Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Santorum's new hobby: Oppose the disabled!


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#16    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 12:25 AM

View PostDredimus, on 28 November 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

How about reading article 7 of the act and then viewing the legal standpoint of the language within the act itself. Define "states parties" and then tell me where in any law, legislation, or amendment it says that the government.. any government... has the right to decide the best action for the treatment of my or your child...

I think there's alot of paranoia for the sake of being paranoid going on here. States parties is pretty clearly the representative States/Countries who've signed this treaty. And their responsibility is to enforce the law against the discrimination of people who are disabled. Which means, in short, that disabled people will and shall have the same exact rights as non-disabled people. This is a no-brainer IMO.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#17    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:30 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:



I think there's alot of paranoia for the sake of being paranoid going on here. States parties is pretty clearly the representative States/Countries who've signed this treaty. And their responsibility is to enforce the law against the discrimination of people who are disabled. Which means, in short, that disabled people will and shall have the same exact rights as non-disabled people. This is a no-brainer IMO.

cormac

Your definition of "state parties" is actually the very reason this act should be opposed.  You may call it paranoia but some of us view it as another right being stripped away and the government putting itself deeper into the lives of the American people.... you know..  the ones they are supposed to answer to.......


#18    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:09 AM

View PostDredimus, on 28 November 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Your definition of "state parties" is actually the very reason this act should be opposed.  You may call it paranoia but some of us view it as another right being stripped away and the government putting itself deeper into the lives of the American people.... you know..  the ones they are supposed to answer to.......

So you think you should have the right to discriminate against people who are disabled, because that's what you're saying. Doesn't say much good about your character. BTW, this treaty doesn't supercede any anti-discriminatory laws already in effect in the individual countries who've already signed.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#19    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:18 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:



So you think you should have the right to discriminate against people who are disabled, because that's what you're saying. Doesn't say much good about your character. BTW, this treaty doesn't supercede any anti-discriminatory laws already in effect in the individual countries who've already signed.

cormac

Yeah... keep  the spin going... utterly hopeless. I don't agree with your attack on this persons view on the dangers of the act in question.. I provided sources and information about the realities of the language presented in the act and your instant reaction is to spin and attack. This is indicative of what is wrong with politics in this country. Thank you for contributing to the problem instead of opening your mind and thinking of a solution.


#20    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:55 AM

View PostDredimus, on 28 November 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Yeah... keep  the spin going... utterly hopeless. I don't agree with your attack on this persons view on the dangers of the act in question.. I provided sources and information about the realities of the language presented in the act and your instant reaction is to spin and attack. This is indicative of what is wrong with politics in this country. Thank you for contributing to the problem instead of opening your mind and thinking of a solution.

I didn't have to spin anything. It's in plain English even my grandson understands. The only spinning here is from people trying to read more into it than what's there.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 28 November 2012 - 02:55 AM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#21    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:44 AM

No, it's not about "paranoia"...it is about seeing legal loopholes "so-to-speak" in the language.  It is, of course, worst case scenario viewing, but the language is there...or more appropriately "not there".

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

States shall ensure.  What about "parents, with state support...shall ensure".  The missing language...is... the parents...

Edited by Jeremiah65, 28 November 2012 - 03:46 AM.

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#22    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:08 AM

Dredimus,

This quote proves how wrong he is. In most states this is ALREADY true. There are child protection laws that specifically state that the "safety and Best Interests of the Child is the PARAMOUNT authority of the state". The "safety" and BIOC being loosely defined and left up to a judge. Paramount means that legally the state can and often does anything, even violate other laws in it's authority. These laws changed about 20 years ago and he's about 20 years out of date.. Maybe not in his state of PA but many other places. If he really wants to campaign against BIOC then I may have to rethink his googly name.

Quote

it would be harmful because it says the state, not parents, have authority over what is in the best interest of the child.
"This would be something unprecedented in American law, to give the state the ultimate authority as to what is the best interest of your child. Historically, the United States has been very clear, parents, unless they are unfit for some reason, get that decision," Santorum said.


Edited by ninjadude, 28 November 2012 - 04:11 AM.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#23    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,671 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:57 AM

View Postninjadude, on 28 November 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

Dredimus,

This quote proves how wrong he is. In most states this is ALREADY true. There are child protection laws that specifically state that the "safety and Best Interests of the Child is the PARAMOUNT authority of the state". The "safety" and BIOC being loosely defined and left up to a judge. Paramount means that legally the state can and often does anything, even violate other laws in it's authority. These laws changed about 20 years ago and he's about 20 years out of date.. Maybe not in his state of PA but many other places. If he really wants to campaign against BIOC then I may have to rethink his googly name.
In most states?  That's like saying 'most people'...please.  How about you give us a link to those particular states...all of them...because 'most' is a word that people throw out generally because they have no real information about the subject...yeah.

And besides that...I don't trust the UN...do you?

Edited by joc, 28 November 2012 - 04:58 AM.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#24    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,276 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:59 AM

Where did Q go?  Anybody sight him recently?  I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#25    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,671 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:01 AM

View Postacidhead, on 28 November 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Where did Q go?  Anybody sight him recently?  I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol

:w00t:

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#26    Rut Roh

Rut Roh

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 136 posts
  • Joined:24 Jun 2011

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 27 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Like I said, try reading it first instead of accepting Santorum's version of what he says it means. Nowhere in it does it take a parents rights away.

cormac

Nope, not reading it..... now I will tell ya why.  Do not have to read the material presented because your stance is not about why he is challenging this but about how stupid he is for doing it.  Regardless of how YOU feel about it, do you really think he is challenging the verbage in this because he HATES the disabled?  Or because he thinks he can make some political points with a stance that can be EASILY construed by some as being harsh on the disabled?  I mean, heaven forbid someone should come on here and call someone "themoron" just because they think they can poke fun because they know NOTHING of his intent behind his argument only his political affiliation.


#27    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,345 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

View Postacidhead, on 28 November 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Where did Q go?  Anybody sight him recently?  I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol

'Twas late in Greece and I had to go to bed... had morning duty at the Animal Welfare clinic...

But I sure got some people's paranoia all riled up. did I not?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#28    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,345 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:18 PM

View Postjoc, on 27 November 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Obama opposes this as well.

That makes two who are wrong.

And as you might have noticed, I don't care about persons I care about issues.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#29    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,155 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

I think the issue here is the "proper" protection of those with disabilities, be it in the home, workplace, public areas or the access to those areas(ramps, auto-doors, etc...)

A parent should not be able to claim "full control" over the disabled child/adult without some type of state observation, agreement and oversight.
In my opinion.

Santorum claims that this oversight is unnecessary, but since when should we trust people to properly care for the disabled, just because the parent(s) say they can? Seems in courts of law this often(not always) leads to poor care.


#30    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:13 PM

View PostJeremiah65, on 28 November 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

No, it's not about "paranoia"...it is about seeing legal loopholes "so-to-speak" in the language.  It is, of course, worst case scenario viewing, but the language is there...or more appropriately "not there".

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

States shall ensure.  What about "parents, with state support...shall ensure".  The missing language...is... the parents...


Ahhh some one informed... Thank you for your post Jeremiah.

I know that as a father, if my child had a disability I would worry about the language in this bill. Santorum, no matter his political preference, is a father who has a disabled child and he is worried about the government infringement on his rights as a parent. Its truely that plan and simple.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users