Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
114 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: I don't even... what? Senate Reps (but not all of them!) defeat Disability Treaty rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seriously, I don't brain this. I've read the arguments after the fact, and I've also read the treaty's summation. I've even listened to the opponents of the treaty use two mutually exclusive reasons to explain their opposition

1)This treaty will let the UN come into your home and tell you what to do when you home school your kid!

2)This treaty has no enforcement powers and is therefor meaningless.

Man what?

I'm not going to link, you can find it on your own, we all know hwo to use the internets and I don't want to be accused of throwing up a 'biased' article. You can do your own research and form an educated opinion(If you feel like it)

I seriously don't parse this. Hell, Rick Perry was HAPPY this failed. A treaty that in short is a resolution that other countries should treat their people with disabilities as well as the US has been treating our people with disabilities for a while now.

McCain and Perry both showed up to endorse this, heck they wheeled out Bob Dole in an effort to get people to back down off their batshit crazy mode for two seconds. I can't parse how far gone you have to be to want to defeat something so well intentioned and non-threatening.

I want to see someone introduce a bill saying you shouldn't punch babies, just to see how they spin their opposition to that one.

'How dare you infringe on my right to defend myself in the instance that a rogue baby were to assault me!'

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of these days, though, the GOP is going to be on the correct side of an issue about protecting the non-powerful. Obviously not today. Probably not tomorrow. They really got my hopes up for copyright law, and I still think it's an issue they can (and SHOULD!) claim and be on the side of the people for once. But this one just goes on the giant pile of proposals that might help the disadvantaged so obviously they voted against it on principle.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It will be brought up again in the next session. Maybe there are a few more votes that can be picked up.

I've heard it said by some that the US doesn't provide enough leadership these days. But when asked to vote on a treaty that is based on our own law that really led the world, those same people turn into cowards.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When people are unreasonably defensive, I think it's virtually always because they know in their heart they are in the wrong.

The same Republicans who would like to roll back rights for Americans get very defensive when they think about international agreements supporting those rights. Not surprising. They don't even like writing rights into law in the US, what would you expect them to think of writing rights into international agreements that are going to be interpreted by others?

You couldn't pass the Americans with Disabilities Act today. The Tea Party would kill it in the House, if not the Senate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Charters
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't understand opposing this treaty based on abortion. Here's article 10 of the treaty:

Article 10 - Right to life
States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

A new strategy for the pro-life community: declare that being a fetus is a 9-month disability. All unborn would be protected by this treaty.



Question for the pro-choice community who support this treaty: What happens if the disabled person has not yet been born? Is he/she protected because of his disability, or can he/she be aborted without regard to the disability?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
richcharters wrote:

Question for the pro-choice community who support this treaty: What happens if the disabled person has not yet been born? Is he/she protected because of his disability, or can he/she be aborted without regard to the disability?


I'm not a community, I'm just a random guy. But to me the treaty protects a disabled person, not a disabled pre-person, so abortion rights should be unaffected by this treaty. I think the treaty is spelling out "on an equal basis with others", which means insofar as abortion is legal no new law would stop a woman with a disabled fetus from having an abortion, but likewise in such cases where abortion would otherwise be disallowed no "special exception" will be made to allow the abortion of a disabled fetus.

And I think that's smart -- this section very clearly sets out to completely separate the protection of the disabled from the issue of abortion, on both sides. I think the wording is pretty clear is stating that disability in a fetus does not change its legal status in either direction.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why is this an issue, it seems it has n powers and was a waste of everyone's time and effort. I am also having trouble understanding how this would have affected homeschoolers, or how the UN would have been able to send teams of inspectors into their homes. This all seems to be based (yet again) on a total misunderstanding (fuelled by conspiracy theory style paranoia) of what the treaty is and allows.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoverGuy wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Why is this an issue


Because Republicans voted against it. That is why it is an issue, the only reason. It doesn't matter that the treaty was meaningless, had no enforceability, just a feel good, waste of time and money measure.

On RSP, Republicans = bad, evil baby-punching puppy-kickers, regardless of what the is being discussed.

Let me re-phrase that, why was this debated (a huge cost) when (in reality) it has no ability to affect the US and so could have been ratified without debate? Would this really have cost more to 'enforce' for the American taxpayer then the amount of money spent on the debate?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoverGuy wrote:
Because Republicans voted against it. That is why it is an issue, the only reason. It doesn't matter that the treaty was meaningless, had no enforceability, just a feel good, waste of time and money measure.

Then why did they vote against it?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoverGuy wrote:
But what is the point of voting for it? Just because? Just to go along with the Jones??


When it comes down to it, that pretty much is the purpose of international treaties like this. Reaching a common understanding on important issues is a good thing. It also gets us a seat at the table where issues regarding the treaty are discussed.

Quote:
Why does it matter which way they voted?


It just shows what they think is more important - rights of people around the world or catering to narrow interests.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Protect the rich, screw the needy. A party platform that will send the Republican party into obscurity before to long.

Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoverGuy wrote:
But what is the point of voting for it? Just because? Just to go along with the Jones?? Why does it matter which way they voted?
It does not mater why they voted, it matters that time (and money) was wasted debating this issue. Basically it says they are all for good management and fiscal responsibility (and not wasting money) unless it's them that are wasting it. It say (yet again) that polices are bring decided upon based upon ignorance, misinformation and lies. It's says the GOP (and the ta party) still don't get it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve e^(iπ)+1=0
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I might understand why:
It's a vote against the UN. Treaties like this are supposed to affect the laws of the US (whether they do or not is another question). They require US to submit to a 'higher power', however non-powerful, and votes against UN fluff like this is a way to say piss off. Because it's non-binding, it doesn't help US citizens and won't do a blooming thing anywhere else. So it may be a leadership thing, right? We're already doing that through laws and organizations like CARE, so why waste time, money, and effort on such a worthless symbolic gesture?

Not sure if I agree with this logic, just trying to figure out reasons.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
When people are unreasonably defensive, I think it's virtually always because they know in their heart they are in the wrong.

The same Republicans who would like to roll back rights for Americans get very defensive when they think about international agreements supporting those rights. Not surprising. They don't even like writing rights into law in the US, what would you expect them to think of writing rights into international agreements that are going to be interpreted by others?

You couldn't pass the Americans with Disabilities Act today. The Tea Party would kill it in the House, if not the Senate.


Who are these people you fear? And what rights are they trying to take away from Americans?

Oh wait, I see now, you fear the Tea Party. Sheesh. Sleep with a light on David, it'll keep the Boogyman away and maybe even the evil Tea Party.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Oh wait, I see now, you fear the Tea Party. Sheesh. Sleep with a light on David, it'll keep the Boogyman away and maybe even the evil Tea Party.

There's less need to fear them now. They are losing elections and getting kicked out of committees by their own party leadership. The Tea Party abomination is in decline thankfully.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The English text of the treaty starts on page 70 of this pdf:

http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%202515/v2...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
The English text of the treaty starts on page 70 of this pdf:

http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%202515/v2...
Or just read this. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
When people are unreasonably defensive, I think it's virtually always because they know in their heart they are in the wrong.


Possible responses:

1) I agree. When we criticize Obama and liberals reflexively shout RAAACIST!! it's because they know in their hearts that Obama is the most worthless president EVAR, but they cannot admit it out loud for fear of being excommunicated, so they lash out angrily.

2) Well, it certainly explains your natural defensiveness.


http://americablog.com/2012/11/racist-students-riot-in-missi..., http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57548077-71/racist-anti-ob...

So yes some of the criticism of Obama is racist.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
When people are unreasonably defensive, I think it's virtually always because they know in their heart they are in the wrong.


Possible responses:

1) I agree. When we criticize Obama and liberals reflexively shout RAAACIST!! it's because they know in their hearts that Obama is the most worthless president EVAR, but they cannot admit it out loud for fear of being excommunicated, so they lash out angrily.

2) Well, it certainly explains your natural defensiveness.


http://americablog.com/2012/11/racist-students-riot-in-missi..., http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57548077-71/racist-anti-ob...

So yes some of the criticism of Obama is racist.


:shake:
Yes I think this reflects just how seriously the Repblimorons took this issue. This was not a principled stance against something they gave a fuck about, it was just childish politicking to try and embarrass the president (which is ironic as he need no real help, he just has to continue his current course).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You want to get serious, Slater? Since we're talking about Senate votes, Mitch McConnell offered to have the Senate vote on the President's budget proposal. No objections. No filibuster. Let's vote on this sucka! That would be the $1.6 Trillion in tax increases, 50 billion in new spending, and giving the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling at whim.

And Harry Reid refused. With their majority in the Senate, the Democrats would have passed it easily. But the Democrats wouldn't even allow a vote on the President's proposal.

And let's put this in context of this thread. Harry Reid is more than willing to waste time having the Senate vote on stupid UN nonsense that even the OP agrees is unenforceable, but he will not allow a vote on the most pressing issue of the day.

Who wants to take us over the fiscal cliff? Who hasn't even given us a budget for four fucking years? That would be the Democratic Party led by Horrible Harry.
Is it not a requirement for all treaties to be voted on?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Is it a legal requirement to have this vote?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You want to get serious, Slater? Since we're talking about Senate votes, Mitch McConnell offered to have the Senate vote on the President's budget proposal. No objections. No filibuster. Let's vote on this sucka! That would be the $1.6 Trillion in tax increases, 50 billion in new spending, and giving the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling at whim.

And Harry Reid refused. With their majority in the Senate, the Democrats would have passed it easily. But the Democrats wouldn't even allow a vote on the President's proposal.


The Senate already passed the tax part of that in July and the House passed their version in August. There's not much point in doing it again until there is an agreement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You want to get serious, Slater? Since we're talking about Senate votes, Mitch McConnell offered to have the Senate vote on the President's budget proposal. No objections. No filibuster. Let's vote on this sucka! That would be the $1.6 Trillion in tax increases, 50 billion in new spending, and giving the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling at whim.

And Harry Reid refused. With their majority in the Senate, the Democrats would have passed it easily. But the Democrats wouldn't even allow a vote on the President's proposal.

And let's put this in context of this thread. Harry Reid is more than willing to waste time having the Senate vote on stupid UN nonsense that even the OP agrees is unenforceable, but he will not allow a vote on the most pressing issue of the day.

Who wants to take us over the fiscal cliff? Who hasn't even given us a budget for four fucking years? That would be the Democratic Party led by Horrible Harry.

Are you serious? McConnell was partaking in a bit of political theater and obstructing congress. They were in the middle of discussing a Russian trade bill that was about protecting american jobs. McConnell wanted to add the fiscal cliff stuff on as an amendment to that trade bill. The fiscal cliff negotiations are not over. The House would never pass the trade bill with that in there.

I think you probably know all this, so what was you point here?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Is it a legal requirement to have this vote?


Well, golly, Slater, if it's legal requirements you're concerned about, I hope you can summon up the proper outrage at a Senate that has violated its legal requirements by refusing to pass a budget in four years.
Have they refused to vote on it, or been unable to agree?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Well, golly, Slater, if it's legal requirements you're concerned about, I hope you can summon up the proper outrage at a Senate that has violated its legal requirements by refusing to pass a budget in four years.

It's not yet 4 years

And what would be the point, the House wouldn't pass it and they wouldn't be able to get 60 votes in the Senate to make it take effect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.