Harte Posted December 5, 2012 #51 Share Posted December 5, 2012 If a person cannot understand my point, I'm not inclined to elaborate on it. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 5, 2012 Author #52 Share Posted December 5, 2012 If a person cannot understand my point, I'm not inclined to elaborate on it. Harte Your point is that the US is now forced to adopt something it already has, I understand that. But I don't see the loss in it. If the US at any point decides it wants to stop any part of the rights for anybody all it has to do is to cancel the membership of the convention one year prior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 5, 2012 #53 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The loss is the loss of an argument, not of anything with actual value beyond that. It's the slippery slope argument. People with children, especially disabled children, are wroth to even consider the government have a say over how they take care of them. That's right. I used the word wroth. If you want to consider what is "lost," then consider what would be lost if the US declines to sign (which, according to an earlier post, is what happened.) Did we condemn foreign disabled children to suffer? When the convention is okayed, what sort of enforcement will ensue? None? Again, they lose an argument for the sake of nothing at all of benefit. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 5, 2012 Author #54 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The loss is the loss of an argument, not of anything with actual value beyond that. It's the slippery slope argument. People with children, especially disabled children, are wroth to even consider the government have a say over how they take care of them. That's right. I used the word wroth. If you want to consider what is "lost," then consider what would be lost if the US declines to sign (which, according to an earlier post, is what happened.) Did we condemn foreign disabled children to suffer? When the convention is okayed, what sort of enforcement will ensue? None? Again, they lose an argument for the sake of nothing at all of benefit. Harte I have no doubt that most of the world will adopt that convention, excluding the usual suspects: Iran, Somalia, China and North Korea. A nice club to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted December 5, 2012 #55 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I have no doubt that most of the world will adopt that convention, excluding the usual suspects: Iran, Somalia, China and North Korea. A nice club to join. Alright but if we don't adopt the convention who cares? It's well known that we already have our own set of good laws for this. It hardly brings us into the company if those countries above. I mean who has the real issues here? US or the less modern countries who need the UN to tell them what they have to do? That's what's great about America, that we have so much more opportunity to offer than anybody else. No one needs our approval for laws. We have our own yet WE are the pricks when other countries don't. Everybody cries when we don't hold their hands and when we decide to let go of our grip they cry all the same. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't so I say don't. This particular thing isn't going to make anybody like us any more or any less so I say why put forth effort when the effort is meaningless? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 5, 2012 Author #56 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Alright but if we don't adopt the convention who cares? It's well known that we already have our own set of good laws for this. It hardly brings us into the company if those countries above. I mean who has the real issues here? US or the less modern countries who need the UN to tell them what they have to do? That's what's great about America, that we have so much more opportunity to offer than anybody else. No one needs our approval for laws. We have our own yet WE are the pricks when other countries don't. Everybody cries when we don't hold their hands and when we decide to let go of our grip they cry all the same. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't so I say don't. This particular thing isn't going to make anybody like us any more or any less so I say why put forth effort when the effort is meaningless? Well, if it just is for posturing that the US sacrifices its leadership in the world it should wonder nobody that the rest is starting to look down instead of up...like fifteen years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted December 5, 2012 #57 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The man is a monster. He knows because of his child. There are no mysteries or what could be done scenarios because IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE USA It is the same. Do you understand? It is already the same, already happened, already been in place for decades. What he is protecting is nothing but evil, the ability of a parent to keep a disabled child locked in a room or cage in another nation. What he has done is to lie to create fear and if that fear based upon a lie causes another nation to hold back from protecting disabled children then a spot in the hottest parts of hell is being held open for him. It is pure militant fascism from Santorum. Pure hate. Pure fury. May God punish him for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted December 5, 2012 #58 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Well, if it just is for posturing that the US sacrifices its leadership in the world it should wonder nobody that the rest is starting to look down instead of up...like fifteen years ago Very well. I'm sick of appeasement anyways. It doesn't get us anywhere. Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don't. So why do? (needn't answer that, you already have) The man is a monster. He knows because of his child. There are no mysteries or what could be done scenarios because IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE USA It is the same. Do you understand? It is already the same, already happened, already been in place for decades. What he is protecting is nothing but evil, the ability of a parent to keep a disabled child locked in a room or cage in another nation. What he has done is to lie to create fear and if that fear based upon a lie causes another nation to hold back from protecting disabled children then a spot in the hottest parts of hell is being held open for him. It is pure militant fascism from Santorum. Pure hate. Pure fury. May God punish him for it. My goodness. I think the hate and fury lies within you towards Rick. Seriously, the dude's got a disabled kid. Why on Earth would he publically oppose this if his true nature was hate and rage ESPECIALLY towards his own kid? Your entire rant is ridiculous. You're raging on an American likely because of his political affiliation when you should be directing your militant furious hatred towards the assbackwards countries who don't already have laws like this in place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted December 5, 2012 #59 Share Posted December 5, 2012 you should be directing your militant furious hatred towards the assbackwards countries who don't already have laws like this in place. How would you suggest doing that? Through a United Nations treaty and vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted December 5, 2012 #60 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No, just keep blaming Americans for the way others countries treat people. And about Santorum; Who cares what he has to say one way or the other. Last I checked he isn't a politician and he certainly isn't an inner circle power player. I'm from freaking Pennsylvania and only got to know him because of his run for candidacy. Granted I wasn't in to politics while he was around but realistically he's a nobody. All this subject is is a reason for liberals to demonize republicans and that's according to the op thread title and the other headlines about this on other outlets a few days ago and you have proved that undoubtedly with your little tirade before. It's nothing but big bait for little noisy fish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted December 6, 2012 #61 Share Posted December 6, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatFenris Posted December 7, 2012 #62 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 7, 2012 #63 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Nobody is advocating for the repeal of child protection laws here. Nice strawman. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoonlady Posted December 7, 2012 #64 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted December 7, 2012 #65 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredimus Posted December 7, 2012 #66 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted December 7, 2012 #67 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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.com/2012/12/06/opinion/collins-santorum-strikes-again.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted December 8, 2012 #68 Share Posted December 8, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoonlady Posted December 8, 2012 #69 Share Posted December 8, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredimus Posted December 8, 2012 #70 Share Posted December 8, 2012 That is a complete, total, and absolute lie that you apparently believe. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/opinion/collins-santorum-strikes-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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted December 8, 2012 #71 Share Posted December 8, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted December 8, 2012 #72 Share Posted December 8, 2012 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted December 8, 2012 #73 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Anyone who takes this thread at title value is a moron. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted December 8, 2012 #74 Share Posted December 8, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now