haste! How else are we going to lead the world in compassion and equitable treatment for the disabled unless we sign a powerless treaty based on laws we already passed and govern ourselves with?!

/hope the snark wasn't too thick
 
2012-12-04 10:04:36 PM  
Subby thinks this is funny, but when the UN/Iraqi troops amass in Mexico and cross the border to seize your guns and send you in manacle boxcars to "reeducation" camps, they'll all have disability letters requiring you to give them double time to reload.
 
2012-12-04 10:07:09 PM  
This law would allow a way in for the US to treat our disabled babies and elderly like the UK does.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/30/englands-outrage-dehydrating-disab l ed-babies-in-uk-hospitals/
 
2012-12-04 10:28:35 PM  
Vote NO on ANYTHING the UN proposes. Besides, we are all in good hands of the "Anointed One."

GET US OUT OF THE UN !!!
 
2012-12-04 10:29:06 PM  
Conservatives are a bunch of lame retards for failing to come to the aid of handicaps,
 
2012-12-04 10:32:02 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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!


You forgot the requirement to register you little sped with the government at birth.
Some people don't care for that even with a loving and benevolent government.
 
2012-12-04 10:35:23 PM  
x-journal.net
 
2012-12-04 11:25:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, if the current Yay votes remain in place, the Dems can get a couple of votes closer when the new Senators come in.

sweet! I hope this meaningless piece of congressional business is resolved in the affirmative post haste! How else are we going to lead the world in compassion and equitable treatment for the disabled unless we sign a powerless treaty based on laws we already passed and govern ourselves with?!

/hope the snark wasn't too thick


Tell the world to be more like America, world decides to be more like America, sneer and snarl at the world for wanting to be more like America.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.
 
2012-12-04 11:35:27 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell the world to be more like America, world decides to be more like America, sneer and snarl at the world for wanting to be more like America.


sure, be more like America. Pass laws protecting your people in your country like we did. This doesn't do that. This is an agreement to do that. Since we already did put the agreement into practice and our practice is the basis FOR the agreement, I'm not terribly upset.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, what is wrong with you people?


in what regard? Finding the frightening level of paranoia used as justification to reject this treaty as the only truly upsetting aspect of the whole thing? Sorry.
 
2012-12-04 11:38:13 PM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell the world to be more like America, world decides to be more like America, sneer and snarl at the world for wanting to be more like America.

sure, be more like America. Pass laws protecting your people in your country like we did. This doesn't do that. This is an agreement to do that. Since we already did put the agreement into practice and our practice is the basis FOR the agreement, I'm not terribly upset.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

in what regard? Finding the frightening level of paranoia used as justification to reject this treaty as the only truly upsetting aspect of the whole thing? Sorry.


And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Forgot to respond to that part. Do you not care about that?

Seriously, why do people like you feel the need to act like assholes towards the rest of the world for no reason?
 
2012-12-04 11:47:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Forgot to respond to that part. Do you not care about that?



No I didn't. This treaty doesn't have the force of law so even if a country signs it, it does not magically make disabled people well taken care of.

I bolded it for you.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, why do people like you feel the need to act like assholes towards the rest of the world for no reason?


people like me? I didn't vote against the treaty. I would've voted for it as I see no credible reason not to. This is of course why I am more perturbed by the reasoning behind voting against it much more than I am concerned that people voted against it.
Of course, I'm not a handwringing farkhead so maybe that's where our disconnect lies?
 
2012-12-05 12:00:23 AM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: And this would also ensure our disabled in those countries would remain safe.

Forgot to respond to that part. Do you not care about that?


No I didn't. This treaty doesn't have the force of law so even if a country signs it, it does not magically make disabled people well taken care of.

I bolded it for you.
Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, why do people like you feel the need to act like assholes towards the rest of the world for no reason?

people like me? I didn't vote against the treaty. I would've voted for it as I see no credible reason not to. This is of course why I am more perturbed by the reasoning behind voting against it much more than I am concerned that people voted against it.
Of course, I'm not a handwringing farkhead so maybe that's where our disconnect lies?


You're an ASSuming farktard, that's for sure. Maybe if you spent less time imaging things about others and more time rationally discussing, you'd piss fewer people off. "Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!".

Maybe your constant habit of reacting so strongly negative towards others is where our disconnect lies.
 
2012-12-05 12:05:11 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: "Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"


ahh, rational discussion like this? I wonder myself why they voted no on this - I find their reasoning to be quite suspect. Rationally speaking, why would you "herp derp" a sentence implying that I said otherwise when I quite clearly stated already that I had serious issues with their reasoning to vote no?
Do you not understand what I wrote or have you forgotten already? Maybe you're hoping that I forgot what I wrote and you're perhaps trying to slip a little dishonesty in there? Nothing screams "pay attention to the important point I am about to make!" like putting a "herp derp" in your post
 
2012-12-05 12:08:18 AM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: "Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"

ahh, rational discussion like this? I wonder myself why they voted no on this - I find their reasoning to be quite suspect. Rationally speaking, why would you "herp derp" a sentence implying that I said otherwise when I quite clearly stated already that I had serious issues with their reasoning to vote no?
Do you not understand what I wrote or have you forgotten already? Maybe you're hoping that I forgot what I wrote and you're perhaps trying to slip a little dishonesty in there? Nothing screams "pay attention to the important point I am about to make!" like putting a "herp derp" in your post


I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.
 
2012-12-05 12:12:12 AM  

armoredbulldozer: "Anointed One."


You don't own a dictionary.
 
2012-12-05 12:16:28 AM  

armoredbulldozer: Vote NO on ANYTHING the UN proposes. Besides, we are all in good hands of the "Anointed One."

GET US OUT OF THE UN !!!


So you're in favor of the US voluntarily surrendering their Security Council veto. (Keep in mind, the Soviets walked out on the Security Council for less than a year, and in that time the Korean War was UN-authorized behind their back.)
 
2012-12-05 12:22:22 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.


why do I "seem" that way? Is it by the way I never questioned people's questioning of the motivations behind voting no or the fact that my sole post prior to your... whatever it is you're trying to do... was a snarky expression of joy at a poster who said that perhaps the new Senators will pass it. Was that I why I "seem" to be reacting in the way you invented for the sake of your masturbatory foray into delusion?
 
2012-12-05 12:23:29 AM  

92myrtle: FWIW...here are the traitors who voted for it:

Murkowski (R-AK)

a.k.a. . . .

Self-loathing beaten-in-primary RINO traitor who somehow survived undead.


You assholes are still pissed that we decided not to vote for your Teabagger moron after all, aren't you? Well, tough shiat.
 
2012-12-05 12:34:23 AM  

armoredbulldozer: Vote NO on ANYTHING the UN proposes. Besides, we are all in good hands of the "Anointed One."

GET US OUT OF THE UN !!!


www.trilobite.org
Um, she lost, dipshiat.
 
2012-12-05 12:50:23 AM  
That could be said about every international treaty the Senate has ever ratified.
 
2012-12-05 12:54:12 AM  
Did anyone mention the treaty was sponsored by the United States and based on the ADA yet?
So you know, the rest of the world would be following our laws....
Anyone?
 
2012-12-05 01:05:08 AM  
Not having read the treaty, this is all second hand. My understanding is that the objection came from schooling options available to parents of disabled children. That is, if we signed the treaty, the UN could/would dictate what schools disabled children must attend. Under our constitution, the treaty would trump any state or federal laws which provide for wider options.

That said, is there any reason to believe the UN mandates are going to do more to protect the disabled than US laws already on the books? When we're being held to the same standards as China, I seriously doubt it.
 
2012-12-05 01:14:09 AM  

Crizpin: Not having read the treaty, this is all second hand. My understanding is that the objection came from schooling options available to parents of disabled children. That is, if we signed the treaty, the UN could/would dictate what schools disabled children must attend. Under our constitution, the treaty would trump any state or federal laws which provide for wider options.

That said, is there any reason to believe the UN mandates are going to do more to protect the disabled than US laws already on the books? When we're being held to the same standards as China, I seriously doubt it.


You're a f*cking idiot. I just want you to know that because the bullsh*t you just spewed was dispelled in almost every post above yours.

IT DOES NOT IMPACT US BECAUSE WE SET THE STANDARD! IT WAS ENACTED TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO OUR LEVEL! THE UN CAN'T MAKE US DO JACK SH*T!

I'm assuming you are deaf and mute.
 
2012-12-05 01:20:58 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I'm assuming you are deaf and mute.


blind would've been enough
 
2012-12-05 01:55:38 AM  
The GOP, and members of The Family in particular, believe that all laws are for other people, not themselves. They think they are already chosen by God to be leaders, so they are exempt from all laws, ethics, and morals. Probably some of that Old South hierarchy thrown in as well, where the lords of the plantations could do anything to anyone without reprisal.
 
2012-12-05 01:57:04 AM  

Crizpin: My understanding


Yeah. Read things more, perhaps ask an adult to spell things out for you, homeschooled.
The homeschoolers were the ones worried, by the by, but thats besides the point- 2 others, possibly smarter than I , just above my post covered it well.
 
2012-12-05 01:59:16 AM  
Oh yeah- F you alleged friends of Bob Dole in the Senate. May you meet an untimely death, the lot of you. And I dont really like Bob Dole ...
 
2012-12-05 02:06:44 AM  

Crizpin: Not having read the treaty, this is all second hand. My understanding is that the objection came from schooling options available to parents of disabled children. That is, if we signed the treaty, the UN could/would dictate what schools disabled children must attend. Under our constitution, the treaty would trump any state or federal laws which provide for wider options.

That said, is there any reason to believe the UN mandates are going to do more to protect the disabled than US laws already on the books? When we're being held to the same standards as China, I seriously doubt it.


You are an idiot. Our constitution IS the supreme law of the land. Nothing is higher than the constitution. The United Nations can't come in and tell any subsidiary nation what to do--no treaty "trumps" the laws of any signatory nation.

If you are talking about Article VI--which I assume is the only thing anyone could be panicking about--and the Supremacy Clause,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

what that means is that federal laws trump state laws ONLY. And treaties made by the federal government have supremacy over state laws. It doesn't make the UN our de facto government...that would be insane. It means that if the US makes a treaty, like a trade treaty, that allows another nation to use the Port of San Diego, then California has to obey that treaty and can't deny that country's ships access because it has a law forbidding it. It DOESN'T mean that the UN has the right to tell America what to do.

Is that really what all this idiocy is about? Holy mother of god. Are people really that stupid?
 
2012-12-05 02:15:01 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Are people really that stupid?


Must you really ask that, with a straight face ? I know, i know. sigh.
 
2012-12-05 03:04:27 AM  
Well, when you really want to out-and-out support discrimination against disabled people, you have to use whatever excuse is available, no matter how lame it is. So the Republicans do have that going for them.
 
2012-12-05 03:30:19 AM  
They lined up to shake Dole's hand, then turned around and farked him the moment he left the room. I don't know whether 'disgusting' or 'typical' is the better way to describe it.

The only bright spot I see is that both the senators from my home state voted in favor, including one of the Republicans who broke ranks.
 
2012-12-05 04:08:04 AM  
Can someone explain to me what the actual downside of losing American sovereignty is? Seriously, based on the compostion of the Congress this past few decades, it's becoming increasingly clear that we're completely incapable of governing ourselves. Maybe a committee government with reps from Sweden, Switzerland, and Iceland? They seem to be pretty together.
 
2012-12-05 05:33:07 AM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Can someone explain to me what the actual downside of losing American sovereignty is?


You'll have to ask the people who are simultaneously terrified of America losing sovereignty and threatening to secede. Bring aspirin.
 
2012-12-05 05:42:49 AM  

alienated: Oh yeah- F you alleged friends of Bob Dole in the Senate. May you meet an untimely death, the lot of you. And I dont really like Bob Dole ...


Whether you agree with Dole's politics or not, he was probably one of the great Senate leaders. He's a moderate Republican (a RINO by today's standards) who had a knack of getting the two sides to come together on an issue. He didn't go to the press and biatch about how the other side was a bunch of jerks, but instead he brought the leaders of both sides into his office to hammer out the details they could both agree to vote on. Imagine that! Actually getting business done in the Senate like adults.
 
2012-12-05 06:57:34 AM  

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???


They all keep "wide stances" in public restrooms?
/and suck dick
 
2012-12-05 10:25:01 AM  
I'm from PA and here is Toomey's response:

"While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities," Sen. Toomey said. "This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy."

ARE YOU A FREAKING RETARD?!?!?!?! UN Treatys do not trump US Laws!
 
2012-12-05 10:49:00 AM  
It's hard to take the UN seriously when it feels like nothing more than an old lady who writes letters to the paper.
 
2012-12-05 11:54:33 AM  

TNel: I'm from PA and here is Toomey's response:

"While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities," Sen. Toomey said. "This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy."

ARE YOU A FREAKING RETARD?!?!?!?! UN Treatys do not trump US Laws!


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In Chief Justice Marshall's words:
"...a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country."
 
2012-12-05 11:59:04 AM  

TNel: I'm from PA and here is Toomey's response:

"While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities," Sen. Toomey said. "This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy."

ARE YOU A FREAKING RETARD?!?!?!?! UN Treatys do not trump US Laws!


I hope that this moment of incorrect outraged certainty encourages you to reevaluate all the other things you're certain of.
 
2012-12-05 01:56:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.

why do I "seem" that way? Is it by the way I never questioned people's questioning of the motivations behind voting no or the fact that my sole post prior to your... whatever it is you're trying to do... was a snarky expression of joy at a poster who said that perhaps the new Senators will pass it. Was that I why I "seem" to be reacting in the way you invented for the sake of your masturbatory foray into delusion?


ASSuming a lot again. It's hard to understand anything you think when 75% of the time you're in any thread you're being a confrontational asshole towards everyone who speaks to you.
 
2012-12-05 02:20:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.

why do I "seem" that way? Is it by the way I never questioned people's questioning of the motivations behind voting no or the fact that my sole post prior to your... whatever it is you're trying to do... was a snarky expression of joy at a poster who said that perhaps the new Senators will pass it. Was that I why I "seem" to be reacting in the way you invented for the sake of your masturbatory foray into delusion?

ASSuming a lot again. It's hard to understand anything you think when 75% of the time you're in any thread you're being a confrontational asshole towards everyone who speaks to you.


I really and honestly try not to be an asshole to a person unprovoked.
That said, you shouldn't cry about assumptions when you ended the thread last night talking about what I "seemed" to be doing despite the fact that my posts themselves clearly contradicted that assumption... or maybe that wasn't an assumption; perhaps that was just a straight up old fashioned lie?
 
2012-12-05 03:26:20 PM  

dericwater: Mrbogey: Why should the US sign a treaty that provides nothing more than a bureaucracy?

To make us feel better? To try and shame other countries that don't care what we think?

All the faux concern for the disabled is duly noted.

The ADA may seem bureaucratic, but it is not just a faux concern for the disabled. Building codes are now required to be built to accommodate wheelchairs and the visually impaired. There are physical and real changes occurring. It's not just having to check off a long list of ornery requirements.


The ADA seems pointless to many... I'd agree with most people that most other people mean well, and will help the disabled when an issue arises. But with construction issues, it's nice to know that when I'm in a wheelchair after an MS atttack, I won't need to worry about getting stuck in doorways that aren't wide enough.

That and, I've been on the bad side of discrimination from work before. I worked at a sporting goods store, where every department had stools so associates could sit while they did some work (hanging clothes or whatever). When they found out I had MS, they took my stool away (my department was me and one other person)... they said I couldn't have it "because you might need it, and we've got an image to maintain." It's the kind of bullshiat you'd expect in the 1950s, but not today... it turns out though, with our new fervor for hiring incompetent morons who claim to have a specialty in "management" or "business"... that many of them are total jagoffs who would do better to get dragged out back and shot. It's sad that the ADA is still necessary, I wish it weren't. That said, we had a good chance to stand up, as a unified country, not as dems beating republicans, and say that we affirm not only the ADA, but that the US should be a leader in ending discrimination against the disabled around the world...

There are leaders, and then there are Republicans...
 
2012-12-05 03:27:27 PM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: I was talking about how you seem to be reacting to those who are wondering why they voted no, not about the people who did vote no. Maybe you should read and understand better.

why do I "seem" that way? Is it by the way I never questioned people's questioning of the motivations behind voting no or the fact that my sole post prior to your... whatever it is you're trying to do... was a snarky expression of joy at a poster who said that perhaps the new Senators will pass it. Was that I why I "seem" to be reacting in the way you invented for the sake of your masturbatory foray into delusion?

ASSuming a lot again. It's hard to understand anything you think when 75% of the time you're in any thread you're being a confrontational asshole towards everyone who speaks to you.

I really and honestly try not to be an asshole to a person unprovoked.
That said, you shouldn't cry about assumptions when you ended the thread last night talking about what I "seemed" to be doing despite the fact that my posts themselves clearly contradicted that assumption... or maybe that wasn't an assumption; perhaps that was just a straight up old fashioned lie?


You were going off at people who were angry about the guys who voted no on a treaty that would ensure that disabled people would have equal protections and help no matter where they go and would bring many countries closer to America, claiming that since America already has it we shouldn't be part of any worthless treaty while calling those who believe that America should be part of the world stage instead of stuck-up isolationists "hand-wringing pussies".
 
2012-12-05 03:36:34 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You were going off at people who were angry about the guys who voted no on a treaty that would ensure that disabled people would have equal protections and help no matter where they go and would bring many countries closer to America, claiming that since America already has it we shouldn't be part of any worthless treaty while calling those who believe that America should be part of the world stage instead of stuck-up isolationists "hand-wringing pussies".


"handwringing farkheads" was the phrase.

"Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"
I also wonder why they voted no. You ASSumed that I agreed with their votes despite the fact I explicitly said otherwise. I find the reasons suggested far more troubling than the fact they voted no on a treaty which does exactly farkall to help disabled people in itself despite your continued claims to the contrary. It is an agreement to offer these protections from disability. The US already offers the protections outlined. The US is not preventing any disabled people from enjoying these protections by not ratifying. If the US signed this treaty, it would be a nice symbolic gesture of a commitment to the notion but it has very little practical implication. All in all, their paranoid objections is what bothers me most, not the lack of a symbolic gesture.
 
2012-12-05 03:46:10 PM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: You were going off at people who were angry about the guys who voted no on a treaty that would ensure that disabled people would have equal protections and help no matter where they go and would bring many countries closer to America, claiming that since America already has it we shouldn't be part of any worthless treaty while calling those who believe that America should be part of the world stage instead of stuck-up isolationists "hand-wringing pussies".

"handwringing farkheads" was the phrase.

"Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"
I also wonder why they voted no. You ASSumed that I agreed with their votes despite the fact I explicitly said otherwise. I find the reasons suggested far more troubling than the fact they voted no on a treaty which does exactly farkall to help disabled people in itself despite your continued claims to the contrary. It is an agreement to offer these protections from disability. The US already offers the protections outlined. The US is not preventing any disabled people from enjoying these protections by not ratifying. If the US signed this treaty, it would be a nice symbolic gesture of a commitment to the notion but it has very little practical implication. All in all, their paranoid objections is what bothers me most, not the lack of a symbolic gesture.


Who cares if it doesn't have a "practical implication"? It would be a very nice symbolic act for America to show that they're on board with worldwide disability protection. We made the goddamned thing in the first place, would be nice to show we support it and like that the rest of the world decided to embrace it. Instead we're showing the world that once again we're hypocritical idiots that want to be left alone unless you have some resource we desire, all because one of our political parties who happens to have control of an important part of the government are retarded, insane dipshiats.

You're against the people who voted no on it, yet in the same breath you decry the treaty as pointless for us and lash out at other people who are against them. Then you wonder why others are confused by you.
 
2012-12-05 03:49:09 PM  
God damn it people, it's not the effect of the bill that has us dirty libs upset; it's the mentality behind opposing it.
 
2012-12-05 04:05:24 PM  

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: You were going off at people who were angry about the guys who voted no on a treaty that would ensure that disabled people would have equal protections and help no matter where they go and would bring many countries closer to America, claiming that since America already has it we shouldn't be part of any worthless treaty while calling those who believe that America should be part of the world stage instead of stuck-up isolationists "hand-wringing pussies".

"handwringing farkheads" was the phrase.

"Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"
I also wonder why they voted no. You ASSumed that I agreed with their votes despite the fact I explicitly said otherwise. I find the reasons suggested far more troubling than the fact they voted no on a treaty which does exactly farkall to help disabled people in itself despite your continued claims to the contrary. It is an agreement to offer these protections from disability. The US already offers the protections outlined. The US is not preventing any disabled people from enjoying these protections by not ratifying. If the US signed this treaty, it would be a nice symbolic gesture of a commitment to the notion but it has very little practical implication. All in all, their paranoid objections is what bothers me most, not the lack of a symbolic gesture.


Nobody is arguing that the ADA doesn't exist, or that the US doesn't do better than most of the rest of the world in terms of helping the disabled. What we're arguing here is that leadership matters, and symbolism, even in the form of treaties, matters. We had a great opportunity to be the leaders we claim to be... to stand up for the people around the world who are not able to stand up for themselves and say that we support them, and that regardless of nationality, we think they matter enough to be protected too. Instead of being those leaders, and raising that symbol like the flag we cherish so dearly, more than two-thirds of the GOP Senate delegation chose to cower before fear of imaginary black helicopters, UN forced abortions, and other lunatic fringe whackjob delusions.

Symbols... the WTC, the Statue of Liberty, the Pentagon, the Flag... they embody the importance lent to them by men... though the US holds a dim opinion of the rest of the world, and of the UN, for some reason, the rest of the world still believes that the UN, that a joint partnership of nations, can be a force for good... and we had a great opportunity to use it for just that purpose, to promote what was 20 years ago, a uniquely American value... sadly, as with so many other chances where we've had great opportunities to participate in and lead the world in its inexorable march to freedom and justice, we decided not to answer the call of history, to make ourselves ever more irrelevant... and I'm sure, in a few years, we'll be having a debate for some other people to be President, and the same people who cowered behind irrational fears and idiocy will be screaming about how other people are the reason we have diminished global influence, living blissfully in their consequence-free delusions and trying to convince half of America to join them there.
 
2012-12-05 04:18:00 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: You were going off at people who were angry about the guys who voted no on a treaty that would ensure that disabled people would have equal protections and help no matter where they go and would bring many countries closer to America, claiming that since America already has it we shouldn't be part of any worthless treaty while calling those who believe that America should be part of the world stage instead of stuck-up isolationists "hand-wringing pussies".

"handwringing farkheads" was the phrase.

"Herp derp, people wonder why they voted no about this, what a bunch of whiny handwringing pussies!"
I also wonder why they voted no. You ASSumed that I agreed with their votes despite the fact I explicitly said otherwise. I find the reasons suggested far more troubling than the fact they voted no on a treaty which does exactly farkall to help disabled people in itself despite your continued claims to the contrary. It is an agreement to offer these protections from disability. The US already offers the protections outlined. The US is not preventing any disabled people from enjoying these protections by not ratifying. If the US signed this treaty, it would be a nice symbolic gesture of a commitment to the notion but it has very little practical implication. All in all, their paranoid objections is what bothers me most, not the lack of a symbolic gesture.

Who cares if it doesn't have a "practical implication"? It would be a very nice symbolic act for America to show that they're on board with worldwide disability protection. We made the goddamned thing in the first place, would be nice to show we support it and like that the rest of the world decided to embrace it. Instead we're showing the world that once again we're hypocritical idiots that want to be left alone unless you have some resource we desire, all because one of our political parties who happens to have control of an important part of the government are retarded, insane dipshiats.
...


The treaty does have practical applications. By joining a UN Human Rights convention, nations are then able to participate in its corresponding state parties' convention. At such time, countries share information on how they have implemented the treaty (which may include changes to national legislation or actual implementation of technologies and policies). Changes to national legislations are a concrete first practical step. Any nation that does not currently have an anti-discrimination law for people with disabilities and has signed the treaty has committed to passing these laws. And some signatories have already either done this or are in the process of doing it. Of course there will always be countries that drag their feet or do a poor job of implementing legislation. But these forums actually help to either shame nations into getting their act together or more importantly, (and a good reason to have a leader like the USA at this meetings) this is a place to ask for technical assistance and support.

This particular treaty also includes a committee of experts from the states that have ratified it. By not ratifying the treaty, U.S. experts (which for obvious reasons have a wealth of expertise in the matter) can not be in this committee. This group of experts reviews the reports submitted by state parties and provides recommendations on how countries can better live up to the principles in the treaty. It also accepts reports from civil society organizations that wish to dispute the official report from their government. The committee would also advise the UN for the drafting of strongly worded letter to countries that grossly violate the treaty. The experts btw do not have to be disabled but the treaty does mention a preference for it (they didn't want to discriminate by banning a noted expert who may not have a disability).

As a global power and because of its experience in disability rights, the US will probably still play a part on the implementation of this convention. But by not being a party to the treaty, this would likely happen on an unofficial, unnecessarily inefficient, ad hoc manner.

Also... even though the focus of the discussion has benefits has been on improving the situation of Americans with disabilities who may travel abroad, that doesn't mean that the treaty does not offer benefits for those at home. It is extremely arrogant to think that there aren't countries out there that have already improved upon the ADA or that will do so. The exercise of reporting on how your own country incorporates disability exposes weaknesses that can be addressed. And the ADA and other disability rights law include concepts such as reasonable accommodation which are ever-changing and evolving as technology and needs change. Participation in the convention has the potential to allow the U.S. to adopt best practices developed in other countries as well. In the long run it benefits the disabled abroad and at home.
 
2012-12-05 04:24:18 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You're against the people who voted no on it, yet in the same breath you decry the treaty as pointless for us and lash out at other people who are against them. Then you wonder why others are confused by you.


I've stated my position quite clearly. I would have voted for it. I find those who voted against it to be idiots since there is no logical reason to do so. However, the fact that they voted against it does not bother me anywhere near as much as the reasons they didn't.
 
2012-12-05 04:28:28 PM  

firefly212: Nobody is arguing that the ADA doesn't exist, or that the US doesn't do better than most of the rest of the world in terms of helping the disabled. What we're arguing here is that leadership matters, and symbolism, even in the form of treaties, matters. We had a great opportunity to be the leaders we claim to be... to stand up for the people around the world who are not able to stand up for themselves and say that we support them, and that regardless of nationality, we think they matter enough to be protected too. Instead of being those leaders, and raising that symbol like the flag we cherish so dearly, more than two-thirds of the GOP Senate delegation chose to cower before fear of imaginary black helicopters, UN forced abortions, and other lunatic fringe whackjob delusions.

Symbols... the WTC, the Statue of Liberty, the Pentagon, the Flag... they embody the importance lent to them by men... though the US holds a dim opinion of the rest of the world, and of the UN, for some reason, the rest of the world still believes that the UN, that a joint partnership of nations, can be a force for good... and we had a great opportunity to use it for just that purpose, to promote what was 20 years ago, a uniquely American value... sadly, as with so many other chances where we've had great opportunities to participate in and lead the world in its inexorable march to freedom and justice, we decided not to answer the call of history, to make ourselves ever more irrelevant... and I'm sure, in a few years, we'll be having a debate for some other people to be President, and the same people who cowered behind irrational fears and idiocy will be screaming about how other people are the reason we have diminished global influence, living blissfully in their consequence-free delusions and trying to convince half of America to join them there.


I get all this - however, I find the fact that the treaty itself is based on our laws - that the world body is largely ratifying an agreement based on our leadership in this area - to be important. That people are following our lead as admirable is a good thing. Not signing an agreement that is an international expression of recognition for our leadership isn't all that important to me. Sure it would make us look less dickish to not have the sorts of paranoid farkheads who are afraid to sign it but that and that paranoia is all I really care about here - not any presumed benefits our failure to sign withholds
 
2012-12-05 04:32:25 PM  

kbronsito: The treaty does have practical applications. By joining a UN Human Rights convention, nations are then able to participate in its corresponding state parties' convention. At such time, countries share information on how they have implemented the treaty (which may include changes to national legislation or actual implementation of technologies and policies). Changes to national legislations are a concrete first practical step. Any nation that does not currently have an anti-discrimination law for people with disabilities and has signed the treaty has committed to passing these laws. And some signatories have already either done this or are in the process of doing it. Of course there will always be countries that drag their feet or do a poor job of implementing legislation. But these forums actually help to either shame nations into getting their act together or more importantly, (and a good reason to have a leader like the USA at this meetings) this is a place to ask for technical assistance and support.

This particular treaty also includes a committee of experts from the states that have ratified it. By not ratifying the treaty, U.S. experts (which for obvious reasons have a wealth of expertise in the matter) can not be in this committee. This group of experts reviews the reports submitted by state parties and provides recommendations on how countries can better live up to the principles in the treaty. It also accepts reports from civil society organizations that wish to dispute the official report from their government. The committee would also advise the UN for the drafting of strongly worded letter to countries that grossly violate the treaty. The experts btw do not have to be disabled but the treaty does mention a preference for it (they didn't want to discriminate by banning a noted expert who may not have a disability).

As a global power and because of its experience in disability rights, the US will probably still play a part on the implementation of th ...


I take it all back... well, a lot of it. I am still more concerned that we have legislators who think this way but I was not aware of the participation in the committees which is only open to signatories. I thought it was only a symbolic affirmation of stuff we already do.
Well explained, kbronsito
 
2012-12-05 08:56:14 PM  
GOP empathy true to form.

-Cheney supporting same sex marriage because of lesbian daughter
-McCain against torture because he suffered torture
-Rubio for ideas within the Dream Act because he is the son of immigrant parents
-Dole supporting the disability act
-Christie supporting FEMA/President when his State needs them

As long as Republicans are directly implicated by an issue, they have an abundance of empathy (what is empathy to them that is).
 
2012-12-05 08:57:22 PM  
Forgot
-Bill Brady for gun control
-Romney for religious tolerance
 
2012-12-05 10:22:52 PM  

skullkrusher: firefly212: Nobody is arguing that the ADA doesn't exist, or that the US doesn't do better than most of the rest of the world in terms of helping the disabled. What we're arguing here is that leadership matters, and symbolism, even in the form of treaties, matters. We had a great opportunity to be the leaders we claim to be... to stand up for the people around the world who are not able to stand up for themselves and say that we support them, and that regardless of nationality, we think they matter enough to be protected too. Instead of being those leaders, and raising that symbol like the flag we cherish so dearly, more than two-thirds of the GOP Senate delegation chose to cower before fear of imaginary black helicopters, UN forced abortions, and other lunatic fringe whackjob delusions.

Symbols... the WTC, the Statue of Liberty, the Pentagon, the Flag... they embody the importance lent to them by men... though the US holds a dim opinion of the rest of the world, and of the UN, for some reason, the rest of the world still believes that the UN, that a joint partnership of nations, can be a force for good... and we had a great opportunity to use it for just that purpose, to promote what was 20 years ago, a uniquely American value... sadly, as with so many other chances where we've had great opportunities to participate in and lead the world in its inexorable march to freedom and justice, we decided not to answer the call of history, to make ourselves ever more irrelevant... and I'm sure, in a few years, we'll be having a debate for some other people to be President, and the same people who cowered behind irrational fears and idiocy will be screaming about how other people are the reason we have diminished global influence, living blissfully in their consequence-free delusions and trying to convince half of America to join them there.

I get all this - however, I find the fact that the treaty itself is based on our laws - that the world body is largely ratifying an ag ...


The thing that really irks me... not so much talking about you, but many of these same idiots who refuse to lead one minute, are whining about how we're not leading the next.
 
2012-12-06 07:47:53 AM  

skullkrusher: TNel: I'm from PA and here is Toomey's response:

"While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities," Sen. Toomey said. "This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy."

ARE YOU A FREAKING RETARD?!?!?!?! UN Treatys do not trump US Laws!

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In Chief Justice Marshall's words:
"...a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country."


I would kindly let you look a few posts above me where someone else already explained that you are wrong about that line in the Constitution and UN Treatys do not trump Federal Laws.
 
2012-12-06 10:22:24 AM  

TNel: skullkrusher: TNel: I'm from PA and here is Toomey's response:

"While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities," Sen. Toomey said. "This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy."

ARE YOU A FREAKING RETARD?!?!?!?! UN Treatys do not trump US Laws!

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In Chief Justice Marshall's words:
"...a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country."

I would kindly let you look a few posts above me where someone else already explained that you are wrong about that line in the Constitution and UN Treatys do not trump Federal Laws.


A Treaty has the same footing as federal law.
 
Displayed 302 of 302 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report