Republicans insult disabled people

[jtowne-swim]

A VERY insensitive pos I tell you. He should have done community service WITHOUT drugs or alcohol to get by on. At least there were no sickle cell jokes involved.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...fer-apologizes

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ident-ob-15-3/

Bad joke which he apologized for....Not a policy statement. Are any of the 38 going to appoligize for this? Cochran was a flip flopper he was firrst for it before he was against it a couple minutes later. Not to mention some of the cosponsros who changed their mind!

[jtowne-swim]

Why would any party envy China's policy on controlling how many children a woman is allowed to have?

Do you support China's forcing women to have abortions if they decide to have more children then China allows?

Child control does not equal disabled rights. BTW Child control is wrong to!

[bullmikey]

I agree but the many of the Repubs who voted against it claimed that it threatens American sovereignty. Explain their logic please

If ratified, the UN law would be sovereign to our current law. Why should the rights of disabled Americans be depended on the whims of a corrupt and spineless Disunited Nations?

[jtowne-swim]

So if I question this treaty it says something about my value system? Wow.

If you can't tell us what is wrong with it......Yes!!!!! If you can't point out the problem than you are saying you are against disabiled rights!

[banner1124]

Please stop trying to control our reasons for opposition to this treaty. It does nothing.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is trying to "control your reasons for opposition to this treaty". I"m not even sure what the heck that means. We're just pointing out how hollow and stupid those reasons are.

[jtowne-swim]

I just find fascinating that my value system would be judged because I do not see the big deal with people disagreeing with the treaty.

OK so if you oppose the freedom from slavery it says nothing about your values? If I oppose bans on abortions it says nothing about my values?

[banner1124]

If ratified, the UN law would be sovereign to our current law. Why should the rights of disabled Americans be depended on the whims of a corrupt and spineless Disunited Nations?

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about this treaty.

[Mom49of4]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is trying to "control your reasons for opposition to this treaty". I"m not even sure what the heck that means. We're just pointing out how hollow and stupid those reasons are.

Thank you for that especially when you complain about the level of discourse on this board.

[jtowne-swim]

The United States already recognizes equal rights for the disabled.

Besides I don't think this is a priority given the fiscal cliff. Congress has more important things to be concerned with.

I thank for calling me impressive.

Get back to me when some of these countries recognize women as equals.

In theory the US ADA does not apply to a German who is here legally and we are not bound to give a old german lady those rights!

[soulflower]

If ratified, the UN law would be sovereign to our current law. Why should the rights of disabled Americans be depended on the whims of a corrupt and spineless Disunited Nations?

Not true at all

Sounds like the John Bolton disease has affected you too

[bullmikey]

The fact that the vote was being held means the energy had already been devoted to it. Given that, what's the point of voting against it?

The so-called sovereignty question, I imagine. Ratified, it would have the effect of law in this country and therefore supersede our own law. Since most conservatives and libertarians are hostile to the idea of anything that smacks of “world government” it is entirely reasonable that they should veto such a steaming pile of ineffectual nonsense. And, naturally, since the promulgation and make-believe enforcement of such a silly, back-slapping ordinance will no doubt require large infusions of cash to bolster up one more bloated regulatory bureaucracy of blood-sucking international leeches, all the more reason to stay well clear of it.

Bravo for the Republicans, I say!

[flyboy56]

Something envied by many a republican I bet.

Can you imagine what America would do if it had one billion plus people ? Mom, do you think America might want a say or recommendation for how many children are born ?

We just use legal abortion as contraceptive. No worries mate.

[gonzoliberal]

We just use legal abortion as contraceptive. No worries mate.

...because it's so convenient and pleasant.

Have you ever known anyone close to you who has had an abortion?

It is not fun.

Shmuck....

[Jeebus]

In theory the US ADA does not apply to a German who is here legally and we are not bound to give a old german lady those rights!

And neither would this treaty require a German brewhaus to install a sidewalk ramp to the bar whenever an American in a wheelchair was visiting.

Nothing but "feel good" politics that does absolutely nothing but distract the American sheep from the disastrous financial spending decisions made by Baracka.

[soulflower]

The so-called sovereignty question, I imagine. Ratified, it would have the effect of law in this country and therefore supersede our own law. Since most conservatives and libertarians are hostile to the idea of anything that smacks of “world government” it is entirely reasonable that they should veto such a steaming pile of ineffectual nonsense. And, naturally, since the promulgation and make-believe enforcement of such a silly, back-slapping ordinance will no doubt require large infusions of cash to bolster up one more bloated regulatory bureaucracy of blood-sucking international leeches, all the more reason to stay well clear of it.

Bravo for the Republicans, I say!

Take off your tin foil hat pal

[dsummoner]

Has anyone here actually read the bill itself?

[Jeebus]

The so-called sovereignty question, I imagine. Ratified, it would have the effect of law in this country and therefore supersede our own law.

Not true.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

[flyboy56]

"Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., voted for the treaty, saying it "takes a step toward making it easier for disabled Americans to live and work overseas, without impinging on U.S. sovereignty or Congress' authority to determine our disability laws." soulflower

Isn't that the same Sen. Ayotte who opposes Susan Rice's nomination as Sec.of State? So you like her now?

[flyboy56]

...because it's so convenient and pleasant.

Have you ever known anyone close to you who has had an abortion?

It is not fun.

Shmuck....

Actually yes. My X. And I had zero say in the matter. Hence the "X."

[soulflower]

Not true.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

Yet a growing number of Republicans believe the UN is gunna come take their guns