73 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

Harte, on 05 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

To clarify -
The UN says it's okay, in fact preferable, for the State to decide what's best for my child.
Santorum says that it's not.
Why anyone would pretend not to know this is the real question here.

to clarify, most states ALREADY can do this.

[GreatFenris]

Harte, on 05 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

To clarify -

The UN says it's okay, in fact preferable, for the State to decide what's best for my child.

Santorum says that it's not.

Why anyone would pretend not to know this is the real question here.

Harte

No, the real question is how much must you hate an idea to reject everything from it, even if it's a positive thing.
So, how much?
Because if it's something that's been proven even more than how incompetent a state is, it's that a lot of parents should not be allowed to keep their kids.

[Harte]

Nobody is advocating for the repeal of child protection laws here.

Nice strawman.

Harte

[darkmoonlady]

The Republicans who flipped flopped on this did so because of their insane constituency who believe in some UN One World Order conspiracy and didn't bother to actually read the letter of the treaty. Why would they when abject paranoia is just so much easier. As someone in a wheelchair I find it appalling that it failed to pass.

[Bella-Angelique]

For those who do not want to try to make life better for other people even when it costs them nothing, please get out of the way of those who do want to try.

[Dredimus]

darkmoonlady, on 07 December 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

The Republicans who flipped flopped on this did so because of their insane constituency who believe in some UN One World Order conspiracy and didn't bother to actually read the letter of the treaty. Why would they when abject paranoia is just so much easier. As someone in a wheelchair I find it appalling that it failed to pass.

   In the world we live in, people get their way by exploiting loopholes and language that isnt entirely defined. This Act was riddled with language that should have made anyone nervous. Im no conspiracy nut, infact, I have done my part in slamming down such theories... however, when I read this bill I was slightly taken aback by the language used and the power that could be obtained from that language. Laws concerning the subject matter have already been instituted in the United States. Those laws are not changing, the language of those laws are not changing. The only drive behind this arguement is slander. Santorum had an opinion and he expressed it. Please remember that his opinion had nothing to do with the outcome of things. It was just his opinion. Please also keep in mind that he didnt oppose this because of his republican status... it was about his opinion of the act and its possible effects on his daughter who is disabled. However, the articles written on the subject with him involved were to slander him for being a republican and "Anti-Disabled" even though his own daughter is disabled.

[Bella-Angelique]

Dredimus, on 07 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

This Act was riddled with language that should have made anyone nervous.

That is a complete, total, and absolute lie that you apparently believe.

http://www.nytimes.c...again.html?_r=0

[Harte]

Well, then, if the NY Times Op-Ed pages says it, it has to be true!

I linked the text of the convention.  I don't need Gail Collins to tell me what to think about it.

I don't think many here would say the convention would have some effect on laws in the US.  I wonder how many here would say that opposing the disabled is Santorum's new "hobby?"

As was said, the man was speaking his opinion on a subject he is at least somewhat informed on, primarily by the mere circumstances of his own existence.

I hope no one would claim that Santorum is attacking disabled people, like his own little girl, for some political purpose or whatever.

He's speaking to his own principles.  They are his, not mine or other people's.

Now, why the Senate rejected it, that's an entirely different thing.

Harte

[darkmoonlady]

A fraction of the Republicans who abstained from voting on this did so because "the treaty had no enforcement mechanism and had no teeth" and the others voted because they believed wrongly that it would some how arm UN soldiers to enforce something in US borders. Misinformation and paranoia won the day, not common sense and reason.

[Dredimus]

Bella-Angelique, on 07 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

That is a complete, total, and absolute lie that you apparently believe.

http://www.nytimes.c...again.html?_r=0

Actually.... I read it..  if you would care to look back a few pages in this topic you will actually SEE the section in question. Read it for yourself and don't base your opinion on a MSM article.

[F3SS]

Just let the NY Times interpret it for you. It's soo much easier and if they say it's cool then it's cool. Don't worry about it.

[Rafterman]

questionmark, on 27 November 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Well...makes sense. As opposing immigrants now leads to election defeats they might as well find a new enemy

Yes, by all means, let the UN dictate how we govern ourselves in the United States.  What happened to Obama's mantra about states rights?  Oh yeah, that's only useful when he's trying to dodge the political bullet called gay marriage.

The United States is the land of milk and honey for the disabled compared to the vast majority of the world.

[spartan max2]

Anyone who takes this thread at title value is a moron.

[Rafterman]

spartan max2, on 08 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Anyone who takes this thread at title value is a moron.

Agreed.

Sometimes I think I could pass a law that calls for the execution of all left-handed people and as long as I called it the "I Love Puppies, Butterflies, Old People, Gays, Women, and Undocumented Aliens Bill" there'd be nutjobs on the left out there defending it.