Senate GOP Prevents Ratification of UN Disabilities Convention in Front of Dole

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

http://www.cortezjournal.com/article/20121204/APW/1212040774/A-frail-Dole-returns-to-Senate-to-push-for-treaty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-rejects-treaty-to-protect-disabled-around-the-world/2012/12/04/38e1de9a-3e2c-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html

Bob and Elizabeth Dole in attendance in support of the treaty, with Bob Dole in a wheel chair after spending time in the hospital. Eight GOP senators voted with the Democrats, but there was not a 2/3 majority, which was necessary for ratification.

The ratification of the UNConvention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would not have required a change in US law, and 126 other countries ratified the Convention including:China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

The reason given by the GOP senators was that the Convention in question would destroy the soverignty of US families who home school their children.

#2 Posted by Blue-Sky (10333 posts) -

The entire treaty is based on our own American with Disabilities Act.

Basically brings the rest of the world up to our standards. We don't have to do a thing. I read about this earlier and it annoyed me so much I had to take a break from politics.

#3 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
>Rick Santorum, LOOOOOOOL Why is that Knight of Malta scumbag still relevant?
#4 Posted by Aljosa23 (25135 posts) -

LOL at their reason. Home schooled kids are fvcking weird.

#5 Posted by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -
maybe they don't want to be beholden to the whims of the UN because they are themselves mentally disabled...
#6 Posted by GazaAli (23019 posts) -
I feel bad for the U.S.
#7 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

Obviously republicans hate disabled people amirite? Those evil disableists.

Anyways, there should be no law forcing businesses to accomodate disabled people. If the original ADA only applied to public areas then that would be fine, but it is entirely immoral to force another person or business to do something simply because you want it done. The thought process is the exact same as a criminal who wants something from someone else and takes it. The only difference being the criminal does it with theirown hands, not the governments. I'm assuming this treaty is pretty much the same as the ADA based on what people have said.

#8 Posted by Allicrombie (25239 posts) -

Obviously republicans hate disabled people amirite? Those evil disableists.

hoola
of course they do, you think Mitt is gonna be seen pushing a wheelchair around??
#9 Posted by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -

goppers hate the un just about as much as they hate nobama. in order for the dems to get what they want out of congress, they just need to get the UN to propose a treaty stating the opposite.

#10 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
well they are 47%ers
#11 Posted by Blue-Sky (10333 posts) -

Obviously republicans hate disabled people amirite? Those evil disableists.

Anyways, there should be no law forcing businesses to accomodate disabled people. If the original ADA only applied to public areas then that would be fine, but it is entirely immoral to force another person or business to do something simply because you want it done. The thought process is the exact same as a criminal who wants something from someone else and takes it. The only difference being the criminal does it with theirown hands, not the governments. I'm assuming this treaty is pretty much the same as the ADA based on what people have said.

hoola

Too bad business mandates weren't the reasons why it was denied.

[Republicans] warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society, said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151504 posts) -
We have a Disability law in the US...why the f*ck should we care about the UN's?
#13 Posted by genfactor (1462 posts) -
I'm kinda impressed by how consistently Congress lives down to my expectations.
#14 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

I'm fully in favor of never supporting a damn thing the UN tries to put forth. I believe it's a rotten organization that shouldn't be supported in any way, shape, or form.

#15 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

I'm fully in favor of never supporting a damn thing the UN tries to put forth. I believe it's a rotten organization that shouldn't be supported in any way, shape, or form.

airshocker
Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...
#16 Posted by lamprey263 (24236 posts) -
We have a Disability law in the US...why the f*ck should we care about the UN's?LJS9502_basic
because it protects the rights of US citizens abroad when traveling in other nations who have ratified the treaty
#17 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151504 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]We have a Disability law in the US...why the f*ck should we care about the UN's?lamprey263
because it protects the rights of US citizens abroad when traveling in other nations who have ratified the treaty

Which is in effect if their country ratified the treaty whether or not the US does....
#18 Posted by dave123321 (34152 posts) -
[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm fully in favor of never supporting a damn thing the UN tries to put forth. I believe it's a rotten organization that shouldn't be supported in any way, shape, or form.

Stevo_the_gamer
Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...

We must not let anything stand in our way of standing up to the un
#19 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm fully in favor of never supporting a damn thing the UN tries to put forth. I believe it's a rotten organization that shouldn't be supported in any way, shape, or form.

dave123321

Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...

We must not let anything stand in our way of standing up to the un

Including ignoring the geneva convention regarding the torture of civilians!

Damn those busy bodies and there commie belief in basic human rights!

#20 Posted by MannyDelgado (1250 posts) -

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"] Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...tenaka2

We must not let anything stand in our way of standing up to the un

Including ignoring the geneva convention regarding the torture of civilians!

Damn those busy bodies and there commie belief in basic human rights!

I have no idea how you manage not to collapse from exhaustion due to trying so f*cking hard
#21 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...Stevo_the_gamer

When it stops appointing war criminals onto its commissions, maybe I'll have a different opinion.

#22 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Nevermind the humanitarian work that the UN does around the world with the help of NGOs... so rotten...airshocker

When it stops appointing war criminals onto its commissions, maybe I'll have a different opinion.

What?
#23 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

The reason given by the GOP senators was that the Convention in question would destroy the soverignty of US families who home school their children.

jimkabrhel

dafuq?

#24 Posted by RandoIph (2041 posts) -
The UN will take our guns and bibles, and force us into one world government and religion, and make us all gay muslim nazi socialist coommunist pinko liberals like Obama the Anti-Christ.
#25 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -
So this is the one thing the GOP has been given attention for in the last few months that I agree with strongly. Why should we sign on just because all the cool people are doing it? We already have laws protecting them.
#26 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

What?Stevo_the_gamer

What are you confused about?

#27 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]What?airshocker

What are you confused about?

You levied a bold claim that left me a bit unsettled, thus waiting for the elaboration...
#28 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

You levied a bold claim that left me a bit unsettled, thus waiting for the elaboration...Stevo_the_gamer

Google...? What I'm talking about is well-known by critics of the UN.

#29 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]You levied a bold claim that left me a bit unsettled, thus waiting for the elaboration...airshocker

Google...? What I'm talking about is well-known by critics of the UN.

I did a few Google searches and couldn't find what you were referring to. Which UN Commission has war criminals on it?

#30 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
I'm a little surprised at the amount of pushback here. 1. How does the U.S. agreeing to abide by the standards that they've already implemented and enforced since 1990 cause any sort of problems? 2. Why is this suddenly a treaty that is a problematic issue when it was ratified first under a Republican President (Bush the lesser in 2006) and then a Democratic President (Obama in 2009)? It seems like obstruction just for the sake of obstruction. In other words, it seems like a kneejerk attempt to placate an ideologue base that is against saying, "Sure, we'll agree to standards for how we'll treat disabled people that we've already implemented for 20 years if that will make the world community happy. We'll even not mention that it took you guys two decades to get caught up with us on this issue." Am confused on what possible harm can come to agreeing to go along with this or what possible good can be achieved by rejecting it.
#31 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]You levied a bold claim that left me a bit unsettled, thus waiting for the elaboration...airshocker

Google...? What I'm talking about is well-known by critics of the UN.

REPUBLICAN FIGHT!

#32 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]You levied a bold claim that left me a bit unsettled, thus waiting for the elaboration...airshocker

Google...? What I'm talking about is well-known by critics of the UN.

I did and didn't find anything of note, what particular search words should I use--is there a specific commission, or name?
#33 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

SOURCE

Here's one where Iran also gets put on the council for women's rights. :lol:

I see no reason to support such an organization.

#34 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

Oh also, Libya was once appointed to lead the HRC.

#35 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

SOURCE

Here's one where Iran also gets put on the council for women's rights. :lol:

I see no reason to support such an organization.

airshocker
I don't see how that would negate the thousands of organizations that work with the UN, and all the multitude of UN bodies that serve (across a variety of topics) around the world. It hurts the credibility of the discussions within that specific commission for the given term, but you're under the impression that having Iran or one individual would destabilize an entire body... :?
#36 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

I don't see how that would negate the thousands of organizations that work with the UN, and all the multitude of UN bodies that serve (across a variety of topics) around the world. It hurts the credibility of the discussions within that specific commission for the given term, but you're under the impression that having Iran or one individual would destabilize an entire body... :?Stevo_the_gamer

It destroys the credibility of the entire organization, unfortunately.

#37 Posted by pie-junior (2846 posts) -
the HRC is notorious in this regard (would suggest opening its wiki page). practially all other UN affiliated bodies are much better.
#38 Posted by Serraph105 (28164 posts) -

It seems like obstruction just for the sake of obstruction.nocoolnamejim

Republicans would never do that, they believe in Jesus.

#39 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42983 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]I don't see how that would negate the thousands of organizations that work with the UN, and all the multitude of UN bodies that serve (across a variety of topics) around the world. It hurts the credibility of the discussions within that specific commission for the given term, but you're under the impression that having Iran or one individual would destabilize an entire body... :?airshocker

It destroys the credibility of the entire organization, unfortunately.

That's an odd stance to take.
#40 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

SOURCE

Here's one where Iran also gets put on the council for women's rights. :lol:

I see no reason to support such an organization.

airshocker

Issues with one commission doesn't invalidate everything the UN does.

That's like saying that the CIA makes a lot of mistakes, letting US citizens die overseas, and then saying the entire US goverment is sh!te.

#41 Posted by dave123321 (34152 posts) -
One bad apple spoils the cart
#42 Posted by radicalcentrist (320 posts) -

My attitude is an unambiguous "f**k the UN", so good on Senate Republicans.

#43 Posted by radicalcentrist (320 posts) -

This sums up my thoughts

#44 Posted by airshocker (29930 posts) -

Issues with one commission doesn't invalidate everything the UN does.

jimkabrhel

To me it does.

#45 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3953 posts) -

Pretty sad, republicans hate the U.N. more than they want to help people in wheelchairs.

Says alot about the party.