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  
•       •       •

2485 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2012 at 4:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-04 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report