Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Ideological fools at work

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Tue, Dec 4, 12 at 20:30

WASHINGTON : Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting "no" votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

He and other opponents were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the GOP's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam; Sen. Dick Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee; and former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. Eight Republicans voted to approve the treaty.

The treaty also was widely backed by the disabilities community and veterans groups.

White House press secretary Jay Carney called the vote disappointing and noted that President Barack Obama had declared, in a written statement read in tribute to Dole just before the vote, that "disability rights should not stop at our nation's shores."

Carney said the White House hopes the treaty can be reconsidered in the next Congress.

Democratic support for the convention was led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of the key players in writing the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

"It really isn't controversial," Kerry, D-Mass., said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act."

In a statement after the vote, Kerry said it was "one of the saddest days I've seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that's letting down the American people."

The ADA put the United States in the forefront of efforts to secure equal rights for the disabled, and it became the blueprint for the U.N. treaty, formally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The treaty was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and Obama signed it in 2009.

The United Nations estimates that 650 million people around the world are disabled, about 10 percent of the world's population.

Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts.

They said the treaty, by encouraging other countries to emulate the rights and facilities for the disabled already existing in the United States, would be of benefit for disabled Americans, particularly veterans, who want to work, travel or study abroad.

Supporters also rejected the argument that it was inappropriate to consider an international treaty in a post-election lame-duck session. They said that since the 1970s the Senate had voted to approve treaties 19 times during lame-duck sessions.

But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,

The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will "raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

Supporters said such concerns were unfounded.

"I am frankly upset," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., "that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who home-school their children all over this country." He said he said his office had received dozens of calls from home-schooling parents urging him to vote against the convention.

The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty "would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism."

Who voted against it:

Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Here is a link that might be useful: I guess its because the disabled are


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

Words fail me.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

good for him. I wouldn't want another country coming in and telling us how we have to act, either. Best thing to do with the UN is send em packing.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Agree with Bill on this one. We have our ADA; it's up to other nations to decide for themselves. Who would enforce it, anyway, the World Police? No thanks.

Maybe we can re-visit this when the Federation of Planets is formed.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Words fail me.

Ditto


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I agree with Bill. The United States has some the best protection for the disabled on the planet. The UN has no business eroding our sovereignty.

"Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts. "

Well, duh, that's because you lose your rights to a US court and end up in an International court which supersedes our courts.

tj


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Amazing the Dole, Bush & McCain are all the RINO's for supporting this! What pack of feebs this party has become!
hey Bill CONGRATULATION MAINE MARRIAGE EQUALITY WHOO HOO!


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

The Treaty that was negotiated by BUSH based on US law guaranteed not to be able to bring suit in a US court. DISRACEFUL Pack of frightened fools & I think they are frightened of folks like Bill tsk tsk!

Conservative media claim that signing the treaty would require the United States to alter its laws to meet these standards. Writing at National Review Online, the National Review Institute's Betsy Woodruff claimed that the treaty "could potentially undermine American sovereignty" and said it would be "self-abasing" for the U.S. "to comply with the treaty." Similarly, at the Daily Caller, Walter Olson of the Cato Institute equated signing the treaty with "sign[ing] away our national sovereignty on questions of how best to accommodate the disabled."

"However, these claims are baseless, as U.S. law already meets the standards the treaty requests. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) "prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications." If a law, policy, or program is found to be discriminatory, the government has the power, through the Department of Justice, to enforce the ADA on both a private and public level. Thus signing the treaty would merely reaffirm the U.S. commitment to equal rights."!

!


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Dec 4, 12 at 23:04

They have to bow to their gerrymandered sacred ground or else be "Primaried" by someone even nuttier.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Kee-rist, what a pack of immature fools. As if anyone older than 13 believes that the UN is some big scary monster going to come and take all our toys away. These are the same exceptionalist wankers who feel threatened when an American president can actually speak a foreign language or convey ideas greater than "me have big gun" with other heads of state.

I only wish words failed me.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Nice to see the current Republican party continuing their march to oblivion since they've added yet another block of voters who won't be supporting them. Keep up the good work.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

"As if anyone older than 13 believes that the UN is some big scary monster going to come and take all our toys away. These are the same exceptionalist wankers who feel threatened when an American president can actually speak a foreign language or convey ideas greater than "me have big gun" with other heads of state.
I only wish words failed me."

Try a foreign language ;D

List of multilingual Presidents of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free

"Thomas Jefferson claimed to read and write six different languages. Of the 44 Presidents of the United States, at least half have displayed proficiency in speaking or writing a language other than English. Of these, only one, Martin Van Buren, learned English as his second language; his first language was Dutch. Four of the earliest Presidents were multi-lingual, with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson demonstrating proficiency in a number of foreign languages.

James A. Garfield not only knew Greek and Latin, but used his ambidexterity to write both at the same time. Both Roosevelts spoke French, and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke German. Few modern Presidents have spoken a foreign language. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush displayed a limited ability in Spanish. Herbert Hoover spoke fluent Mandarin Chinese.

Barack Obama has famously admitted to being embarrassed that he does not speak a second language."

Really?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

That's nice, Elvis.

Exactly what I was thinking, Bothell -- who on earth is going to be left represented by the GOP at this rate?

in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck

And it's so gratifying to see that once again, some half-arsed secret handshake keeps our grand old party from actually representing their constituents before they even know what the treaties will be. And these are the very ones who trot out that old canard about Nancy Pelosi and reading the AHCA at every damned opportunity! A pox on them all, the oath-breaking cretins.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Some more of that ideology at work:

A wide-ranging bill to give hunters and fishermen more access to public lands stalled in the Senate Monday after Republicans said it spends too much money.

Republicans supported opening lands for outdoorsmen and many other provisions in the bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, but GOP senators blocked the legislation on principle Monday evening in a mostly party-line procedural vote after Senate Budget Committee's top Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, objected to spending on conservation programs included in the bill.

The sportsmen's bill would increase land access and allow hunters to bring home as trophies 41 polar bears killed in Canada before the government started protecting polar bears as a threatened species. The legislation would also exclude ammunition and tackle from federal environmental laws that regulate lead, allow bow hunters to cross federal land where hunting isn't allowed, encourage federal land agencies to help states maintain shooting ranges, boost fish populations and protect animal habitat.

Sessions said he supported the overall bill but objected to spending on conservation programs that he said violated budget rules. Democrats argued that the bill also raised money for those provisions.

The bill also faced some objections from environmental groups over the polar bear imports and exclusions from lead standards.

The lead provision threatens public health and the measures "could set back wildlife conservation efforts," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, while acknowledging she supported other provisions in the bill. Boxer was the only Democrat to vote against moving the bill forward Monday.
Ammunition and tackle that contain lead are now unregulated under federal toxic substance laws, and the EPA has so far declined to regulate them. The bill would make it law that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate ammunition and tackle, leaving those decisions to states. Environmental groups opposing the exemption say that birds on land and water are killed by lead poisoning after eating the spent ammunition and fishing tackle.

The polar bear provision would allow the hunters - two from Tester's home state of Montana - who killed polar bears in Canada just before a 2008 ban on polar bear trophy imports took effect - to bring the bears' bodies across the border. The hunters involved were not able to bring the trophies home before the Fish and Wildlife Service listed them as a threatened species.
Some animal welfare groups, including of The Humane Society of the United States, say that allowing the polar bears bodies across the border could set a bad precedent and embolden other hunters to try and circumvent threatened or endangered species laws." End quote

So, on principal, the conservatives vote against conservation.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

America wrote the disability act. America proposed the treaty to the UN, an example of human rights. America led the formulation of the treaty. Just about every country in the world has signed it, but no, the ideologues in the US Senate block our own treaty.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws.

Included in those subsequent articles are the right to organize labor.

At the time, on all of these articles the US was a leader. My how times have changed. Now we're racing ourselves to the basement.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Tue, Dec 4, 12 at 22:03

Words fail me.


"faints"


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

brushworks wake up waving the Smelling salts. Are you wake?

Fools and the ones that follow the fools....... Please proceed.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Best thing to do with the UN is send em packing.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO's mandate is to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.

I worked for these guys for years. Some idiots, some great, dedicated people, in general I'd say they've helped.

UNDP - United Nations Development Fund - funds projects from all agencies, helping with food supply, agriculture, medical stuff, anything that the really poor countries need help with. I used to get funding through these guys.

World Food Program. You know, helping those starving people. I used to help with that.

UNHCR - High Commissioner for Refugees. Helps all those people fleeing wars, famine, rape, torture, floods, fires, and so on. Come visit a refugee camp sometime. Rather that then letting them forge for themselves.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Sets standards and recommends practices concerning air navigation, prevention of unlawful interference, and facilitation of border-crossing procedures for international civil aviation. Defines the protocols for air accident investigation.

So that when our commercial airlines fly places, its safe.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) deals with labour issues. Combatting slave labor in 3rd world countries.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) coordinates international maritime safety and related practices. Which means that the ships sailing into US ports don't fall apart.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) standardizes and regulates international radio and telecommunications. Seems the benefits are obvious.

The Universal Postal Union (UPU) coordinates the worldwide postal system. Seems the benefits are obvious.

The World Health Organization (WHO) acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. The benefits are obvious.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation. (WIPO) Protection of intellectual property throughout the world. Makes pirating stuff illegal.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Weather and climate, hydrology and related geophysical sciences. Standardizes stuff like temperature, flow rates, and so on.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) goes after the organization for scientific and technical cooperation with nuclear technology. It seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes. Turns out they were right with Iraq, while Bush was wrong. And I'm sure that both North Korea and Iran wouldn't mind if the US just knocked on the door and asked to inspect their stuff.

The UN Criminal Court - where else would anybody try war crimes?

They do more stuff as well, some of it dumb to be sure. The UN is far from perfect, but a lot of the stuff they do is essential and would need to be replaced anyway.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

WASHINGTON : Former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas sat slightly slumped in his wheelchair on the Senate floor on Tuesday, staring intently as Senator John Kerry gave his most impassioned speech all year, in defense of a United Nations treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.

Senators from both parties went to greet Mr. Dole, leaning in to hear his wispy reply, as he sat in support of the treaty, which would require that people with disabilities have the same general rights as those without disabilities. Several members took the unusual step of voting aye while seated at their desks, out of respect for Mr. Dole, 89, a Republican who was the majority leader.

Then, after Mr. Dole's wife, Elizabeth, rolled him off the floor, Republicans quietly voted down the treaty that the ailing Mr. Dole, recently released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so longed to see passed.

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.

The measure, which required two-thirds support for approval, failed on a vote of 61 to 38.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, his voice rising as senator after senator moved slowly into the chamber, rejected the concerns of Republicans and made a moral argument for approval of the treaty.

Mr. Dole, he said, had not come to the Senate floor "to advocate for the United Nations."

"He is here because he wants to know that other countries will come to treat the disabled as we do," he added.

Approval of the treaty, Mr. Kerry said, would demonstrate that "what we do here in the United States Senate matters." He added, "Don't let Senator Bob Dole down."

A handful of Republican senators voted for the measure, notably Senator John McCain of Arizona, in opposition to the other Arizona Republican, Senator Jon Kyl. The others who supported it were Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

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.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the measure would return to the Senate floor in the 113th Congress.

"It is a sad day when we cannot pass a treaty that simply brings the world up to the American standard for protecting people with disabilities because the Republican Party is in thrall to extremists and ideologues," he said in a statement.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Good Rule of thumb if WND writes about it run the other way!
You'll not that the author has excluded the history of the treaty Republican & it's bipartisan beginnings. It's support by veterans groups & groups with disabilities.
What they proffer instead is rancorous fear mongering!


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas praised the treaty in a news release with Mr. McCain in May but voted against it.

I wish I didn't have to be totally embarrassed by my elected Reps and Senators in D.C. so often.

In case you have forgotten, Senator Dole (former Republican Senate Majority Leader for MANY YEARS) was a KANSAS SENATOR. Kansas was proud to elect and re-elect Bob Dole every 6 years. They bragged about him and about how he had to struggle to overcome his war disability!

He returns to his former home in the Senate and what happens? The current Republican Senator from Kansas (Sen. Moran) toadies up to him and then turns his back on him, voting against the U.N. Disability proposal. It's bad enough that most of the other Republican Senators "forgot" who he was and how much he contributed to the Senate for decades, but that the Kansas Senator can't even remember who is the most famous Kansas politician in several decades to say the least is disgusting!

Being a Democrat from Kansas, I never voted for Bob Dole, but I am shocked at how this too, too RED STATE has turned its back on what used to be their "favorite son."

Something is definitely wrong with politics in 2012 when a highly deserving man like Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole receives more recognition and accolades from the Democratic Senator Kerry and his fellow Democrats than the Kansas Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole received from another (relatively unknown) Kansas Senator Moran and his fellow Republicans in the Senate.

(I didnt' vote for Sen. Moran either--in case you were wondering.)

Kate


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I guess folks like Inhofe, Bill & Elvis consider that the best way to bring other nations around to American standards is not to uphold treaties but rather to just bomb the livin' bajeezus out of them. That always works so well, right?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Just out of curiosity Kate...did you ever vote for Nancy Kassebaum?

-Ron-


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Ron, yes, I voted several times for Senator Nancy Kassebaum. She was a fiscal conservative but a social moderate-liberal (she was moderately pro-choice on reproductive rights, for instance)--and one of the few women in the Senate in those days. (And a really nice, soft-spoken, and dignified person). I liked her a lot. In fact, she may be the last Kansas senator of either party that I have enthusiastically voted for. Everyone since then has been a loser in my book--but if Nancy were around the Senate today, the t-partiers would definitely kick her out and disown her. She was much too rational and moderate on a number of issues--and she definitely believed in working with other senators of both parties--she was NOT a JUST SAY NO type senator. I was sorry when she retired.

One of the few Republicans I have ever voted for.

Kate


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

David, you're not inderstanding me-- good, bad, or indifferent-- I don't want a governing body from outside our own government dictating policy to us. No matter WHAT it's about.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Bill, the UN doesn't "dictate" policy. They start off with an issue - say radio frequencies that commercial airlines use to talk to towers around the world, the language the pilots speak on international flights (English) get all kinds of input from everybody, everybody agrees, then they sign an accord. Its not a binding accord where the black helicopters come invade if you don't follow it.

In this case, the US gvt passed our own Disabilities Act in Congress - the whole thing with accessible bathrooms, low curbs, elevators, etc. Then we proposed, in the UN, the law as a standard for the world to use. The UN went through their process of listening to everybody's concerns, made sure everyone was ok with it, minor tweaks here and there. What, everyone in the world except 5 countries have signed on.

Its a treaty supported by American military veterans in wheel chairs and on crutches so they can travel abroad, knowing that where ever they land, if the country signed the treaty, they'll be able to get around like they would here.

There is no 'dictating' here. Absolutely nothing happens if we sign it or not. And its further silly to refuse to sign it since we already have all the stuff in place and it was our law that was used as a model for everyone else. Refusing to ratify it just makes us look stupid.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

If that's the case, why bother wasting the time or money to ratify a treaty which, according to you, we've not only met, but in places where other countries have "tweaked" it, we've surpassed the mandates required by the treaty? Why not spend the time doing something more productive, and less for show?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Well, to just ratify it, they already wasted the time voting it down.

If the question is why bother to have a treaty in the first place - that may have more to do with the countries around that haven't previously thought that disabled people had any rights at all. Sort of wakes them up to the idea, as it were, that just because you're in a wheel chair you're still a human being.

I kinda have a personal interest in this. I had to quit my over-seas consulting business when I was stuck in a wheel chair and then a walker. No way to get around in the places where I'd worked before.

Anyway, how about the "conservatives" voting down, on principal, the conservation legislation?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

They're not voting down the conservative legislation. They're voting down giving the UN the authority to dictate and enforce that law.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Pointless trying to tell someone the UN wouldn't have that authority they will simply do as Bill does here repeat that LIE.
It's a warm snugly bit of paranoia which is what makes the whole travesty the disgrace it is!


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

If that's the case, why bother wasting the time or money to ratify a treaty

Because the number of signers to the treaty signals that the issue of rights for the disabled has international support. If another signer country falls short in instituting reforms to ensure rights for the disabled, activists in that country can put pressure on their government citing international support for the issue. Also, the activists can appeal to the United Nations for support for their cause, and gain world attention. For example, in 1964 Malcolm X was planning to submit a petition to the United Nations that documented civil and human rights abuses against African Americans in this country. The U.S. was supposed to uphold the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but obviously fell short with regards to African Americans. (Malcolm X was assassinated before he was able to make his appeal.)


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

They're voting down giving the UN the authority to dictate and enforce that law.

As stated above @ 22:12, the U.S. should have been supporting the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and not allowing segregation and denial of basic civil and human rights to African Americans. I don't recall the U.N. dictating to the U.S. to integrate the schools and public institutions, or to allow citizens of all races to vote. If there ever was a policy that went against basic U.N. principles, Jim Crow was the prime example.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Bill, re conservatives voting down conservation, I was referring to the second example of ideology I posted above: A wide-ranging bill to give hunters and fishermen more access to public lands stalled in the Senate Monday after Republicans said it spends too much money.

Republicans supported opening lands for outdoorsmen and many other provisions in the bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, but GOP senators blocked the legislation on principle Monday evening in a mostly party-line procedural vote after Senate Budget Committee's top Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, objected to spending on conservation programs included in the bill.

Even though the legislation included fees that made it self-funding. Because even if it pays for itself, government is bad.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Gail Collins column:

Lately, you've probably been asking: "What ever happened to Rick Santorum? The guy who ran for president in the sweater vest? The one who compared homosexuality to bestiality and did 50 push-ups every morning?" It's certainly been on my mind.

Santorum is still in there swinging. Lately, he's been on a crusade against a dangerous attempt by the United Nations to help disabled people around the world. This week, he won! The Senate refused to ratify a U.N. treaty on the subject. The vote, which fell five short of the necessary two-thirds majority, came right after 89-year-old Bob Dole, the former Republican leader and disabled war veteran, was wheeled into the chamber to urge passage.

"We did it," Santorum tweeted in triumph.

Well, it doesn't get any better than that.

The rejected treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark law Dole co-sponsored. So, as Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts kept pointing out during the debate, this is a treaty to make the rest of the world behave more like the United States. But Santorum was upset about a section on children with disabilities that said: "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

"This is a direct assault on us and our family!" he said at a press conference in Washington.

O.K.

The hard right has a thing about the United Nations. You may remember that the senator-elect from Texas, Ted Cruz, once railed that a 20-year-old nonbinding United Nations plan for sustainable development posed a clear and present threat to American golf courses.

The theory about the treaty on the disabled is that the bit about "best interests of the child" could be translated into laws prohibiting disabled children from being home-schooled. At his press conference, Santorum acknowledged that wasn't in the cards. But he theorized that someone might use the treaty in a lawsuit "and through the court system begin to deny parents the right to raise their children in conformity with what they believe."

If I felt you were actually going to worry about this, I would tell you that the Senate committee that approved the treaty included language specifically forbidding its use in court suits. But, instead, I will tell you about own my fears. Every day I take the subway to work, and I use a fare card that says "subject to applicable tariffs and conditions of use." What if one of those conditions is slave labor? Maybe the possibility of me being grabbed at the turnstile and carted off to a salt mine isn't in the specific law, but what if a bureaucrat somewhere in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority decided to interpret it that way?

No one should have to live in fear of forced labor in the salt mine just because she bought a fare card at the Times Square subway station! I want some action on this matter, and I am writing to my senator right away.

But about the U.N. treaty.

In the Capitol this week, disabled Americans lobbied for ratification, arguing, among other things, that it could make life easier for them when they travel. Since more than 125 countries have already signed onto the treaty, there will certainly be pressure to improve accessibility to buses, restrooms and public buildings around the globe. It would be nice if the United States was at the table, trying to make sure the international standards were compatible with the ones our disabled citizens learn to handle here at home.

But, no, the senators were worried about the home-school movement. Or a boilerplate mention in the treaty of economic, social and cultural rights that Senator Mike Lee of Utah claimed was "part of a march toward socialism."

At least some of them were. There would almost certainly have been plenty of votes to approve the treaty if the Republicans had felt free to think for themselves. The "no" votes included a senator who had voted for the treaty in committee, a senator who had sent out a press release supporting the treaty and a senator who actually voted "aye" and then switched when it was clear the treaty was going down anyway. Not to mention a lot of really depressed-looking legislators.

The big worry was, of course, offending the Tea Party. The same Tea Party that pounded Mitt Romney into the presidential candidate we came to know and reject over the past election season. The same Tea Party that keeps threatening to wage primaries against incumbents who don't do what they're told. The Tea Party who made those threats work so well in the last election that Indiana now has a totally unforeseen Democratic senator.

The threat the Republicans need to worry about isn't in the United Nations.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 6, 12 at 10:25

Do some folks really think that the UN has the power to force the US what to do on anything? I'll believe that when they put Cheney and Rummy on trial for war crimes.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I'll have to go read up, but if Alexander is against it, there's good reason. He wasn't just a fantastic governor, he's also a fantastic person. Solid thinking. I'm really wondering why not now? Dunno that I'd say that about Corker, but Alexander, he's fairly level-headed. Hm?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Ahhh, light dawns! I was googling around on this issue and stumbled across this article. Apparently, in someone's bizarre fabulistic world, this treaty would "open the door to promoting abortion on an international scale". Would never have believed this, but there it is in back and white:

The International Right to Life Federation says pro-life groups oppose this legislation because it leaves open the potential for the international community to permit sterilization or abortion for the disabled. The terminology, found in Article 25, requires, "free or affordable health care including the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs."

Bradley Mattes, president of the International Right to Life Federation, stated, "This is a misleading measure in that it does nothing to protect life. It is disguised as a way to "help" the disabled. Instead it intentionally sacrifices the most vulnerable -- the disabled and the unborn -- all in the name of population control."

He continued, "Many don't realize that this international treaty could potentially supersede future attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Here is a link that might be useful: U.S Senate Defeats CRPD Treaty That Would Promote Abortion


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

population-based health programs. Me? Reading that, the first thing that comes to mind is vaccinations.

Not abortions.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Hey, they've alienated women, blacks, latinos, immigrants, gays, youth....why not the disabled? Let 'em come after my Medicare and Social Security! I'd LOVE to put them in the same sentence as the Whigs.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I wondered why Santorum was front and center against this. Who the he!! does he think he is? We kicked him out of the Senate so who's he speaking for? I really felt bad for Bob Dole.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Yesterday you had McConnell filibustering his own bill what can you do with these idiots!


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

circuspeanut - I caught that in David's OP:
and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions

Only the right wing nuts could turn this into a pro-life issue. It just boggles the mind!

-------------------------------------------------
labrea:
Thus signing the treaty would merely reaffirm the U.S. commitment to equal rights

And the Republicans in Congress (and apparently some here) can't have that, can they? As they've proven over and over and over again. The party of hate.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

What I don't get about the far right paranoia of the UN:

On the one hand, they are continually harping that the UN is a toothless, useless, bureaucratic bunch of corrupt idiots who can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.

On the other hand, they are sure, so convinced that the same UN is busy trampling all over freedom and sovereignty and forcing people to have abortions and taking away guns and using world heritage sites for secret bases for all the black helicopters all over the world, and its only their eternal vigilance that keeps these clever masterminds from imposing one-world-order, going house to house confiscating guns and performing abortions here in America.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Good grief... is all I can think to say...


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Yesterday you had McConnell filibustering his own bill what can you do with these idiots!

You really just cannot make this stuff up. An opinion piece about that is at the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Really?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Sorry, Joe, I just saw you started a thread on that topic.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I sure hope that Senator Reid can change the rules of the Senate come January. Now if we can just do something about the House of Representatives, but we'll have to wait two years for that and cross our fingers. They sure don't represent the majority of the American people. They have no sensitivity for their fellow humans.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

This Congress has been a huge joke. Hopefully they will go down in history as the worst ever ... because I'd sure hate to see any Congress do worse. Not sure it's even possible.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Our lawmakers should have ONE priority right now. Unraveling this monstrosity they've created. The federal govt is the great engine of poverty in our time. Someone has to take it apart.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

And when the monstrosity is unraveled? Who gets the spoils? From my vantage point, it seems those who complain most about the government are those who profit the most from it.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act HURT americans with disabilities. It did not help them. When employers know that they can't fire people without fear of getting sued, they invent all sorts of reasons to not hire them.

This is so the problem with liberal thinking. They never ask "what happens next?" Will this policy really do what we want it to do? or will it have unintended consequences that will actually hurt the very people we are trying to help?

Yes it feels good to pass a law like the ADA, but we need to put our feelings on the shelf and first discern whether any given law will really help.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Dismantling the federal government is not my goal. While I believe States have rights, I do not believe that State's rights should in many, even in most, cases prevail over the federal govt. I always remember that if State's rights had prevailed as the ultimate power in our country, slavery would still be legal and racial integration and a host of Jim Crow laws would be the laws of our land.

I see no special wisdom residing at the State level. It is the same mixture of wisdom, folly, stupidity, ego, and power drives as are found at every other level of government--whether it be the city council or Congress.

Kate


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act HURT americans with disabilities.

I'll go way out on a limb here and guess you aren't disabled.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

That would be my guess, too, David... and someone who can't imagine what that might be like.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

First, buried in your question is the assumption that if I am not disabled, I can't understand the difference between good and bad policies for the ADA. That makes great sense. It goes to the bottom of the liberal problem...they pass laws that feel good, but they never ask "what happens next?"

Second, according to the ADA, we are all disabled. Their defn of "disability" is so vague, that anyone can conjure up something. My wife could probably list a dozen disabilities that I suffer from. :)

John Stossell loves to blow the cover on stuff like this. Here is his expose of the ADA:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-stossel-americans-with-disabilities-acthelps-lawyers-hurts-the-disabled/article/89772#.UMNsLjVGJ5Q


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Bring back ethics and integrity... lose the greed... and then get back to us.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

@jodik your reasoning here is classic liberalism. if someone opposes the ADA, then they must not be disabled. If one opposes gay marriage, he must be anti-gay, if one opposes amnesty, he must be xenophobic, etc. etc. It's about 4th grade level reasoning (apologies to all 4th graders).


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

It goes to the bottom of the liberal problem.

your reasoning here is classic liberalism.

Oh, we got a live one here. Do you and your kind ever realize how bigoted and idiotic you come across once you leave the wingnut echo chamber?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Oh, the Washington Examiner as a source, and John Stossel. Well, that sure convinces me... of something unrelated to the OP.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Reconsidering my above comments; Washington Examiner and John Stossel could be defined as 'ideological fools' -- hard at work doing what ideological fools do, aka wingnut welfare.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

nancy_in_venice_ca brings us more classical liberal evasions. if you disagree with someone's analysis, just call into question the integrity of the source. This is actually a well-known informal logical fallacy that people learn in intro to logic. Poison the well.

It seems to me you have two options. Either disagree with my facts and show me how they are incorrect. Or concede that my facts are correct and show me how my analysis is wrong.

I realize it's much easier to just yell but...intelligent people see thru that. :)


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Please proceed....Obama Won. You and your Fox Box and friends serve a purpose. Thank you.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

So are you saying that one can never call into question the integrity of the source?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

A source is simply that a source. Just because one can link to an internet source that supports their position matters squat. It's the validity of the data that matters.

For example stating 70% of Federal spending is on welfare is factually incorrect but , as we have seen today, I can link you to a site that says it is so.

Opinion vs fact....some tend to confuse the two.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by cornopean none (My Page) on
Sat, Dec 8, 12 at 12:51

nancy_in_venice_ca brings us more classical liberal evasions. if you disagree with someone's analysis, just call into question the integrity of the source. This is actually a well-known informal logical fallacy that people learn in intro to logic. Poison the well.

*

Welcome to the forum, cornopean.

And welcome to diversion, attacking the source, and name calling when the liberals have absolutely nothing to say in response to your points.

Your point of view has obviously gotten under the skin of some as you've already been called names--"bigoted and idiotic" and "wingnut echo chamber"--how'd you like those insults? Of course you strike me as someone logical and not emotional and someone that does not need to personally insult people to make a point.


Here are some of the Rules for Radicals favored by Saul Alinsky Soldiers on this forum when they are devoid of a cogent response:

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

--Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971)


GOOD LUCK!

"


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Actuslly until you piped in Demi the back and forth with corn was not particularly insulting or argumentative.....thanks for bringing us back to the level you do best at.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Ah - another county heard from.

To quote Bill Maher, "who the f--- is Saul Alinsky?" I'd never heard of him until right-wing forum members here started quoting him right and left. Never dreamed that so many folks were acquainted with the minutiae of the American labor movement in the 1940s -- almost makes me hopeful for the US educational system again.

Here is a link that might be useful: Who the heck is Saul Alinsky?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I refuse to edit my spelling mistake for fear I would be accused of something else...but I do apologize.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Of course, you can call into question the integrity of a source, but please don't confuse that with a rebuttal. An argument isn't defeated by calling into question someone's integrity.
In order to rebut an argument, you must either show the inaccuracy of the facts or rebut the analysis given of those facts. Those are the only two options.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Chase, can I see the link that shows what percentage of federal spending is on welfare?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

So what office do you hold?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

John Stossel and the Washington Examiner. What splendid sources. Demi and mrsk should be happy to have another winger join them.

Guys ,the election was over a month ago, and guess what? We won which means over half the country disagrees with you.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Not at all sure how you define Welfare but at least this chart spells out what is in each of the categories. If one defines welfare as those services which go to help the needy the answer is 13%.

Personally I think it may be reasonable to include Medicaid. By this chart that would be 13% in social services and 7% in Medicaid.

Here is a link that might be useful: How are tax dollars spent


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

A big piece of Medicaid goes to elderly people who've outlived their savings.

"Though former President Bill Clinton overstated in his convention speech on Wednesday how much Medicaid spends on the elderly in nursing homes - they account for well under a third, not nearly two-thirds, of spending - Medicaid spends more than five times as much on each senior in long-term care as it does on each poor child, and even more per person on the disabled in long-term care."

Why do the teabaggers want to throw granny and the disabled under the bus? Are they purging the population?

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 9, 12 at 11:23

Well cripes David it is not like they are productive members of society, why should we spend taxpayer money on people who just refuse to die and/or be born less than perfect ??

There are drones to be built and countries to bomb!! Yeah warfare not welfare!!

Throw em' out with the bath water....


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

The only reason I said that I felt Medicaid could be lumped in with total "welfare" spending is because medical services are provided, by the government, to those who cannot afford it. Those who can afford it must pay their own so by default, in the States, Medicaid is a form of welfare.

I actually don't consider healthcare spending, including extended care, as welfare. I believe it is a basic human right that should be available equally to all. The notion that it is paid for some, and not others, appalls me.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Why do the teabaggers want to throw granny and the disabled under the bus?

Oh, David, haven't you been paying attention? It's because granny and the disabled are just lazy moochers. In other words, the infamous "takers". If they weren't such lazy, moocher, takers, they would have saved enough money to not rely on the conservatives to have to take care of them. Because, if you've been paying attention here, you would know that liberals are all moochers and don't actually pay taxes. Make sense now?


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by cornopean none (My Page) on Sat, Dec 8, 12 at 20:52

"Of course, you can call into question the integrity of a source, but please don't confuse that with a rebuttal. An argument isn't defeated by calling into question someone's integrity.
In order to rebut an argument, you must either show the inaccuracy of the facts or rebut the analysis given of those facts. Those are the only two options."

;D

What an idea! Actually, we already have a few bright things like you, Corn: David, Marshall, and Rob come to mind. This is nice; thank you for showing up. So far, anyway. ;)


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Sun, Dec 9, 12 at 17:35

"Because, if you've been paying attention here, you would know that liberals are all moochers and don't actually pay taxes. Make sense now?"

*

Who said that, jillinnj?

I have never seen anyone here post that, I've never heard anyone say that--I know of no one that thinks that or believes that.

So why do you say that? Why do you say, "make sense now?"

YOUR post makes no sense.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Satire and parody frequently involve exaggeration as a means of emphasizing a point and rendering it ridiculous by overstating it.

A very common, everyday technique.

Literalists will, of course, be confused by it, perhaps even totally misunderstand such statements.

Kate


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Embarrassing.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Demi, it is said over and over that liberals want to give away the shirt off someone else's back, that they want to take other peoples money and give it away...the inference being none of that tax money is theirs.

You don't have to accept the fact that is the way it comes across. You can blame everyone for interpreting it incorrectly but that's how it comes across to me and many others.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

What I find most interesting about Denis post is I wasn't talking to Demi. Yet she replied to my post directly. Hmmmm......

And of course since we all misunderstood her (yeah, right) it couldn't possibly be Demi's fault. It couldn't possibly be the way she expresses things. Nope. It's the rest of us.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Mon, Dec 10, 12 at 8:52

What I find most interesting about Denis post is I wasn't talking to Demi. Yet she replied to my post directly. Hmmmm......

*

Gee, I seem to remember several lectures from you recently about your right to respond to my posts (which you weren't actually doing, you were telling me what you thought about my posts and insulting me, but I digress).

I had an opinion about what you posted.
I responded.

That's what we do here jillinnj.
Some of us actually do respond to posts and don't spend our time following around posters making personal insults.

Live with it, jillinnj.
Try and practice what you preach.

*

Chase, no one on this forum, to my knowledge, has ever said that liberals don't pay taxes.

I do know that conservatives give more in charity than liberals--I never met a liberal than wasn't more interested in my charity than his own.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

"I never met a liberal than wasn't more interested in my charity than his own."

Then one can only assume you haven't met very many liberals...how insulting.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Let's see, Chase--how many conservatives do you see here telling liberals they don't give enough and are selfish?

How many liberals here have you seen tell conservagives they don't give enough and are selfish?

I've met enough liberals.
I have them in my family.

Don't tell me about liberals.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

"how many conservatives do you see here telling liberals they don't give enough and are selfish?"

Liberals have been accused here often of not giving enough...always being takers. Deny all you want...changes nothing.

"Don't tell me about liberals"

What would be the point...


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

You know you're in lala-loony land when the talk turns to what libruls think and believe, told to us by non-libruls.

They don't realize just how foolish they sound. Since we're talking about stereotypes and belief systems, maybe if they substituted Jews, or Catholics, or Hindus or some other religion of their own, and started spewing out how much they know about them, they'd realize how dumb it sounds.

"I know what Jews think. I have a couple in my family"

This post was edited by david52 on Mon, Dec 10, 12 at 10:59


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

You know you're in lala-loony land when the talk turns to what libruls think and believe, told to us by non-libruls.

To be fair, it works both ways.

These forums are filled with posts about what conservatives think and believe... as told by non-conservatives.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

These forums are filled with posts about what conservatives think and believe... as told by non-conservatives.

Maybe I've missed it, but I don't remember statements like: "I know how conservatives think" .... "Typical conservative evasion tactics" ........ "All you conservatives ever think of is keeping your money to yourself". and so on.

Happy to be proven wrong, of course.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

I agree October.
Embarrassing.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Oh, good, demi. It seems you finally understand that we are all entitled to reply to any posts we like, regardless of whether they were directed to us or not.

I hope that means there will be no more of the I wasn't addressing you rants from you.

And, yes, we should all practice what we preach. I will take that to mean you will start doing that from now on.


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Satire and parody frequently involve exaggeration as a means of emphasizing a point and rendering it ridiculous by overstating it.

A very common, everyday technique.

I do it all the time. Some get it, some don't.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Ideological fools at work

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Mon, Dec 10, 12 at 13:47

Oh, good, demi. It seems you finally understand that we are all entitled to reply to any posts we like, regardless of whether they were directed to us or not.

I hope that means there will be no more of the I wasn't addressing you rants from you.

And, yes, we should all practice what we preach. I will take that to mean you will start doing that from now on.

*

I see you are determined to fight windmills.

Have fun.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here