Senate Republicans Reject UN Disabilities Treaty

Once again, Rick Santorum and Republicans embarrass our country by their actions, defeating the UN Disabilities Treaty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/despite-doles-wish-gop-rejects-disabilities-treaty.html

I think it was because of our fear (and justified fear) of the UN. If any politician is against the well treatment of people with disabilities they are idiotic. But why do we need a UN declaration of the rights of disabled people in the US? We do not actively discriminate against people with disabilities.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

I think it was because of our fear (and justified fear) of the UN. If any politician is against the well treatment of people with disabilities they are idiotic. But why do we need a UN declaration of the rights of disabled people in the US? We do not actively discriminate against people with disabilities.

It's not about rights of disabled people in the US, it's about rights of disabled people in the world. Passing laws in the US means nothing in the rest of the world, which is why we go through the UN. It's embarrassing when the rest of the world is trying to affirm rights for disabled people, and we in the US are shooting it down because of ignorance and politics. It makes us look like idiots and hypocrites.

Republicans acting like scum bags yet again, not surprised. They need to get rid of these far right douche bags and bring back the respectable Republicans. I know that seems like an alien concept in this day and age, but once upon a time the Republicans weren't complete and utter wastes of skin.

@WillPayton: hmm I did not realize that.

@Matchstick said:

Republicans acting like scum bags yet again, not surprised. They need to get rid of these far right douche bags and bring back the respectable Republicans. I know that seems like an alien concept in this day and age, but once upon a time the Republicans weren't complete and utter wastes of skin.

Agreed. Back in the day Republicans and Democrats would still disagree, but at the end of the day still respected each other and compromised. They had lunch or drinks together and even some of them put the needs of the country ahead of their own political needs. Now we have this situation where they cant even vote on a treaty to help disabled persons... it's sad and depressing.

And if you want to see "sad and depressing"... Google this issue and go look at conservative sites. These people are really paranoid and delusional.

@WillPayton said:

@Matchstick said:

Republicans acting like scum bags yet again, not surprised. They need to get rid of these far right douche bags and bring back the respectable Republicans. I know that seems like an alien concept in this day and age, but once upon a time the Republicans weren't complete and utter wastes of skin.

Agreed. Back in the day Republicans and Democrats would still disagree, but at the end of the day still respected each other and compromised. They had lunch or drinks together and even some of them put the needs of the country ahead of their own political needs. Now we have this situation where they cant even vote on a treaty to help disabled persons... it's sad and depressing.

And if you want to see "sad and depressing"... Google this issue and go look at conservative sites. These people are really paranoid and delusional.

My favorite one as of late is McConnell having to filibuster his own bill. Utterly priceless. They just become more and more of a joke as time goes by. Personally I blame Fox News since all they do is feed into Right Wing paranoia.

@Matchstick said:

My favorite one as of late is McConnell having to filibuster his own bill. Utterly priceless. They just become more and more of a joke as time goes by. Personally I blame Fox News since all they do is feed into Right Wing paranoia.

Yup, I saw that. LOL... new lows in incompetence and desperation if you ask me. It's really sad when you have to filibuster a bill you introduced yourself.

Imagine Bob Dole sitting there on your wheelchair with all the Republicans coming over to greet you, then they destroy the treaty you're there to support. Wow!

Stickin' it to the UN.

Not that I like disabled people being discriminated against, but I just find it rather bemusing that Congress has repeatedly made it a point of letting the UN know they aren't welcome.

@Illuminatus said:

Stickin' it to the UN.

Not that I like disabled people being discriminated against, but I just find it rather bemusing that Congress has repeatedly made it a point of letting the UN know they aren't welcome.

Not so much Congress this time... just the Republicans...

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/219

I guess this is just another minority that wont vote for them next time.

I don't trust the New York times because it's an intensely liberal paper that isn't afraid to say so. Also, the end has a quote from Harry Reid, and he's as liberal/left wing as they come.

But I think I know what went on in this situation. It wasn't the "GOP" as people would assume (the more Reagan-like of the group, although that may be saying a lot for John McCain). It was the more moderate/left sympathizing Republican members that pushed the rejection. I went looking up from other sources, and apparently the Vets in the Senate where pushed aside to keep them away from the floor.

Also, there's mention of something on the lines of a foreign body regulating the affairs of the United States and/or US medical practices. If that is true (wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was), then I'd give Santorum a bone. You need to see from multiple sides before saying Republicans are evil or Democrats are evil.

@Matchstick said:

Republicans acting like scum bags yet again, not surprised. They need to get rid of these far right douche bags and bring back the respectable Republicans. I know that seems like an alien concept in this day and age, but once upon a time the Republicans weren't complete and utter wastes of skin.

I have to agree with you. While I don't like the democrats much either, the current republicans are like a bunch of children and whine and whine and whine if they don't get their way. They lost big this last election but they're determined to make sure that Obama and the democrats get nothing done just to make them look bad at everyone's expense. I'm rather disgusted by their political strategy.

Our government is full of uneducated idiots, and really is very broken. I'm waiting for a revolution at this point, I believe I may live long enough to see it.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

I don't trust the New York times because it's an intensely liberal paper that isn't afraid to say so. Also, the end has a quote from Harry Reid, and he's as liberal/left wing as they come.

But I think I know what went on in this situation. It wasn't the "GOP" as people would assume (the more Reagan-like of the group, although that may be saying a lot for John McCain). It was the more moderate/left sympathizing Republican members that pushed the rejection. I went looking up from other sources, and apparently the Vets in the Senate where pushed aside to keep them away from the floor.

Also, there's mention of something on the lines of a foreign body regulating the affairs of the United States and/or US medical practices. If that is true (wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was), then I'd give Santorum a bone. You need to see from multiple sides before saying Republicans are evil or Democrats are evil.

I've tried to watch Fox news to get the republicans side several times, and the problem is they report blatant false data as facts, which are not by anybody's standards, such as a 5.5% unemployment rate when Obama took Office. The unemployment rate was much higher, and rising rapidly when Obama took office, something like 7.8% or 7.9%, and I've looked this up from actual government data (and you can't say the government lies about it to make Obama look good when Bush was president either, which they actually try to claim). I cannot take that network seriously because they blatantly lie.

On the flipside, I find that many of the admittedly liberal sources do actually report on facts, but they deliver them in a way that doesn't convey the problems (whether or not they are just potential problems, or real problems), but at least they can correctly report facts. At least MSNBC/NY Times admits being for Obama, where Fox claims they are Fair & Balanced, when they are anything but that and actually go out of their way to lie about blatant facts.

I find that web coverage or newspaper coverage is usually far better than television, and try to take everything with a grain of salt, because a lot of stuff out there is written by fanboys who would give handjobs to Obama or the tea party etc

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

I don't trust the New York times because it's an intensely liberal paper that isn't afraid to say so. Also, the end has a quote from Harry Reid, and he's as liberal/left wing as they come.

Saying you dont trust the New York times isnt relevant. If you're disputing something they said, then say what that is. Are you claiming that they're not being accurate about the facts? Why is quoting Harry Reid an issue for you?

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

But I think I know what went on in this situation. It wasn't the "GOP" as people would assume (the more Reagan-like of the group, although that may be saying a lot for John McCain). It was the more moderate/left sympathizing Republican members that pushed the rejection. I went looking up from other sources, and apparently the Vets in the Senate where pushed aside to keep them away from the floor.

How is Rick Santorum a "moderate/left sympathizer"?

Also, 38 out of 46 Republican Senators voted against it, 0 out of 51 Democrats voted against it. So actually yes, it was the GOP. No assumptions are needed, that's just the fact.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

Also, there's mention of something on the lines of a foreign body regulating the affairs of the United States and/or US medical practices. If that is true (wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was), then I'd give Santorum a bone. You need to see from multiple sides before saying Republicans are evil or Democrats are evil.

There's mention where? My understanding is that the treaty in no way forces the US to do anything. The Republicans seem to be saying that this treaty in some way takes power or sovereignty away from the US and gives it to the UN. Really, how so? I havent seen a single bit of evidence to support this.

The treaty has been signed by 155 countries, including China and Russia. It's pathetic that we cant sign this. It makes us hypocrites.

@fps_dean said:

I've tried to watch Fox news to get the republicans side several times, and the problem is they report blatant false data as facts, which are not by anybody's standards, such as a 5.5% unemployment rate when Obama took Office. The unemployment rate was much higher, and rising rapidly when Obama took office, something like 7.8% or 7.9%, and I've looked this up from actual government data (and you can't say the government lies about it to make Obama look good when Bush was president either, which they actually try to claim). I cannot take that network seriously because they blatantly lie.

On the flipside, I find that many of the admittedly liberal sources do actually report on facts, but they deliver them in a way that doesn't convey the problems (whether or not they are just potential problems, or real problems), but at least they can correctly report facts. At least MSNBC/NY Times admits being for Obama, where Fox claims they are Fair & Balanced, when they are anything but that and actually go out of their way to lie about blatant facts.

I find that web coverage or newspaper coverage is usually far better than television, and try to take everything with a grain of salt, because a lot of stuff out there is written by fanboys who would give handjobs to Obama or the tea party etc

I recommend NPR. It's by far the best source of unbiased news and discussion of the issues I've seen. While CNN is not very biased, they still too often just have interviews with partisan hacks like Newt Gingrich, which contributes nothing and is generally just a waste of time... as well as aggravating. NPR will actually have non-partisan people to debate the topics, and when interviewing partisan types they give both sides.

Fox News is not even news, it's propaganda, plain and simple. They lie and misrepresent the truth all the time. They have an agenda, and spin EVERYTHING to fit that agenda.

@fps_dean:

Until the Tea Party decides to split off and form a separate party, all they can do is talk. (I actually like the Tea Party, and I've been to several meetings. I was like a party, and a few had shirts on saying things like "Hispanic and a Tea Party-er" or something like that.)

I avoid FOX news because I get labeled if I even look at it. The only guy I could say is even remotely credible is probably Glenn Beck because he uses slide shows, but since I haven't seen or heard his programs, I concede that I cannot support him for his views.

The problem with internet sources is finding one that has credible sources with it. Most times I can't put up links to articles I find because there are no sources attached. Not to mention sources outside of FOXnews and DrudgeReport are rare and far between.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@fps_dean:

Until the Tea Party decides to split off and form a separate party, all they can do is talk. (I actually like the Tea Party, and I've been to several meetings. I was like a party, and a few had shirts on saying things like "Hispanic and a Tea Party-er" or something like that.)

I avoid FOX news because I get labeled if I even look at it. The only guy I could say is even remotely credible is probably Glenn Beck because he uses slide shows, but since I haven't seen or heard his programs, I concede that I cannot support him for his views.

The problem with internet sources is finding one that has credible sources with it. Most times I can't put up links to articles I find because there are no sources attached. Not to mention sources outside of FOXnews and DrudgeReport are rare and far between.

Wow. Just, wow.

I... am completely speechless... Glenn Beck... credible... are you serious?

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: We clearly have different views, but you get it.

As far as internet sources, I mean a newspaper's website, or often articles from TV stations sites are better than their on-air content. Somewhat reliable sources, not the blog of some wacko who still lives in their mother's basement and wears a hat made of tin foil to prevent the aliens from reading their mind etc.

@WillPayton said:

@fps_dean said:

I've tried to watch Fox news to get the republicans side several times, and the problem is they report blatant false data as facts, which are not by anybody's standards, such as a 5.5% unemployment rate when Obama took Office. The unemployment rate was much higher, and rising rapidly when Obama took office, something like 7.8% or 7.9%, and I've looked this up from actual government data (and you can't say the government lies about it to make Obama look good when Bush was president either, which they actually try to claim). I cannot take that network seriously because they blatantly lie.

On the flipside, I find that many of the admittedly liberal sources do actually report on facts, but they deliver them in a way that doesn't convey the problems (whether or not they are just potential problems, or real problems), but at least they can correctly report facts. At least MSNBC/NY Times admits being for Obama, where Fox claims they are Fair & Balanced, when they are anything but that and actually go out of their way to lie about blatant facts.

I find that web coverage or newspaper coverage is usually far better than television, and try to take everything with a grain of salt, because a lot of stuff out there is written by fanboys who would give handjobs to Obama or the tea party etc

I recommend NPR. It's by far the best source of unbiased news and discussion of the issues I've seen. While CNN is not very biased, they still too often just have interviews with partisan hacks like Newt Gingrich, which contributes nothing and is generally just a waste of time... as well as aggravating. NPR will actually have non-partisan people to debate the topics, and when interviewing partisan types they give both sides.

Fox News is not even news, it's propaganda, plain and simple. They lie and misrepresent the truth all the time. They have an agenda, and spin EVERYTHING to fit that agenda.

I wouldn't say NPR is totally unbiased, because they've even admitted they are tend to support democrats over republicans. However, I do agree that they do a good job of reporting the fact, and both sides of the argument, far better than anyone else out there.

And Fox news is actually an entertainment channel...

@WillPayton said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@fps_dean:

Until the Tea Party decides to split off and form a separate party, all they can do is talk. (I actually like the Tea Party, and I've been to several meetings. I was like a party, and a few had shirts on saying things like "Hispanic and a Tea Party-er" or something like that.)

I avoid FOX news because I get labeled if I even look at it. The only guy I could say is even remotely credible is probably Glenn Beck because he uses slide shows, but since I haven't seen or heard his programs, I concede that I cannot support him for his views.

The problem with internet sources is finding one that has credible sources with it. Most times I can't put up links to articles I find because there are no sources attached. Not to mention sources outside of FOXnews and DrudgeReport are rare and far between.

Wow. Just, wow.

I... am completely speechless... Glenn Beck... credible... are you serious?

You need to read the rest of the statement, plus the word remotely... that saves it. Plus at least he didn't say Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, because hardly anything they ever has much basis in reality or can be supported by actual facts.

@fps_dean said:

I wouldn't say NPR is totally unbiased, because they've even admitted they are tend to support democrats over republicans. However, I do agree that they do a good job of reporting the fact, and both sides of the argument, far better than anyone else out there.

And Fox news is actually an entertainment channel...

NPR actually did a whole show about whether or not they have a bias. I dont see many networks doing that. Anyone who is willing to self-analyze and scrutinize himself for bias is on the right path. Also, the funny thing with NPR is that many liberals think they're too conservative, and many conservatives think they're too liberal. Personally, I think they have a small liberal bias, but overall I love the quality of the reporting on NPR, and the fact that they also have shows from the BBC.

Fox News... if they call themselves a "news" network, they dont get to also then say they're an "entertainment" network. They say they're news, they say they're fair and balanced,... they are neither. They are a propaganda network for the GOP.

@fps_dean said:

@WillPayton said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@fps_dean:

Until the Tea Party decides to split off and form a separate party, all they can do is talk. (I actually like the Tea Party, and I've been to several meetings. I was like a party, and a few had shirts on saying things like "Hispanic and a Tea Party-er" or something like that.)

I avoid FOX news because I get labeled if I even look at it. The only guy I could say is even remotely credible is probably Glenn Beck because he uses slide shows, but since I haven't seen or heard his programs, I concede that I cannot support him for his views.

The problem with internet sources is finding one that has credible sources with it. Most times I can't put up links to articles I find because there are no sources attached. Not to mention sources outside of FOXnews and DrudgeReport are rare and far between.

Wow. Just, wow.

I... am completely speechless... Glenn Beck... credible... are you serious?

You need to read the rest of the statement, plus the word remotely... that saves it. Plus at least he didn't say Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, because hardly anything they ever has much basis in reality or can be supported by actual facts.

Actually it's a she, not a he. =)

And no, Glenn Beck is not "remotely credible". The guy is a total nutjob. I could go on for pages about this, but I'll spare you.

Second, how does "using slide shows" make someone credible... even remotely?

And lastly, how can someone say that Glenn Beck is "even remotely credible" and then finish with "I haven't seen or heard his programs"? Sorry, but if you admit you dont know what someone says, then you cant comment on his credibility.

@WillPayton:

Santorum's deal is that he has semi-Evangelist views, which is why he got into so much trouble during the Republican campaigns. I will add the fact that his daughter had gotten violently sick towards the end of said campaigns, so he's probably acting this way partly out of emotional duress. (I doubt he's a psycho as some think he is.)

Also, the Republican/GOP is no longer a unified group as it is with the Democratic party. You'd find it hard to believe that the more liberal Republicans have been removing Tea Party supporters from high level positions, those being ones who most likely would be more sympathetic towards VETs than others.

I'd explain my views on Harry Reid, but everything I would write would be called garbage and stupid.

I'm reading the Treaty, and up front it looks okay. But I notice it says the "state" should do this or that. A LOT. That's a huge red flag, because by having more emphasis on what the state will do, it detracts on what the people would do. Not what they have to do.

Another thing is that there are no examples of what they define as "disability". Is it the ones born disabled? Or only the ones with a physical ailment?

Also it mentions monitoring that the conventions passed will be followed. What kind of monitoring?

Also, "cooperation of the states parties and the committee". Is it federal law passed? Do the states have individual legislatures on what they can or cannot enforce?

I don't buy it straight up. It emphasizes too much on the state, rather than the people. Disabled people must be treated equally, that I agree with. But it (to me) sounds almost like the state is to take charge of everything. It isn't clear whether its an enforced state mandate, or one that the individual can or can't follow.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

@WillPayton:

Did you read my post or just nitpick on names? Should I use Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer as examples next time?

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

I'm reading the Treaty, and up front it looks okay. But I notice it says the "state" should do this or that. A LOT. That's a huge red flag, because by having more emphasis on what the state will do, it detracts on what the people would do. Not what they have to do.

Another thing is that there are no examples of what they define as "disability". Is it the ones born disabled? Or only the ones with a physical ailment?

Also it mentions monitoring that the conventions passed will be followed. What kind of monitoring?

Also, "cooperation of the states parties and the committee". Is it federal law passed? Do the states have individual legislatures on what they can or cannot enforce?

I don't buy it straight up. It emphasizes too much on the state, rather than the people. Disabled people must be treated equally, that I agree with. But it (to me) sounds almost like the state is to take charge of everything. It isn't clear whether its an enforced state mandate, or one that the individual can or can't follow.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

Treaties are signed by states, and as such they can only say what those states promise to do.

@fps_dean:

You honestly think I'm a conspiracy nut? I'm not. I admit I was a bit a prior to 2008 (I was also advocating human extinction then. Go figure), but it got stupid when I started looking up 911 thoughts. It made me sick.

I have considered using blogs before, but most don't back up facts, so I avoid those too.

@WillPayton:

I'd believe a guy who has slides detailing his views over one who rants and tells me I'll go to Hell for not voting Republican or Democrat. Then I'd compare with other data to see if it wither matches, or there are flaws.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@WillPayton:

I'd believe a guy who has slides detailing his views over one who rants and tells me I'll go to Hell for not voting Republican or Democrat. Then I'd compare with other data to see if it wither matches, or there are flaws.

So you believe someone with slides over someone without slides? You believe them because they have... slides?

@WillPayton:

What does the other person have? I'm pushing to say I need proof, but then it'd bring up my faith and other beliefs (not religious, but more what is known as "junk science".)

@WillPayton said:

@Illuminatus said:

Stickin' it to the UN.

Not that I like disabled people being discriminated against, but I just find it rather bemusing that Congress has repeatedly made it a point of letting the UN know they aren't welcome.

Not so much Congress this time... just the Republicans...

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/219

I guess this is just another minority that wont vote for them next time.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/5/3732478/house-votes-against-government-control-internet

Meh, at least they can be cohesive in some regards.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@WillPayton:

What does the other person have? I'm pushing to say I need proof, but then it'd bring up my faith and other beliefs (not religious, but more what is known as "junk science".)

I dont understand how slides are proof.

Person A says "The car in the other room is red", and person B says "The car in the other room is blue", and he has a slide that says this, you think person B has more credibility?

Person had to get the photo somewhere. Saying one thing and showing another is not the same. Showing gives you a visual to compare, while words can be made up on the spot.

@Illuminatus said:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/5/3732478/house-votes-against-government-control-internet

Meh, at least they can be cohesive in some regards.

Dear God! I would not have thought it possible.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@fps_dean:

You honestly think I'm a conspiracy nut? I'm not. I admit I was a bit a prior to 2008 (I was also advocating human extinction then. Go figure), but it got stupid when I started looking up 911 thoughts. It made me sick.

I have considered using blogs before, but most don't back up facts, so I avoid those too.

I meant that as sarcasm. I was just saying I dont mean blogs and random people on the internet as "internet sources". I actually think you have a solid head on your shoulders (regardless of what you think about Glenn Beck lol).

Plus there's so much about 9/11 that feeds into the conspiracy theories anyway and there were news stories that were pulled that I read and then saw disappear elon the morning of 9/11. that should be enough to make anyone question what they were told. But if there was some sort of conspiracy, we won't know about it until the people involved are really old so there's no point fretting over it

America's continuing paranoia over the UN still baffles me.

@AtPhantom said:

America's continuing paranoia over the UN still baffles me.

Part of America, the crazy right-wing part. All the Democrats voted to approve the treaty, most Republicans voted against it.

Most people I know are not anti-UN nutjobs, but then again I've mostly lived in pretty liberal parts of the US.

@WillPayton: Fair enough. I suppose anyone's paranoia over the UN baffles me. I mean the only way such a stance would have any possible merit is if you replaced the most impotent, benevolent international organization with the freaking Sith empire. And if the Sith were running the UN, I think we'd all feel some freaking disturbance in the force by now...

...or would we??

Has anyone here actually read the language of the treaty or are you just picking sides and starting fights?

@turoksonofstone said:

...or would we??

I for one welcome our new Sith overlords.

Does anyone even have a link to the actual bill itself, or are we just reading the bit that says "could help disabled people" and calling it a day?

@minigunman123 said:

Does anyone even have a link to the actual bill itself, or are we just reading the bit that says "could help disabled people" and calling it a day?

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm