A sad day for America as the GOP blocks the disabilities treaty..

[Double Trouble]

I am dumbfounded that so many here seem to think that this treaty would somehow undermine or diminish our sovereignty when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an idea. I suppose made up fear is stronger for some than rational thought. Present some real evidence to back up those fears and we can have a discussion. If not, you're just one the loonies.

Ratifying the treaty simply means that we support a good idea and urge others to support it too. We have ratified countless other treaties, resolutions, and conventions that help define how civilized nations should treat people.

It is also funny that some of those here now freaking out about the U.N. are the same ones that used Iraq violating U.N. sanctions as a call to war.

Did you miss the story just before the election of how international monitoring groups were upset because local election laws didn't allow them the access they wanted? That's an example of how signing on to such bullshit treaties is a dumb idea. Signing on to any treaty or agreement that legislates how signers handle strictly internal matters is a bad idea, and it's just an invitation for stupid future lawsuits.

Even if you don't believe those issues exist, I've yet to see any logical reason why we should sign on to the treaty, since we already have the laws that the treaty is supposed to be based on. What good does it do, other than the hopey-changey bullshit notion that our signing on to it will make someone else do something we want them to do?

 

[bozack]

O'Donnell is a douche, does anyone take him seriously?

 

[nehalem256]

And the reason those Senators didn't support it is pandering to their political base, some of which don't believe in evolution, think rape is God's plan, believe hurricanes are God's punishment for gays, think the UN is controlled by aliens living in Atlantis, etc, etc etc.

We Democrats have loonies too, but for the most part they don't get to run things.

Right. Your base just believes that corporations only care about profits while simultaneously believing the will pay men more for the same work.

And as for running things, try looking up Obama's first action in office.

 

[piasabird]

What do we need a UN disability law for?

Maybe the UN will just kill everyone disabled or round them up or something. Abort this baby or else.

 

[piasabird]

First explain to the American People why we need a UN treaty for disabled persons and what benefit Americans will receive from this? Without further information the USA should not sign any treaties with anyone.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Double Trouble

So, you believe that the U.S. should have no role amongst the community of nations in defining guidelines for how people should be treated?

piasabird

There is no"UN disability law" under consideration. Did you make that up?

What further information do you require? The treaty in its entirety is available to the public. What benefit you ask? How about putting our stamp of approval on an example of "American exceptionalism" being recognized internationally and adopted as a proposed standard for the world? Is that too small of a reward for us?

 

[DCal430]

It makes no fucking sense that this didn't pass. It is based off U.S law, and the importance of having the U.S ratify it would be a strong sign of our continued support rights for the disabled. It would have done nothing to change U.S law or undermine U.S law. The text of the treaty is based off and inspired by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It made no fucking sense at all.

 

[DCal430]

The other countries just can't understand why we are not ratifying a treaty that is written from our own laws, one that no affect on the U.S, but would show our support from an important issue. It would have been a great measure of goodwill.

 

[DCal430]

It makes me wonder if any of these senators actually want to repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act.

 

[pcgeek11]

We do not need the worthless UN dictating what we do in the US. with this:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) fell short on Tuesday, 61 to 38. All of the opposing votes were from Republicans.

When we already have this:
Americans with Disabilities Act, a law passed by the Senate 22 years ago.

Why do the Dems want to give America to the UN. We should throw the UN out.
The biggest point is that this "ratification" is pointless anyway. Why are we wasting time with this shit when we have more important issues to worry about.

 

[DCal430]

We do not need the worthless UN dictating what we do in the US. with this:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) fell short on Tuesday, 61 to 38. All of the opposing votes were from Republicans.

When we already have this:
Americans with Disabilities Act, a law passed by the Senate 22 years ago.

Why do the Dems want to give America to the UN. We should throw the UN out.

Because it would have been a measure of goodwill, showing our continued support for the ADA.

 

[pcgeek11]

Because it would have been a measure of goodwill, showing our continued support for the ADA.

We do not have to show anything. The ADA has been the LAW for 22 years. The False Outrage is Stupid and only make you look foolish.

 

[badb0y]

Going to have to agree with the Republicans on this one. I don't trust the U.N. with anything and this treaty does seem redundant.

 

[michal1980]

liberal fuax outrage. now they will use the MSLM to make it look like republicans hate disabled people.

 

[Double Trouble]

Double Trouble

So, you believe that the U.S. should have no role amongst the community of nations in defining guidelines for how people should be treated?

The US can have a role amongst the community of nations in defining guidelines for how it feels people should be treated, but it can do so without entering into treaties that offer absolutely no benefit to our people. We've already seen instances where treaties end up causing hassles and problems, making people in the international community feel they have a say in how we do things (our death penalty, our election laws for example).

That, and I've yet to see any actual reason for wanting to sign this treaty, other than the feel good symbolic bullshit.

 

[Ausm]

liberal fuax outrage. now they will use the MSLM to make it look like republicans hate disabled people.

Why wouldn't they because they suck off the Gubermint Teat.

 

[Atreus21]

OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THE DISABLED! THINK OF THE VETS!

Regardless of what it is, pass it! NO NO DONT THINK ABOUT IT IN ECONOMIC TERMS! Use emotions to offset the concept of rational decisions

I'm glad someone brought this up. This thread is one gigantic appeal to emotion.

 

[Exterous]

Listen, I don't have time to explain to you how people interact with each other , how countries interact, how the world moves forward, or backward.

But for a starter, if the countries who do treat people with disabilities in a way that they can agree with each other is acceptable, and they sign a treaty together saying this is an issue we think is worth our time and effort and is part of being a civilized nation..

If it is based off of a US law then - logically - it is already obvious that it is worth our time and effort. It was so worth our time and effort that we did it before everyone else and that we didn't (and still don't) need a treaty for this.

Its also not like the US has the best history of signing on to treaties that offer absolutely no benefit to the US. There are even administrative burdens associated with this (Staffing, required reporting to the council, response to guidelines suggested by the General Council)

I am also of the impression that there is not a single country out there that would agree to adopt this because the US is also in it. Can you point to ANY time in history when a country didn't sign on to a UN treaty because the US didn't? I can also tell you that the US isn't going to give two shits about any recommendations the UN gives us. Why even sign it if we aren't going to play along?

But perhaps I am just biased against a 'governing body' that decides to not use the word 'genocide' so it can avoid intervention or lets certain suspect countries sit on their human rights council.

The other countries just can't understand why we are not ratifying a treaty that is written from our own laws, one that no affect on the U.S, but would show our support from an important issue. It would have been a great measure of goodwill.

Interesting. I have not heard any international response to this - not surprisingly. I would be interested in reading them if you have any links you could send me

 

[Exterous]

having the U.S ratify it would be a strong sign of our continued support rights for the disabled.

Isn't the continued support of ADA a strong sign of our continued support for the disabled? You know - since that is the actual law we go by and all

 

[Jaskalas]

Because it would have been a measure of goodwill, showing our continued support for the ADA.

Support, how? Some attempt to IMPOSE on other nations? Such issues belong to States, let alone the Union, let alone the freaking UN.

People have a god given right to self determination, not world police.

 

[Throckmorton]

Support, how? Some attempt to IMPOSE on other nations? Such issues belong to States, let alone the Union, let alone the freaking UN.

People have a god given right to self determination, not world police.

Except disabled people right?

 

[waggy]

a good article on why we SHOULDN'T accept the treaty.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/a-bad-disabled-rights-treaty/

seems ti would have given the UN a more power then people are claiming.

 

[werepossum]

a good article on why we SHOULDN'T accept the treaty.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/a-bad-disabled-rights-treaty/

seems it would have given the UN a more power then people are claiming.

Of course it would. Anyone claiming we must sign a treaty while simultaneously insisting it changes nothing is an idiot and/or a liar. Treaties are enormously powerful; signing one to "show we care" or "send a message" is extremely foolish, and treaties on purely internal matters are always a bad idea for us if only for the extra administrative work involved.

If you want to propose changes in how we deal with our disabled, sack up and propose/introduce legislation. Trying to hand over power to the UN in the hopes they will force us to do "the right thing" is a dick move. If you do not want to propose changes in how we deal with our disabled, then handing control to the UN via treaty is foolish.

 

[nehalem256]

Should this thread title really be changed to "A sad day for Liberals as the GOP and Constitution blocks their circle-jerk treaty"

 

[Moonbeam]

You can stack fear of the UN right along side cow manure in the fertilizer isle of your local Walmart, the paranoid drool of conservative brain dead swine and mental defectives. You have become the scum that covers our face when the world looks at our nation, a seething mass of insane lunatics, crazy ugly Americans, a collection of brain dead assholes. You are the disgust you project on the world, the outer reflection of your inner ugliness, the externalized mentall illness of your inner dementia. A bunch of sad sick fucks.