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.

(RealClear)   Secretary of State John Kerry to sign controversial UN arms treaty...even after the Senate said it would never ratify it. So, basically he's performing diplomatic masturbation   (realclear.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, arms trade treaty, combat aircraft, United Nations General Assembly  
•       •       •

740 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:37 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-25 11:33:20 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?


Not strictly equal, no. I disagree with the DNC on many things, but they are not as dogmatically anti-intellectual as the GOP has become over the years. I have long loathed the modern two-party system, though.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:06 AM  
The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:46 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.


It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:48 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?

Not strictly equal, no. I disagree with the DNC on many things, but they are not as dogmatically anti-intellectual as the GOP has become over the years. I have long loathed the modern two-party system, though.


As evidenced by your voting for some pretty crazy candidates in the past.
 
2013-09-25 11:35:27 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.


Why couldn't you vote for Kerry? As far as I can tell the only real knock against him was that he was too boring.
 
2013-09-25 11:40:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

Why couldn't you vote for Kerry? As far as I can tell the only real knock against him was that he was too boring.


A number of disagreements with his policies, but mainly it was John Edwards. He is a despicable human being. He made millions ruining the lives and careers of physicians by peddling junk science from whore "experts" whose theories have since been soundly rejected regarding mistakes by OBs allegedly causing cerebral palsy. There is no way I would vote for any ticket with an ambulance chasing scum bag like Edwards.
 
2013-09-25 11:41:17 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.


Please, allow me.  Ahem.
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

Also:
United Nations

And, just to be thorough:
President (Barack) Obama
 
2013-09-25 11:41:27 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.


In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...
 
2013-09-25 11:41:34 AM  

super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.


I had no idea that the UK and France are among the 5 biggest gun runners in the world.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:17 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...


Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:21 AM  

King Something: super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.

I had no idea that the UK and France are among the 5 biggest gun runners in the world.


Nic Cage told me so. So it has to be right.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:28 AM  

Nabb1: LoneWolf343: Lucky LaRue: Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid

You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.

If the GOP haven't convinced you of the reality of evil, I don't know what will.

Pol Pot was evil. The GOP that's just been dragged down into insanity and intellectual bankruptcy. There are surely some in their ranks who are bad people, but just like most Democrats, I think most of them think they are trying to move the country in the right direction.


Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night, pal.
 
2013-09-25 11:46:11 AM  

Strangelove MD: ...and would it kill yall to explain this whole "BOB" thing?


BOB is a derogatory nickname for the president recently invented by a new gimmick account on fark dot com who shall remain nameless
 
2013-09-25 11:46:40 AM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?

If by "both sides" you mean that I am talking about the far-left and the far-right and by "the same" you are suggesting that I am implying that they are both bat-shiat insane comedic relief to the real political process that happens in the middle, then I suppose you have my position pretty well nailed down.


But, I think everyone's point is that the "real political process" isn't happening between the moderates of each party. It's happening between the moderate Democrats (which is semi-redundant at this point) and the far-right Republicans.

Just saying "crazy people in both parties are embarrassing", while true, is a useless statement today. The crazy Republicans are holding the reigns of their party right now, while the crazy Democrats... I don't know what they're doing because they're not involved in anything of importance.

That's why people are reacting this way to your posts. Your point, while true, does not have any practical application to the political reality of today, and only serves to give the appearance that both Republicans and Democrats are equal in their shenanigans.
 
2013-09-25 11:47:45 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.


Whoops. In the car (not driving). Read that all wrong. "Racist"? David Duke is a racist. Y'all are funny sometimes.
 
2013-09-25 11:48:54 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid


So you are saying you never actuallu read the analysis for the downgrade. Debt cieling antics was only part of the reason. Spending increases and the disbelief of lowering spending (Medicare doc fix being claimed every year) was a big part of it. Way to demonstrate your low information ignorance though.
 
2013-09-25 11:51:29 AM  

super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.


Yes but that's not the reason the US will never ratify it.

First line of the article says it all.  It's an 80 BILLION dollar industry and the US has the lion's share of that.  Raytheon, Boeing, and all those companies stand to lose billions in sales and they will lobby the government with tens of millions in "donations" in order to avoid that.

And they will do it successfully.  Billions of dollars in revenues trumps the occasional nasty regime using those same weapons to massacre tens of thousands, unless they're killing better customers
 
2013-09-25 11:58:29 AM  

urbangirl: Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.

Please, allow me.  Ahem.
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

Also:
United Nations

And, just to be thorough:
President (Barack) Obama


That's close, but more precisely, it's:

The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on global gun sales.
 
2013-09-25 11:59:24 AM  
Huh? There's a huge difference between the executive branch signing a UN treaty and Congress ratifying said treaty. As an example, Israel has been a signatory to the UN chemical weapons convention since 1993, but has never ratified it, and, as such, is not bound by it.

Signing a treat indicates that the executive branch is interested in becoming a signatory to it. However, it does not become binding law until ratified by Congress.

I'm not sure these folks actually understand how Government works?
 
2013-09-25 12:00:22 PM  
Does it really count as controversial if the controversy is completely manufactured?
 
2013-09-25 12:01:35 PM  

SilentStrider: And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns


FTA:
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

FTFTreaty (the first farking page, even):
Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

/Because the number of lazy, stupid, gullible farkwits is truly mind-boggling.
 
2013-09-25 12:02:20 PM  

error 303: Huh? There's a huge difference between the executive branch signing a UN treaty and Congress ratifying said treaty. As an example, Israel has been a signatory to the UN chemical weapons convention since 1993, but has never ratified it, and, as such, is not bound by it.

Signing a treat indicates that the executive branch is interested in becoming a signatory to it. However, it does not become binding law until ratified by Congress.

I'm not sure these folks actually understand how Government works?


No, no, no. This is EXACTLY like the GOP trying to defund Obamacare 42 times. Both sides are equally bad, so just vote Republican. Thank you.
 
2013-09-25 12:02:47 PM  

jakomo002: First line of the article says it all. It's an 80 BILLION dollar industry and the US has the lion's share of that. Raytheon, Boeing, and all those companies stand to lose billions in sales and they will lobby the government with tens of millions in "donations" in order to avoid that.


Which is kind of a silly complaint considering the significant ITAR regulations already on the books for export control and the recent efforts by the Obama administration to overhaul and simplify them.

Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.
 
2013-09-25 12:03:48 PM  
What this does is demonstrate to the world that the Democrats are responsible and the Republicans are tools of the gun lobby.
 
2013-09-25 12:10:25 PM  

nekom: SilentStrider: And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns

I thought those would be collected at the FEMA camps?


No, they'll be distributed to illegal immigrants so they can guard you on the way there.
 
2013-09-25 12:12:46 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: dittybopper: nekom: Lando Lincoln: And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs bought and paid for by gun manufacturers.

FTFY

It's the other-way 'round:  The gun manufacturers are bought and paid for by the NRA, because the NRA has the muscle to shut down a gun manufacturer that steps out of line, even the biggest, most prestigious manufacturers.

See:   Smith & Wesson Agreement of 2000.

Moral of the story:  Don't piss off your customers.

Alternate interpretation: The cartel decided to rein in one of its members that broke with the established trade strategy, and directed its agents within the NRA to establish the correct opinion within the group, thus bringing the now-diminished member back into the fold to serve as an example to any others that might consider leaving.

Just speculation, of course.


One that doesn't fit what actually happened.

Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.

"Since S&W has knuckled under to Clinton's pressure tactics and the lawsuits,
they won't be selling any more 'Smiths' to me. "
...
"after reading the agreement that Smith has signed, I doubt 
that anyone will be buying anything they make after next year; they've just 
put themselves out of business. "

"S and W needs to be boycottedd by gun owners or other companies will
follown. We need to boycott S and W and hurt them where the company feels
it, the wallet. "
...
"Smith & Wesson can go to hell."
...
"S&W just signed their own death warrant. "
...
"S&W can anticipate a sharp decline in sales and a reduction in
S&W franchises as American gun purchasers make their anger
known. Citibank did a 180 after gun owners put pressure on them
after they announced they were cancelling the accounts of gun dealers. S&W's
CEO, Ed Schultz is not from the gun industry and is
now just finding out that he's stepped into a hornets nest. "


Those are just the comments from one forum, immediately after the announcement (which was on a Friday evening, so manufacturers wouldn't have had a comment until the next Monday, March 20th).

Plus, the US government looked into the possibility that there was collusion among gun manufacturers, and found *NOTHING*.

So while it's a theory, it's an incorrect theory.  This was a boycott driven at the grassroots level, not by other manufacturers.
 
2013-09-25 12:13:28 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...


Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.
 
2013-09-25 12:16:50 PM  

BMFPitt: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.


So, vote republican.
 
2013-09-25 12:18:19 PM  

Infernalist: BMFPitt: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.

So, vote republican.


Do you know what a thought-terminating cliche is?
 
2013-09-25 12:18:51 PM  

dittybopper: Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.


Since the Principle of Usenet Exclusivity states that there can be no other discussion or planning anywhere else on the planet if a usenet group is discussing a topic, I see no problem with your logic.
 
2013-09-25 12:21:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Whoops, least logical, most illogical. Pick one.


Most illogically logical...at least according to my quick review of high school grammar, and Star Trek TOS.
 
2013-09-25 12:22:49 PM  

iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.


The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?
 
2013-09-25 12:26:13 PM  
Setting aside the Obamacare comparissons and arguments, signing this treaty is not a kind of political theater. Kerry is signing as the representative of the U.S. president and they don't need the senate's approval for that. The senate is needed to ratify the treaty. But those two things are somewhat different matters. I think the president may even be able to sign the treaty and never even submit it for ratification if he doesn't think it will happen. There is no political impase here and lots of countries (the U.S. included) are signatories to treaties they never ratified. This is a fairly common practice.

The UN actually keeps track of which countries are signatories and which have ratified existing treaties and conventions as separate categories. Those that ratified treaties have made a commitment to adhere by the terms, signatories have not. States that ratify usually become part of a treaty body (or conference of state parties) where reports are submitted to determine if obligations are being met. Signing w/o ratifying a treaty is akin to signing a non-binding resolution. In theory, even before signing this treaty, the U.S. agreed with the principle that keeping weapons from genocidal maniacs, terrorists and other problematic people is a good thing (I stress the "in theory" part). So signing it doesn't significantly change things for America. At most, if we sell weapons to terrorists or mass murderers; we get a letter from the U.N. that's even less harsh than the one a nation that has ratified the treaty would get, because even though the letter will include language reminding us that we signed the treaty, it will also have to acknowledge that we aren't bound by it.

Having said that, signing w/o ratifying is also sometimes done as an interim step until conditions in the country change for ratification to take place. So as soon as Obama has the votes in the senate... whether it happens after the next mid-term or during his third term, he'll get this done come for your guns backed by the UN black helicopters.
 
2013-09-25 12:26:51 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?


Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance.
 
2013-09-25 12:28:40 PM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.  In contrast John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.  Both examples are not equal and Ted Cruz has earned that ridicule.
 
2013-09-25 12:31:28 PM  
dvd.shawnlyman.com
 
2013-09-25 12:31:35 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.

Whoops. In the car (not driving). Read that all wrong. "Racist"? David Duke is a racist. Y'all are funny sometimes.


So because David Duke was a worse racist than Ron Paul is, Ron Paul can't be racist?
 
2013-09-25 12:31:52 PM  

sprawl15: Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.


Which wouldn't be such a bad thing to overhaul.  Countries with a recent history of brutal repression should be evaluated anew.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:19 PM  

heavymetal: Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.


I wouldn't really call it 'trying'.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:38 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.


It's so bad that....it's still better than what we had before. And the Republican Party isn't giving us any ways to improve it. They just want to KILL OBAMACARE KILL OBAMACARE KILL OBAMACARE but they don't tell us what they'd like to replace it with. Going back to the way it was is a worse option too. So until they give us some new bill to root for, then they just need to shut the fark up.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:57 PM  

sprawl15: heavymetal: Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.

I wouldn't really call it 'trying'.


Well, he isn't exactly succeeding.
 
2013-09-25 12:33:36 PM  

Lando Lincoln: And the Republican Party isn't giving us any ways to improve it


Tort reform.  That's all it will take!

/and probably a dash of tax cuts.
 
2013-09-25 12:34:17 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.



It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?


So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?
 
2013-09-25 12:34:37 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along.


You will recall that some large businesses requested more time to get in line with the regulations. That's not exactly the same thing as what you said.
 
2013-09-25 12:36:48 PM  

LoneWolf343: The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?

So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?


WHY WON'T HE LEAD
 
2013-09-25 12:42:49 PM  

jakomo002: sprawl15: Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.

Which wouldn't be such a bad thing to overhaul.  Countries with a recent history of brutal repression should be evaluated anew.


It's pretty constantly overhauled. IIRC, it can be modified by the Executive branch directly without needing Congressional action other than those lines that have an EAR reference.

And these categories are themselves a reference to Export Control Classification Numbers, which is a categorization of every export and these are also directly managed by the Executive.
 
2013-09-25 12:46:46 PM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.


Translation: Dammit stop pointing out that we supported this exact thing under Bush and only every cry about it when the POTUS has a D next to their name. People might start noticing a pattern.
 
2013-09-25 12:47:22 PM  

heavymetal: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.  In contrast John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.  Both examples are not equal and Ted Cruz has earned that ridicule.


The far-right would argue that Cruz is trying to save America from drowning in unaffordable debt and from becoming a nanny state where John Kerry is trying chip away at Constitutionally granted rights.  Both arguments are detached from reality and serve only as partisan entertainment whilst the people in power quietly work together to get shiat done.
 
2013-09-25 12:49:04 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance


Mean a conservative leaning court that bent over backwards to keep ACA as the law of the land? And the only thing the Republicans can do is cut the funding for advertising the thing. Really the law has failed on its face. The President knows this but his ego is in his way.
 
2013-09-25 12:51:13 PM  

sammyk: Somacandra: FTFA: Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water,"

If you take your policy cues from Inhofe, a global climate change denier and birfer who can't stand the thought of women or gay people serving in the military, believes there is no separation of church and state, and also has gone on record as saying the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for America, there isn't much anyone can do for you.

THIS!

And just how is this political theater? I always thought that the Executive branch would think a treaty is a good idea nad send it to Congress to reject or ratify it. Congress does not get to negotiate the terms of the treaty. They ratify it or reject it. Simple as that.

Here's the rub.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

There is no chance in hell that any treaty no matter what it is will get through the current legislature.

So the Sec of State should just stop doing his job?


The other part of the puzzle is a little known fact about international treaties. Signatories to a treaty who have NOT ratified the treaty are nonetheless obligated to not hinder or oppose operations and conditions of the treaty. In effect, in this case, there is little difference in how it affects the US, ratified or not. Upon ratification, the treaty terms become law of the land domestically but ratification does not affect international US behavioural obligations so long as the US is a signatory. Of course, like most international law, it is really more of a convention and custom leaving lots of wriggle room.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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