dayman Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/disability-treaty_n_2238181.html It does seem a bit ridiculous honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So, if the Vietnamese teenager that John Kerry admitted to shooting in the back when he was running away survived and was disabled, this treaty would protect him from just what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 So, if the Vietnamese teenager that John Kerry admitted to shooting in the back when he was running away survived and was disabled, this treaty would protect him from just what, exactly? Bob Dole's tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 We shouldn't be involved with the UN, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 We shouldn't be involved with the UN, period. going to take your 'merica away from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 going to take your 'merica away from you? Actually, yes...some people...shocker of shockers....do have an issue with ceding power or any kind of jurisdiction to the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 going to take your 'merica away from you? I'm not interested in ceeding national soveriegnty, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) CEDE MA SOVEREIGNTY! Haha...this treaty ceded no sovereignty. Nada. They just voted "no" b/c people like you think it would and then may primary them. Edited December 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 CEDE MA SOVEREIGNTY! Haha...this treaty ceded no sovereignty. Nada. They just voted "no" b/c people like you think it would and then may primary them. You have no idea what the !@#$ you're talking about. Would you like for me to shred your position to pieces? I can do that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) CEDE MA SOVEREIGNTY! Haha...this treaty ceded no sovereignty. Nada. They just voted "no" b/c people like you think it would and then may primary them. Thats your opinion. Several members of Congress felt differently. A majority of Republicans who voted against the treaty, which was modeled on the Americans With Disabilities Act, said they feared that it would infringe on American sovereignty. Among their fears about the disabilities convention were that it would codify standards enumerated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — and therefore United Nations bureaucrats would be empowered to make decisions about the needs of disabled children — and that it could trump state laws concerning people with disabilities. Proponents of the bill said these concerns were unfounded. http://www.nytimes.c...reaty.html?_r=0 I know....crazy talk that some people would interpret something differently and vote that way. And what the !@#$ are you getting all pissy about anyway? Same with that assclown Reid who said we need this UN bull **** to "bring the USA UP TO the standards of the rest of the world." The ADA is most likely one of the best if not THE best set of laws on the books worldwide to protect the rights of people with disabilities. You AND Reid have no idea what youre talking about. And one more thing...if all youre going to do is act like an !@#$ to people who offer their opinion, DONT !@#$ING ASK FOR IT in the first damned place. Edited December 5, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Those members of Congress are idiots playing to the unfounded fears of idiot voters. This is not even a big deal, it was basically a symbolic showing of our support for international accommodation....but even such a trivial matter cannot be accomplished b/c the GOP is insane now. Nothing, absolutely nothing in this little piece of paper was going to change US law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Those members of Congress are idiots playing to the unfounded fears of idiot voters. This is not even a big deal, it was basically a symbolic showing of our support for international accommodation....but even such a trivial matter cannot be accomplished b/c the GOP is insane now. Nothing, absolutely nothing in this little piece of paper was going to change US law. OK, so how much do you know about the US Constitution as it relates to international treaties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 ... I know....crazy talk that some people would interpret something differently and vote that way. ... Normally, I can respect this line of thinking when it comes to certain votes in either chamber. I accept it as a necessary part of our process. But the partisan lockstep of the vote in general and the sudden flip-flop of Senators Moran and Cochran in particular, has me scratching my head on this one. Especially when esteemed Republicans like McCain and Dole are so solidly on board. From the NY Times article: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas praised the treaty in a news release with Mr. McCain in May but voted against it. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi voted yes at the beginning of the roll call vote and then switched his vote to no. Calls to the offices of Mr. Moran and Mr. Cochran were not returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Those members of Congress are idiots playing to the unfounded fears of idiot voters. This is not even a big deal, it was basically a symbolic showing of our support for international accommodation....but even such a trivial matter cannot be accomplished b/c the GOP is insane now. Nothing, absolutely nothing in this little piece of paper was going to change US law. So people who dont agree with your 'expert' take on the law, even if they have good reason to vote the way they did (see below) are idiots and insane now? Interesting. There has been longstanding US opposition and trepidation to actions such as this from the UN or other organizations (ahem....Kyoto Treaty?) regardless of its true "effect" on US laws or whether or not it was symbolic. Thats where this is coming from. The UN in lots of ways, is seeking to expand its jurisdiction and power in the affairs of sovereign nations in all kinds of matters so perhaps those who voted against it were doing so just to keep the beachhead against that intrusion intact, no matter how "trivial" the issue. Whether or not you, oh expert on UN affairs, agrees with that makes no difference. And by the way...if this matter is so "symbolic" and "trivial", why do you have so much sand in your kitty about it, anyway? Edited December 5, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So people who dont agree with your 'expert' take on the law, even if they have good reason to vote the way they did (see below) are idiots and insane now? Interesting. There has been longstanding US opposition and trepidation to UN actions such as this (ahem....Kyoto Treaty?) regardless of its true "effect" on US laws or whether or not it was symbolic. Thats where this is coming from. The UN in lots of ways, is seeking to expand its jurisdiction and power in the affairs of sovereign nations in all kinds of matters so perhaps those who voted against it were doing so just to keep the beachhead against that intrusion intact, no matter how "trivial" the issue. Whether or not you, oh expert on UN affairs, agrees with that makes no difference. And by the way...if this matter is so "symbolic" and "trivial", why do you have so much sand in your kitty about it, anyway? He completely lacks a fundamental understanding of what the United Nations is, how it opperates, its perview, it's objectives, and how our own law corolates to it. My guess would be that he's incapable of debating the issue because of those deficiencies, which is the reason he has instead opted to regurgitate leftist platitudes and sling ad hom attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Those members of Congress are idiots playing to the unfounded fears of idiot voters. This is not even a big deal, it was basically a symbolic showing of our support for international accommodation....but even such a trivial matter cannot be accomplished b/c the GOP is insane now. Nothing, absolutely nothing in this little piece of paper was going to change US law. You should make up your mind. Pick a fight over something that you feel is worthwhile, not something so "ridiculous". From your OP: Veteran Members 3,467 posts Posted Yesterday, 03:29 PM http://www.huffingto..._n_2238181.html It does seem a bit ridiculous honestly. Edited December 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 LOL it's not a beachhead against anything it's just a large amount of gutless senators voting no out of political fear plain and simple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 LOL it's not a beachhead against anything it's just a large amount of gutless senators voting no out of political fear plain and simple... I've noticed you don't have the courage to address my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) LOL it's not a beachhead against anything it's just a large amount of gutless senators voting no out of political fear plain and simple... YES! Exactly! Again, from the article... Among their fears about the disabilities convention were that it would codify standards enumerated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — and therefore United Nations bureaucrats would be empowered to make decisions about the needs of disabled children — and that it could trump state laws concerning people with disabilities. So for all your mindless yelling and namecalling, it turns out you AGREE with the Congressmen who voted no! Congratulations! And I hate to break it to ya, buddy...but when someone says "no" to something, its often out of "fear" of what might transpire if they say "yes." Thats pretty basic "laws of human conscious thought" stuff there. If you want, I can explain the birds and the bees to you, too. After lunch. Edited December 5, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 LOL it's not a beachhead against anything it's just a large amount of gutless senators voting no out of political fear plain and simple... Why are they gutless for voting against something so "ridiculous"? I would think it would be the other way around. The senators who voted for it are gutless for going along with something so ridiculous just because the U.N. wants them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts