Why does the GOP hate the disabled?

[ABikerSailor]

It seems that the other day, when Congress actually had a chance to do something good, they fucked it up yet again.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is the U.S. law on which the UN treaty was proposed. An act that was put in place by Bush Sr., and now, because of the UN treaty, was supposed to become the rule in other countries.

Let me say this again.................the UN treaty was MODELED ON AMERICAN LAW SIGNED INTO EFFECT BY A GOP PRESIDENT.

In no way would it have done ANYTHING to people here in the US, because like I said, the Americans With Disabilities Act is ALREADY law here in the US. The UN treaty would have just exported it to other countries, where they would model their plan on WHAT THE US ALREADY DOES!!!!!!

So....................why does the GOP hate the disabled? Did they vote against it just because Obama was going to sign it?

Bob Dole (a GOP presidential candidate) showed up to help the bill get passed, yet it didn't.

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.

Mr. Dole last March. A majority of his fellow Republicans voted against the treaty, citing concerns about sovereignty.


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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/despite-doles-wish-gop-rejects-disabilities-treaty.html?_r=0

By the way...............know who led the charge in getting this treaty to not be passed?

Rick Santorum.

 

[elvis]

How does Santorum lead the charge if he's not in government?

 

[ABikerSailor]

How does Santorum lead the charge if he's not in government?

He still has a lot of pull in the GOP. And, that's who the pundits and news agencies say led the charge.

 

[Oddball]

We already have have the ADA, which is more problematic than it's worth.

Fuck the UN.

 

[OKTexas]

How many time are the commies going to post this crap and never inform themselves what the treaty requires? READ IT, then tell us what is so good about it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

We already have have the ADA, which is more problematic than it's worth.

Fuck the UN.

This treaty would have had NO EFFECT ON WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

Like I said, the UN treaty was modeled on what we've already done with the ADA. Basically, what that means is disabled people who have gotten used to the way we already do things here, would also see those same things in other places like Europe.

We would have to do nothing, because we already do it.

But..................go ahead...................support the GOP's hatred of the disabled.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

 

[Plasmaball]

How many time are the commies going to post this crap and never inform themselves what the treaty requires? READ IT, then tell us what is so good about it.

its a feel good piece of legislation, that they have no way of enforcing and only mirrors what we have here in the USA.

 

[elvis]

We already have have the ADA, which is more problematic than it's worth.

Fuck the UN.

This treaty would have had NO EFFECT ON WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

Like I said, the UN treaty was modeled on what we've already done with the ADA. Basically, what that means is disabled people who have gotten used to the way we already do things here, would also see those same things in other places like Europe.

We would have to do nothing, because we already do it.

But..................go ahead...................support the GOP's hatred of the disabled.

Yeah. It's that simple.

 

[Plasmaball]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

because its not for us, and more so the rest of the world. The UN decided to copy our law because it seems to be the best standard around.

But fuck those people right?

 

[Oddball]

We already have have the ADA, which is more problematic than it's worth.

Fuck the UN.

This treaty would have had NO EFFECT ON WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

Like I said, the UN treaty was modeled on what we've already done with the ADA. Basically, what that means is disabled people who have gotten used to the way we already do things here, would also see those same things in other places like Europe.

We would have to do nothing, because we already do it.

But..................go ahead...................support the GOP's hatred of the disabled.

Then why fucking bother signing on with the UN's bullshit?...It's form over substance.

But I guess it does give bitter little haters like you a chance to project your blind hatred onto someone else.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

We already have have the ADA, which is more problematic than it's worth.

Fuck the UN.

This treaty would have had NO EFFECT ON WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

Like I said, the UN treaty was modeled on what we've already done with the ADA. Basically, what that means is disabled people who have gotten used to the way we already do things here, would also see those same things in other places like Europe.

Then let those other countries fix themselves. I don't see any reason to shackle the US to a UN treaty just because other nations don't care about disabled people.

We would have to do nothing, because we already do it.

But..................go ahead...................support the GOP's hatred of the disabled.

Then why do you fucking care?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

because its not for us, and more so the rest of the world. The UN decided to copy our law because it seems to be the best standard around.

But fuck those people right?

Then let the rest of the world sign it. If we already have something better in place then why are we bothering?

 

[whitehall]

Why do NFL football players shoot their girlfriends? How many times did Bill Clinton cheat on his wife? How many homosexuals does it take to fill Barney Frank's apartment? What's the point in the thread? You take a cheap ignorant shot when you aren't smart enough to debate an issue.

 

[ABikerSailor]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

It would mean that those disabled people who travel overseas to Europe could expect the same kind of treatment and access that they already enjoy here in the US.

Besides......................what's wrong with exporting a US law to other countries? Isn't that one of the better ways to spread democracy?

 

[Oddball]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

It would mean that those disabled people who travel overseas to Europe could expect the same kind of treatment and access that they already enjoy here in the US.

Besides......................what's wrong with exporting a US law to other countries? Isn't that one of the better ways to spread democracy?

Oh, so I guess you're a big fan of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan then, huh?

What's wrong with exporting US law to other countries?

 

[elvis]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

It would mean that those disabled people who travel overseas to Europe could expect the same kind of treatment and access that they already enjoy here in the US.

Besides......................what's wrong with exporting a US law to other countries? Isn't that one of the better ways to spread democracy?

So you're a neocon. Excellent.

 

[Plasmaball]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

because its not for us, and more so the rest of the world. The UN decided to copy our law because it seems to be the best standard around.

But fuck those people right?

Then let the rest of the world sign it. If we already have something better in place then why are we bothering?

so then why not let the UN copy it and we sign on to it promoting we support helping disabled people?

I mean besides stupid crazy reasons, like the UN is taking over.

 

[Chris]

One of the most dispicable things the Senate has done in my lifetime.

And to Bob Dole.....it boggles the mind.

 

[ABikerSailor]

YAY! A third topic about the same thing.

Answer me this ABikerSailor, what would signing this treaty have meant for disabled people in america? The answer, NOTHING! We already have a better law in place in the US, so I fail to see how signing a treaty from that defunct organization the UN could have possibly bettered the lives of disabled people in america.

But maybe you can explain why disabled people in america needed this law?

It would mean that those disabled people who travel overseas to Europe could expect the same kind of treatment and access that they already enjoy here in the US.

Besides......................what's wrong with exporting a US law to other countries? Isn't that one of the better ways to spread democracy?

So you're a neocon. Excellent.

Actually, I think that democracy can be better spread through diplomacy rather than at the point of a gun.

I came to have those views after my second cruise in the U.S. Navy, and have kept them ever since, because everytime we walked off the ship, we were told that each and every one of us were ambassadors for the United States.

And you know...................80 percent of the people overseas speak English, but if you holler loud and slow at them, they will say they don't. Know what works better? Getting a decent phrase book and approaching them in their native language, because after a couple of minutes of sputtering around, they'll say they speak English.

Most of 'em were just looking to see if you were willing to make the effort, or if you were just another Ugly American.

And yeah.................exporting this law overseas would be good not only for those over in other countries, but also would be good for Americans who are visiting those countries.

But, it's always interesting to see what depths the GOP will sink in their pursuit of partisan hackery.