GOP blocks disability treaty

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by kavika411

So, we take the Americans With Disabilities Act, and codify it as a treaty, keeping in mind that the Americans With Disabilities Act has been changed and amended during the years as necessary. Do we assume it is now perfect? Or do we acknowledge that it will likely need future changes but simply assume all international treaties are so very easily amended by all interested parties in the future?

That's a good question.

...Or is that just a "wingnut" question to ask?

I thought I made my point about wingnuts vs. rational people clear. You don't seriously think I was talking about questions like the above?

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Why would a country which likes its abusive conditions want to agree to anti-abuse legislation just because another country they don't like agreed to it?



Funny how you advocate compulsion to respectful behavior, yet are quick to insult your reasonable opponents.

How about some of us sign an agreement to not insult our political opposition, in order to encourage Mr. Hulugu to do the same thing and follow our standards of respectful discourse? Oh, you say he won't because he likes being rude - but we'll still be bound to the agreement anyway?

This assumes the opposition is reasonable and worthy of respect. I personally don't feel the need to treat silly adults with respect, derision is more what you'll get.

Don't assume because you have an opinion it deserves a full hearing or respect.

[bobber205]

Originally Posted by eric/

But why do we need to have a treaty in the US, when we already practice this?



The downside would be unnecessary legislation, and increased UN oversight of the US.

This has been explained to you MANY times.

Stop living your life in fear of 'others'.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by bobber205

This has been explained to you MANY times.

Well it's been argued, though that argument hasn't been strong enough.

Originally Posted by bobber205

Stop living your life in fear of 'others'.

Stop projecting

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by hulugu

That's a good question.

And it's one reason (of a few) I strongly oppose us entering into treaties like this. It has nothing to do with Hate The UN!, or Luv Teh Villainous Republicanz!, or Be An Obstructionist! There is a time and a place - or better yet, a jurisdiction - where certain laws are appropriate, and where certain treaties are appropriate. Personally, I like the idea of being a sovereign nation who can take our own laws, whether it be the Americans With Disabilities Act, or the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act, or the Sarbanes Oxley Act, or whatever, and improve upon it and change it and repeal it and rewrite it as necessary with the times and with new information. Not to mention it's the height of conceit to think we got any particular law right for now and for all time and for everyone.

I thought I made my point about wingnuts vs. rational people clear. You don't seriously think I was talking about questions like the above?

To answer your question, no - I honestly stopped reading your posts after I saw "wingnut." I generally agree with you more than I disagree. But the trite "wingnut" does so little - actually, nothing - to advance any dialogue. It's like someone who needlessly injects "HOPE AND CHANGE!" in every thread tangentially talking about Obama. Stale, and useless.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by kavika411

To answer your question, no - I honestly stopped reading your posts after I saw "wingnut." I generally agree with you more than I disagree. But the trite "wingnut" does so little - actually, nothing - to advance any dialogue. It's like someone who needlessly injects "HOPE AND CHANGE!" in every thread tangentially talking about Obama. Stale, and useless.

I apologize for writing it. I was wrong.

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by hulugu

I apologize for writing it. I was wrong.

Once again, your politeness usurps my soapbox. Grrr.

[rdowns]

Once again, the Republicans have demonstrated that they value a blob of cells over actual human life. So sad.

Has anyone pointed out that George HW Bush negotiated and first signed the treaty?

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Once again, the Republicans have demonstrated that they value a blob of cells over actual human life. So sad.

Has anyone pointed out that George HW Bush negotiated and first signed the treaty?

They don't even value that blob of cells. They value nothing but money and power. That's it.

GOP should be renamed to the Greed & Opression Party.

[rdowns]

Just read that the House voted to pass a law striking the word lunatic from all Federal laws. If only we could strike them from Congress.

[Don't panic]

i find baffling how the GOP somehow manage to find themselves always on the wrong side of any issue.

[citizenzen]

Nice reminder from the GOP of how paranoid and petty the party can be.

Watch out for those black helicopters.

[VulchR]

As left-wing as I am, I have no (zero, none, nada, nichts) confidence in any international treaty, international law, or the UN. Frankly, those in power of countries do what they want to do when they want to do it, and international law, treaties and the UN are irrelevant. The UN in particular is dysfunctional to the point of being a ongoing tragedy - Syria is just the most recent instance of the UN specifically not doing what it was meant to do, and it is failing at so many levels.

At the end of the day, I really do not see how a treaty is going to help disabled people of a given country unless the country's government is enlightened enough that it would take steps on its own. A better approach would be to use bilateral diplomacy with countries that discriminate against the disabled.

[eric/]

If we already have an ADA within our country, and we're answerable to ourselves (our SCOTUS), then why subject ourselves to international law, also?

International law, by definition, supersedes national sovereignty. If we agree to abide by an international treaty, then we are letting another body outside of the US determine the rules by which we will live.

A country surrenders its sovereignty when it signs an international treaty, and in this case there is simply no reason to do so.

We're a big-boy country. We can make our own rules.

If other countries *need* the US to sign off on something like this before they do it, than they have no interest in doing it in the first place.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by eric/

If we already have an ADA within our country, and we're answerable to ourselves (our SCOTUS), then why subject ourselves to international law, also?

International law, by definition, supersedes national sovereignty. If we agree to abide by an international treaty, then we are letting another body outside of the US determine the rules by which we will live.

A country surrenders its sovereignty when it signs an international treaty, and in this case there is simply no reason to do so.

We're a big-boy country. We can make our own rules.

If other countries *need* the US to sign off on something like this before they do it, than they have no interest in doing it in the first place.

yet we'd like other "big boy" countries to sign international treaties..

[Zombie Acorn]

If it doesn't have enough teeth to impede on US sovereignty then it is a worthless treaty to begin with. If it does, then we don't want it because we should be handling our own domestic issues, so it seems pointless either way.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

yet we'd like other "big boy" countries to sign international treaties..

When they benefit us, yup. That's how everybody in the world operates. Don't attempt to single the US out for that.

[astrorider]

Reuters: "Republicans block U.N. treaty to protect people with disabilities"

Yep, no bias there.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

If it doesn't have enough teeth to impede on US sovereignty then it is a worthless treaty to begin with. If it does, then we don't want it because we should be handling our own domestic issues, so it seems pointless either way.

What part of Americans with Disabilities Act are you not understanding here? We are handling our own domestic issues, especially in regards to this. That law even got expanded with the Air Carrier Access Act, among others.

Our sovereignty isn't in question here, because we have our part handled. making that global across the board has no impact on what we are already doing domestically, as we are already doing it. No harm to us.

Just like it wouldn't affect you, with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act of 2002, as your province already has it covered, so it wouldn't be a problem for you.

So handling our own issues? We have. You're just a bit late to that game.

BL.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by bradl

What part of Americans with Disabilities Act are you not understanding here? We are handling our own domestic issues, especially in regards to this. That law even got expanded with the Air Carrier Access Act, among others.

Our sovereignty isn't in question here, because we have our part handled. making that global across the board has no impact on what we are already doing domestically, as we are already doing it. No harm to us.

Just like it wouldn't affect you, with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act of 2002, as your province already has it covered, so it wouldn't be a problem for you.

So handling our own issues? We have. You're just a bit late to that game.

BL.

If it doesn't affect us, than we don't need to approve it.

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by bradl

What part of Americans with Disabilities Act are you not understanding here? We are handling our own domestic issues, especially in regards to this. That law even got expanded with the Air Carrier Access Act, among others.

Our sovereignty isn't in question here, because we have our part handled. making that global across the board has no impact on what we are already doing domestically, as we are already doing it. No harm to us.

Just like it wouldn't affect you, with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act of 2002, as your province already has it covered, so it wouldn't be a problem for you.

So handling our own issues? We have. You're just a bit late to that game.

BL.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the question I raised in Post Nos. 25 and 30.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

If it doesn't affect us, than we don't need to approve it.

Thank you for so succinctly summing up the conservative philosophy, "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care?"

Thank you for so succinctly summing up exactly what is wrong with so many conservatives.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Thank you for so succinctly summing up the conservative philosophy, "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care?"

Thank you for so succinctly summing up exactly what is wrong with so many conservatives.

Did you read any part of the thread, or did you just come in here to rail against Conservatives?

Frankly, while I dislike Conservatism, the fact that you disagree with something they stand for, doesn't entitle you to draw up generalizations and ad homs against an entire group of people.

It is literally on the same level as me coming in to a thread and just saying "herp derp Democrats just want to take all my money and give it to other people herp derp".

Knock it off, unless you're goal here is to troll and be closed minded. In the case, good work.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by eric/

When they benefit us, yup. That's how everybody in the world operates. Don't attempt to single the US out for that.

Yet they don't play..

whats good for the goose is good for the gander..just keep in mind they don't play fair.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Yet they don't play..

whats good for the goose is good for the gander..just keep in mind they don't play fair.

As I said, there is no reason to single out the US on standard political maneuvering.