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
    More: Asinine, Senate GOP, disabled, John McCain, Americans with Disabilities Act  
•       •       •

2499 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 !!!
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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