5 reasons Republicans shot down an international treaty to protect the disabled

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2009
10,014
1,310
190
Reno, NV
5 reasons Republicans shot down an international treaty to protect the disabled

A proposal that is simply an extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act failed — thanks to fringe conspiracy theories
By Ryu Spaeth | December 5, 2012
John McCain and John Kerry voted to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Not all of their Senate colleagues agreed.
Arguably, Senate Republicans were more swayed by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), who earlier in the week gave an impassioned speech calling on senators to vote "nay." So what were the GOP's objections to the treaty?

As critics of these naysayers point out, there is no evidence to support any of these claims.

5 reasons Republicans shot down an international treaty to protect the disabled - The Week
WTF? The same Santorum who has a severely disabled child?
:confused:
 
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.
“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.”
Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty - Salon.com


God forbid now the disabled visiting other countries has no rights.You village idiots had better stay home.
 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from the week..

and waaaaaaaa:eusa_boohoo:
 
Maybe it was the fact it was international?

If would give the disable the same rights as we have where ever they are.:mad: You you realize how the disabled is treated in India, etc? It's all about the rights of the disabled where ever they are.
 
Maybe it was the fact it was international?

If would give the disable the same rights as we have where ever they are.:mad: You you realize how the disabled is treated in India, etc? It's all about the rights of the disabled where ever they are.

they have Governments to give that to them...
sorry the UN is not THE gods of our world
 
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.
“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.”
Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty - Salon.com


God forbid now the disabled visiting other countries has no rights.You village idiots had better stay home.

And the GOP, as usual, is right.
 
Another strawman from the left?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................[/QUOTE]

Usual village idiot brain freeze. :eusa_shifty:

The only idiot here is you. If you think that a lefty trying to tell us what the reasons the right did something is valid, you're even more stupid than I previous claimed you were.

It's a strawman argument dumbass, look it up.
 
Maybe it was the fact it was international?

If would give the disable the same rights as we have where ever they are.:mad: You you realize how the disabled is treated in India, etc? It's all about the rights of the disabled where ever they are.

Well I gues India etc needs to get their shit together, ey? They are treated just fine here
 
The UN was established in the 50s as an anti-US body. Don't believe me? Remember that it was established during the cold war we had with Russia. How many votes does the US get? How many votes does Russia get?

Look it up, educate yourself. The UN has always been anti-US, and recently Anti-Israel. Nothing good comes out of any decision by the UN.
 
Maybe it's the creation of an unelected committee that we would be obligated to report to and which would create regulation and policies despite being completely unaccountable to the people.

Maybe it's the fact that it requires that disabled individuals register with the government from birth on. Which is an extremely creepy proposition if you are at all familiar with the history of the practice. (That's how the Nazis started the Holocaust, for example).

Maybe it's the ambiguous language that if implimented would make it more difficult for families or single parents to place disabled children up for adoption if that's in their best interest. And by making it more difficult create a greater incentive for parents to potentially abort their child.

Maybe it's the language in the treaty that makes the government the arbiter of what's in the childs best interest instead of defering to the parents determination of what's in the childs best interest, which is our standing public policy.

I know if i was the parent of a disabled child, I would seriously be concerned about a treaty that empowered a government body that is unaccountable to me to regulate and make proposals on my childs behalf, that stripped me of my rights as a parent to take care of my child in favor of the decision a court or an unelected bureaucrat decides is in my child's best interest, and which forced my child to be on a registery the government has. Especially, when the existing law already does a fine job of guarenteeing my child his/her rights.

But no. We should just completely ignore what the actual Treaty says and does and just vote for it on an emotional basis. That way we can pat ourselves on the back and pretend we are helping despite potentially making things alot worse. Maybe you guys should consider that the reason a number of parents of disabled children are opposed to this treaty is because they have a pretty good reason to be opposed to it and actually find out what their reason is.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone blindly for it is going to bother putting the time in to reading it and trying to understand it. Which is a shame. Because as treaties go, its not a long one or one that's tough to understand.
 
Maybe it was the fact it was international?

If would give the disable the same rights as we have where ever they are.:mad: You you realize how the disabled is treated in India, etc? It's all about the rights of the disabled where ever they are.

Then the logical solution to the problem is to let India make the agreement with other nations that want to. Or better yet, they can pass their own laws and change the culture there to fix the problem (which btw laws alone wont fix. I hope you realize that).

And until then, I would recommend the handicap avoid India if it's that big a problem. As an outspoken Christian, I know I would probably not have the easiest time in a nation like Saudi Arabia or Iran. You know what? I avoid those nations.
 
Maybe it was the fact it was international?

If would give the disable the same rights as we have where ever they are.:mad: You you realize how the disabled is treated in India, etc? It's all about the rights of the disabled where ever they are.

No, dumb ass, it isn't. It's about control. If it's about the disabled then nothing is stopping all of those countries who signed the treaty from passing their own set of laws mirroring ours, plain and simple.

I don't want an unelected body of international bureaucrats dictating to American business owners and local government entities what they feel they need to do to comply with helping the disabled.

Frankly, the ADA needs to be amended or completely repealed because it's a piss poor law that gives no limitation to what is considered a disability and has been frequently abused.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top