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 24
    More: Asinine, arms trade treaty, combat aircraft, United Nations General Assembly  
•       •       •

732 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:37 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-25 10:46:04 AM
3 votes:
The only thing that makes the UN Arms Export treaty controversial is the constant stream of paranoid delusional bullshiat being spewed by FOX news and it's cohorts and allies in conservative media.

If you wanted to start the process of disarming terror groups like Al Queda, you'd WANT something like an arms export agreement amongst the major players in international arms sales.

Farking morans....
2013-09-25 11:09:56 AM
2 votes:
The Secretary of State works for the President, not the Senate. Kerry is doing his job. What the Senate chooses to do about the treaty after that is not his problem.
2013-09-25 12:26:13 PM
1 votes:
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 11:59:24 AM
1 votes:
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 11:46:11 AM
1 votes:

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 11:43:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:34:48 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:15 AM
1 votes:

Summercat: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

[www.mainstreetvacuum.com image 500x500]
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!

I giggled outloud.

Also, another tangent: What does IOKNAR or wahtever that acronym mean?


I second this motion for acronym clarification.
...and would it kill yall to explain this whole "BOB" thing?
2013-09-25 11:29:44 AM
1 votes:

Lucky LaRue: 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."

You probably didn't bother to read my earlier comment, either, about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..

I am really starting to enjoy you guys tripping over yourselves to prove my point.


The Democrats don't do stupid things like repealing a law 42 times because they're afraid to be primaried by someone from the far-left. Explain to me again how both sides are equally the same?
2013-09-25 11:25:29 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

He's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ooooooh, right, "Those who criticize Obama all unquestionably supported Bush at all times!" That's interesting since I voted against the guy twice.


You can't seem to find anyone who admitted to voting for Bush nowadays.
2013-09-25 11:19:30 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-25 11:13:18 AM
1 votes:
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."
2013-09-25 11:12:53 AM
1 votes:
Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?
2013-09-25 10:57:00 AM
1 votes:

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?


Kerry's political theater will have zero effect. Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our government and default on our national debt and cause our economy to collapse.

But clearly, BSAB.
2013-09-25 10:56:06 AM
1 votes:

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.


Remember, boys and girls:

* Everyone should be able to buy whatever weapons they want, as many as they want, no questions asked.
* Fast and Furious did something wrong.
2013-09-25 10:50:50 AM
1 votes:
"The administration is wasting precious time ..."  - from the party that has spent the last 3 years voting over and over again to try to defund the same healthcare law.  Well, that and abortion bills.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 10:29:23 AM
1 votes:

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I've been paying attention, and I'm not saying the far right aren't a bunch of sleazy shiats with an anti-Obama agenda.  I am just observing that (1) not everyone in the GOP is on the far right, (2) the far left is just as bat-shiat insane with their "the GOP wants to destroy the economy to spite Obama" narrative, and (3) not all Democrats is far left.

It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever I talk to herbal teabaggers, they are convinced that all Democrats think like they do and are suspicious of the moderates in their party... it is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO.


The GOPers who aren't on the far right aren't in control, and the GOP appears to be preparing to damage the economy to spite Obamacare.

What effect do you think a government shutdown and a default will have?
2013-09-25 10:09:41 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-09-25 09:49:47 AM
1 votes:

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


FTFY
2013-09-25 09:44:44 AM
1 votes:

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I'm sure in your narrative it has to do with one side or the other making villainous, partisan plans to destroy America.


No, my narrative has to do with the Senate not ratifying it because the NRA doesn't want them to. And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs.
2013-09-25 09:30:29 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-09-25 09:29:31 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-25 09:18:46 AM
1 votes:
So basically he's mimicking what House Republicans have been doing every single day since 2010
2013-09-25 09:15:37 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report