Where are all those"christians" now?

Hey Proper,

Do you have a clue about treaties that the government or the UN make and exactly what they mean and to whom they apply? Because your comment makes it obvious that you don't have a clue, nor did you read the article! I'm so blasted tired of you ignorant of everything types that blather on with the talking points you heard on Rush, FAUX NOOZE, et.al - that you don't stop to ponder exactly what is being discussed, nor how it applies!

And you people procreate thereby passing the dumbed down to future generations! And it is this same non-thinking that leads you into the ballot box putting other just as ignorant people into office, and then we wonder why not just the federal legislative process is bent over, but state legislative process is bent over, really?!

If anyone is committing a "hate crime" it would be types like you that want "simplistic answers" to everything because you eschew learning and hate those that actually are trying to educate you people - the nerve!

If you were smart enough to read the article then you would see that it doesn't change our laws at all.

Pa

The problem with what you say is that this treaty was not in violation of any US law. In fact it brings the rest of the world up to our high standards when it comes to people with disabilities. Voting against it was silly and pointless. Unfortunately the Republican party has become just that, silly and pointless.

You are Un American and Un Patriotic. Please leave the country. Worthless inbred moron and waste of DNA.

Proper action: Please explain how in any way this bill would have trampled on American freedom....And what about the freedom of those who live with disabilities who cannot be mobile in countries who do not have the same standards we have?

Republicans are a disgrace to this nation. They do everything in their power to block anything to help the average American our President and for anything that would help the less fortunate. They have become a party of elitists that seek to destroy the middle class, medicare, medicaid, women and Social Security. They are a bunch of bullies that aren't willing to compromise on anything and it is disgraceful!

Go kick a puppy you fake patriot.

@Proper action: Did you even read the above article?

Like most Republicans you apparently endorse only INACTION. Attempting to maintain American "sovereignty" through a paranoid isolationism and a denial of Universal Human Rights sullies the image of the America you claim to be a part of.

Rest easy in your bunker. When the Convention includes mental disabilities your situation will be addressed.

Question 1: America already has strong disability law. If the treaty doesn't change U.S. law, why ratify it?

Question 2: Treaties signed by the President of the United States have no effect on the laws in other countries. How have "evil" Republicans hurt disabled people in other countries?

Question 3: If the U.S. had ratified the treaty, how would other countries benefit? There is no provision that other countries must improve their laws. In fact, the treaty would force many nations to treat disabled persons better than other citizens. Thus, other countries have strong incentive to not ratify the treaty themselves.

Question 4: Have you read the treaty? http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm

Question 5: Would you be comfortable registering your disabled child "immediately after birth" so that an unelected U.N. "committee of experts" may determine the life quality he or she will receive? Remember, treaties trump the U.S. constitution. Your child's rights and the decisions regarding your child's life will no longer come from U.S. law. They will come from a world-committee.

Republicans are hatemongers! As a disabled person,I can honestly say that they are only out for themselves and that is the bottom line.

If the treaty has no effect on us and it is just bring the world up to our standard, why do we need to ratify it?

just asking...

America already has strong disability law. If the treaty doesn't change U.S. law, why ratify it?

Let me flip the question on you: if it doesn't change US law then why not ratify it?

Treaties signed by the President of the United States have no effect on the laws in other countries. How have "evil" Republicans hurt disabled people in other countries?

That isn't the claim being made here; you have now intentionally misrepresented the argument (strawman fallacy). The argument here is that we want other nations to meet better standards for how they treat the disabled persons in their countries. By integrating a universal effort you encourage other nations, as part of the conditions of the treaty, to improve their treatment of disabled persons. Other nations may already be meeting this standard or exceeding it, but it sends a message world wide to those who are not that they need to improve the quality of treatment towards disabled persons in order to join the international community. Believe it or not this does have a large impact on how many nations act.

If the U.S. had ratified the treaty, how would other countries benefit? There is no provision that other countries must improve their laws. In fact, the treaty would force many nations to treat disabled persons better than other citizens. Thus, other countries have strong incentive to not ratify the treaty themselves.

This is another strawman fallacy. You're misrepresenting the treaty and furthermore you're making a ludicrous claim. Rights are not a limited quantity that if some rights are given to one group that will invariably mean another group has lost some rights. That's not the way it works. You're elevating the status of one person to be equal to that of another. Just as we do here in the US. Additionally on what basis do you make this claim? Do you have any factual evidence to support your assertion that it would make disabled persons somehow better off than non-disabled persons as well as information that says if this were to happen other nations wouldn't want to do it?

Would you be comfortable registering your disabled child "immediately after birth" so that an unelected U.N. "committee of experts" may determine the life quality he or she will receive? Remember, treaties trump the U.S. constitution. Your child's rights and the decisions regarding your child's life will no longer come from U.S. law. They will come from a world-committee.

Provide ANY evidence that these claims are true. Claim #1- Treaties trump the US Constitution. Prove it. Claim #2- You will have to register your child with the UN. Prove it. Claim #3- "life quality". Define this term and then prove how the policy impacts that definition. Claim #4- That UN experts have any influence on the "life quality" of the child. This is in particular a specious claim since you just stated that no such thing is possible in your first question and second question. Claim #5- Treaties trump the US Constitution. Provide any evidence that this is true. This is particularly specious since the US Constitution itself allows for the signing of treaties. It allowed for itself to become irrelevant now??? Claim #6- Your child's rights will no longer come from US law. First define what "rights" you're talking about here and then provide any evidence that those rights will no longer be protected under US law. Claim #7- The parental ability to make decisions for their child will no longer come from US law. Again define what "parental decisions" you're talking about and then provide evidence to actually support the claim. This, again, is very specious since you just argued in your first and second contention that this isn't possible. Claim #8- The rights and decision making of parents will come from a world-committee. What committee, what rights, what decisions, and how does this impact US citizens. You have to actually provide evidence that these things actually happen. You cannot just make the assertion and then expect people to nod their head in agreement.

If the treaty has no effect on us and it is just bring the world up to our standard, why do we need to ratify it?

Because it brings the rest of the world up to our standard. We have to "ratify" the treaty because that's the process by which the US agrees to adhere to the treaty rules. Since we already meet or exceed those rules it won't have a net effect on our policies here in the US: it will only have a net effect on other nations who are not currently meeting or exceeding the standard set by the treaty.

You answered your own question while asking it.

@Politigus: Do you really believe that the treaty has "no effect" on the laws in other countries (q2), and yet "trumps" the US Constitution (q5)? You are being internally inconsistent.

As is stated clearly in the article, the reason to ratify the treaty is to help people with disabilities abroad. That includes US citizens who are travelling or working abroad.

The treaty was based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. It does not "trump" the constitution, but it would make it very hard for the current or future Congress to repeal the ADA. And THAT is what business lobbies don't like.

Ain't it great how we seek the lower ground in order to converse with the drop in drop outs that like to stir the pot?

There is no way to defend the Republicans who voted against this so their more zealous fans simply froth at the mouth.

Here is my question to anybody that thinks they have the answer...How can somebody (especially while looking at Bob Dole) vote no on this and yet still A)sleep at night B)Dare to enter God's house as a Christian C)Get elected?

Anyone got any answers?

I'll help a bit on C. These are the people who wash their sins in the blood of Christ. They claim He died for sins they committed two thousand years later.They commune with God by eating the flesh of ZHis son and drinking his blood. So The C part is a gimme.

Oops I meant my hint to C as a hint to B. One of these days I am going to learn to read and write.

"treaties trump the US Constitution"

Really ?? Wow, millions of Native Americans are going to be so glad to hear that !

According to the US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2:

"...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If I understand it correctly, this UN Treaty, if agreed to by the Senate, would become the "supreme Law of the Land" and, if there were no Federal laws already on the books we would have two options: either enact legislation that meets the requirements of the Treaty or beg the UN to please, please, rule us (the latter is snark).

However, as we do have the ADA, and the ADA meets or surpasses the requirements of the UN, neither option needs to be considered.

Any Treaty agreed to by the Senate would however, trump a law by, say, Louisiana, if that law wasn't already trumped by a Federal law. Again, we have the ADA, so there's no "there" there.

This is what happens when "gut" reactions are given equal standing to rational thinking. As an example I give you: the 2012 Republican Party and its' trolls!

Even Republicans are embarrassed by the Republican party. People are leaving in droves. Dole should too if he has any self respect left.

@Cartoonthenews! "Let me flip the question on you: if it doesn't change US law then why not ratify it?"

Instructive insight. Your flipped version reveals another question. What are the practical implications of redundant bureaucracy? It's difficult to imagine new reporting and oversight obligations as dictated by the treaty without the creation of another bureaucracy.

More food for thought: Why is there such emotional debate over this if the US remains untouched by the ratification of the treaty? Makes me think that perhaps the US will not remain untouched.

@Cartoonthenews! "That isn't the claim being made here; you have now intentionally misrepresented the argument (strawman fallacy)."

You responded to two of my statements in one sum-up. We should appropriately address each independently.

1. Treaties signed by the President of the United States have no effect on the laws in other countries.

2. How have "evil" Republicans hurt disabled people in other countries?

Treaties signed by the US President have no effect on the laws in other countries. That the US joining a movement as some unified front has an affect on other countries, is not in question. Steve Benen, quoting John Kerry misrepresents the execution power of the treaty, "proposal simply 'raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further." This cannot be done alone by US ratification.

The rest of the world already knows we have the ADA. Why haven't they adopted it yet?

I'll grant you a strawman on the evil Republicans, but only a small one. I was satirically referring to an earlier post by someone bent on evil, Republicans, and pardon me for redundancy, evil Republicans.

@Cartoonthenews! "This is another strawman fallacy. You're misrepresenting the treaty and furthermore you're making a ludicrous claim. Rights are not a limited quantity that if some rights are given to one group that will invariably mean another group has lost some rights."

Rights are not a limited asset. This is true. I didn't say that granting rights to one group necessarily deprives another; you did. I made the statement that the treaty obligates a country to grant certain rights to disabled persons; it may be that a country's non-disabled persons don't already have these rights.

For instance: the rights of women (W), the rights of disabled women [CRPD Article 6] (DW):

• A Countries: High W, High DW; after treaty: High W, High DW
• B Countries: High W, Low DW; after treaty: High W, High DW
• C Countries: Low W, No DW; after treaty: Low W, High DW

In this scenario, A Countries have little to gain by signing on, B Countries will incur necessary (and appropriate) expenses, while C Countries may struggle to accept the treaty at all. C Country's non-disabled women don't already enjoy the freedoms mandated to disabled women. That was my point.

Cartoonthenews! "Provide ANY evidence that these claims are true. ...Prove it... Prove it... etc."

Lovely. It would seem that some research on your part would have answered some of these questions.

Claim #1: Treaties trump the US Constitution.

This refers to the Supremacy Clause, US Constitution Article VI, Section 2. This is a tricky statement and I'm surprised you didn't "strawman" me (it seems to be a favorite of yours). The Supremacy Clause does not allow an international treaty to negate a US citizen's constitutional rights. What it does do, however, is override conflicting state's laws. In effect, a treaty becomes a federal domestic law and conflict rules kick in.

Where this is a "trumping" in my book is that I find a conflict with the Constitutional rule that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representative (closer to the people). Whereas, a treaty may be drafted by overseas interests, while the American people foot the bill in its implementation and enforcement.

Claim #2: You will have to register your child with the UN.

CRPD, Article 18 #2: "Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth..." That covers registration. As for "with the UN", see CRPD, Article 31: Statistics and data collection.

Claim #3: Define life quality.

Please read the CRPD. I don't want to quote it hear.

Claim #4: UN experts to have influence on the life-quality of a disabled child.

• CRPD, Article 31: Statistics and data collection
• CRPD, Article 32: International cooperation
• CRPD, Article 33: National implementation and monitoring
• CRPD, Article 34: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (enumeration of the experts)
• etc.

Consider when in history a set of laws has ever remained unchanged. We in the US are now demanding the rich to pay their fair share. Laws will change to accommodate that demand. Should we not presuppose that as CRPD, Article 47 allows for amendments to the treaty, the laws by which disabled persons receive protections will change, also? And this, without representation in the House? Something to think about.

Claims #5-8. Already addressed.

Cartoonthenews! "You have to actually provide evidence that these things actually happen. You cannot just make the assertion and then expect people to nod their head in agreement."

No. I don't have to provide any evidence. I have only to show that there are misconceptions about why some Republications voted to not ratify. As much as I disagree with a load of Congressional Republicans as well as Democrats, I believe the prudent vote was cast.

And, when did I state that my assertions must be met with nodding heads? I prefer noodling foes to nodding friends any day. I believe I can call strawman on you this time.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm

I am so frustrated as of this moment, I just wrote a huge response and this page deleted it from the box. So I will shorten what I said previously.
Thank you Politigus for inspiring me to read the entire treaty. And I can say that I now see why the US should ratify the treaty. Reading article 32, it is so that we can assist other nations in providing equal rights to people with disabilities. And the US has clearly shown that we have an obligation to assisting in making sure that all people have their rights in this world, not just US citizens.

As to women with disabilities having higher rights than non-disabled women. Helping one person get their rights recognized does not mean that we do not care about others, we just have to focus on one area at a time. If we noticed immense oppression of people of African descent on a global scale, it would not be fair to say that a treaty to assist in giving them back their rights would be elevating them about people of Asian descent, since some amount of people of Asian descent are discriminated against. Making sure that one classification of people has the same rights as those who have the most, is not bad for those who do not yet have those rights.

And for the big one... There is nothing in the treaty's language to indicate that the UN, or the Committee it is forming, would oversee individual cases. In Article 18, the language indicates that in some countries, children with disabilities are swept under the rug. Never named, never registered with that country's government, and sometimes abandoned.
And with the Committee, it rather explicitly lays out what they will do. They will look over information given to them, with statistical data, that each country is doing its best to not only to enact laws to make sure people with disabilities have their rights provided for, but that they are taking evolving definitions of disabilities into consideration. But that the duty of the Committee is to make recommendations and suggestions when they have assessed the reports. They would have no way of enforcing any of the suggestions or recommendations.

And as to the international community changing the treaty without elected officials voting on it, we can always denounce it, or choose not to ratify the new version. It even allows for denunciation in the treaty.

This refers to the Supremacy Clause, US Constitution Article VI, Section 2. This is a tricky statement and I'm surprised you didn't "strawman" me (it seems to be a favorite of yours). The Supremacy Clause does not allow an international treaty to negate a US citizen's constitutional rights. What it does do, however, is override conflicting state's laws. In effect, a treaty becomes a federal domestic law and conflict rules kick in.

Where this is a "trumping" in my book is that I find a conflict with the Constitutional rule that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representative (closer to the people). Whereas, a treaty may be drafted by overseas interests, while the American people foot the bill in its implementation and enforcement.

No true scotsman. You made the claim that it trumps the US Constitution. Now you're changing the claim to say well it trumps some state laws, but it's still the same thing. No. These are 2 entirely different claims. Thank you for admitting your statement "treaties trump the US constitution" was incorrect. The US Constitution itself gives the provisions under which US laws are subjected to treaties so it seemed specious for you to make this statement.

CRPD, Article 18 #2: "Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth..." That covers registration. As for "with the UN", see CRPD, Article 31: Statistics and data collection.

No it does not. There will be a board that will review the treatment of other countries to give them a score as we already do with women's rights and other minority groups. That's it. Secondly you aren't registering with the UN- read the statement again- it states SPECIFICALLY that they are registering WITH THEIR COUNTRY as citizens TO THEIR country. Many nations right now do not allow citizenship to person's with disability. This clause is stating that they can now have citizenry. Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the policy and yes intentional misrepresentation of an argument is a strawman. The very fact that you keep using strawman is your problem, not mine for pointing it out.

• CRPD, Article 31: Statistics and data collection
• CRPD, Article 32: International cooperation
• CRPD, Article 33: National implementation and monitoring
• CRPD, Article 34: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (enumeration of the experts)
• etc.

This doesn't mean that the UN as a body then gets the right to tell that country what to do. Read the damn treaty again. There are panels that are specifically set up to evaluate how a country is meeting it's agreement to the treaty and they grade those countries on that scale. This is how we know how the US stacks up in comparisons of things like gay rights, women's rights, healthcare, etc. That's IT. You are misrepresenting the panel and it's purpose by stating that they are going to now dictate law which is never once stated in the treaty. This is, again, a strawman.

Consider when in history a set of laws has ever remained unchanged. We in the US are now demanding the rich to pay their fair share. Laws will change to accommodate that demand. Should we not presuppose that as CRPD, Article 47 allows for amendments to the treaty, the laws by which disabled persons receive protections will change, also? And this, without representation in the House? Something to think about.

So you're now begging the question? You're presuming the answer and then asking questions to maintain the answer you've already presupposed. No you have no reason to make the assumption that US laws will have to change since US laws already meet or exceed those asked for by the treaty. If you read the treaty you find this out very quickly. The only reason why you suppose this is because you're chasing this magical idea that something radical will happen. Again provide evidence for this claim. Asking questions to re-enforce a position you haven't yet proven to be true, yet are still asserting is true is not evidence that the thing you're asserting is actually true.

No. I don't have to provide any evidence. I have only to show that there are misconceptions about why some Republications voted to not ratify. As much as I disagree with a load of Congressional Republicans as well as Democrats, I believe the prudent vote was cast.

And, when did I state that my assertions must be met with nodding heads? I prefer noodling foes to nodding friends any day. I believe I can call strawman on you this time.

You made the 6 separate claims about this treaty all of which you failed to provide supporting evidence for. I pointed out those claims and then stated that you have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE for those assertions. You never did this and you still have YET to do this for the things that you are claiming the treaty does. It is incumbent upon the person MAKING the claim to provide evidence for the claim being made. So yeah you have to do this. My response afterwards was that you cannot just make the claim "The UN is going to ask you to register your children with the UN" and then expect people to agree without evidence. Hell you can't expect them to disagree without evidence. You have to prove that this actually is going to occur. You are misrepresenting the statement that I made and the context to which that statement was made. Strawman implicit? Yes, but on your part. A strawman is not someone making a presumption about your position, for the record (although that is a fallacy). It's when someone intentionally misrepresents the position that you are arguing. You argued those claims and provided no evidence and I stated that you cannot do this. Oy.

I didn't say that granting rights to one group necessarily deprives another; you did.

This is the no true scotsman fallacy. Your basic premise is that disabled persons will be guaranteed rights that other persons may not already have and on this basis nations will deny the treaty. Your argument specifically implied that there's a direct correlation between the rights given and the quantifiable amount applied which you are still attempting to assert is true. You're still doing the exact same thing.

Instructive insight. Your flipped version reveals another question. What are the practical implications of redundant bureaucracy? It's difficult to imagine new reporting and oversight obligations as dictated by the treaty without the creation of another bureaucracy.

More food for thought: Why is there such emotional debate over this if the US remains untouched by the ratification of the treaty? Makes me think that perhaps the US will not remain untouched.

The point I was making was that your question "why should the US sign if nothing will change" is a completely illogical argument. You can just as easily flip the question to ask "why shouldn't the US sign the legislation?" The point being that neither question proves it's own point unless you're already assuming a premise- which you were. Stating that because it doesn't change US law when the treaty is international that this is therefore grounds to not pass the treaty is just silly. No one ever proposed that this was going to change US law or that it's purpose was to change US law. You framed this conversation from the beginning in a fallacious way and now you're attempting to pretend that the fallacy is valid. It's not. You have no reason to assume a new bureaucracy will be created by this treaty since it is no where implied by the treaty that a bureaucracy has to be created. Furthermore your initial argument was presented under the idea that because nothing changes the US therefore doesn't need to join in. You've now directly contradicted these two arguments. So which one was correct? The premise that nothing will change therefore it's pointless, or the premise that this will create a bureaucracy and therefore we shouldn't do it? And then you add the same contradiction at the end while pandering to the anecdote fallacy. You do not know why people are passionate about this treaty (actually you would if you actually read the arguments being made, but that's another story)- you assume it must be because big changes will be met and you assume this on the basis of the fallacious framing you made in the beginning (which I already addressed). US citizens who are disabled get to travel internationally: has it ever occurred to you that people want their children treated fairly in other nations? Your anecdote doesn't allow for this possibility. It could also be that people want disabled persons in other nations to be treated fairly because they have disabled family members and they have the emotion of empathy which makes them upset at the idea that someone in another country isn't being given those same benefits. Your anecdote doesn't allow for this possibility. That's why we don't play this kind've fallacy.

So let's get this straight. You can't present evidence for any of the claims you take that actually prove the thing you state will happen is actually going to happen. Your claimed arguments about what will happen are either gross misrepresentations of the treaty itself, based on false premises, or have no backing in reality whatsoever. You've openly either admitted that several of your initial positions were wrong and/or that several of your initial positions have been proven wrong, yet you still maintain that your premise is correct despite the arguments used to support the premise having fallen apart.

I maintain that you have not met the burden of proof for the claims that you have made about the treaty. I maintain that you have not met the burden of proof for why Republicans were correct in voting down this treaty. If you want to try again go ahead, but otherwise you've been debunked on every argument you've presented thus far and therefore haven't made a compelling argument to prove why we should not have passed this treaty.

Wait, when they say disabled, they mean us liberals right? I mean we are all obviously mentally handicapped (retarded). How can we explain voting for intellectual half-whits and not to mention those evolutionary challenged types (you know who I mean). AMIRITE!!

US citizens who are disabled get to travel internationally: has it ever occurred to you that people want their children treated fairly in other nations?

Do you have proof they are currently treated unfairly? Prove it. You're begging the question. I maintain that you have not met the burden of proof for this claim. Thus, your entire argument is flawed.

Cartoonthenews!, you make me smile. Not because of your arguments, proofs, or desire to win a debate, but because of your wide-eyed conviction. I tried reading each of your paragraphs in one breath. The bold and uppercase additions certainly added flare.

The tone of your last post was more angry than your first. I take it your not accustomed to being challenged and you're certainly driven to win. Mote-like details blare at you and the thought of conceding a point is likely intolerable. You spent a paragraph in frustration, blasting me for the first question of why we should ratify this treaty if it wouldn't change US law:

No one ever proposed that this was going to change US law or that it's purpose was to change US law. You framed this conversation from the beginning in a fallacious way and now you're attempting to pretend that the fallacy is valid.

Steve Benen, the article's author, put forward:

But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws.

In response to his statement, my question was:

America already has strong disability law. If the treaty doesn't change U.S. law, why ratify it?

And, of course, your knee jerk reaction:

Let me flip the question on you: if it doesn't change US law then why not ratify it?

My question is proved by its contrapositve; whereas, yours is nonsensical. Why not pass all sorts of provisions if they don't affect US law? How about an official standing on the Easter Bunny?

So let's get this straight. You can't present evidence for any of the claims you take that actually prove the thing you state will happen is actually going to happen. Your claimed arguments about what will happen are either gross misrepresentations of the treaty itself, based on false premises, or have no backing in reality whatsoever.

Fairly bold and sweeping statements: any, gross, whatsoever. I cannot satisfy your insatiable appetite for future implementation details of this treaty. You want evidence for what will happen?

As you are basing my argument's obvious demise on the ground of insufficient future evidence, perhaps you might provide what I am sorely lacking. Please provide evidence and proof for the following items. I am held to your standards, so I'm confident you will understand my holding you to your own.

1. What will occur now that the US did not ratify the treaty? (Not a hunch or a estimation. Proof, please.)
2. What would have happened if the treaty had been ratified?
3. Which nations that do not presently respect the rights of humans would have seen the light and decided to also ratify the treaty? Proof, please.

We cannot with conviction know what will or will not occur in any situation. I have learned to expect anything from government. Promises are not kept. This is documented. The best of intentions are twisted. This is sadly played out in the tabloids. Secrets are sold. Lives are ruined. Power given to "my guy," "my law," "my treaty," may seem empowering at the moment. However, the guard changes regularly. I must assume that the powers I give to one leader, I give to the next.

As for registers, I can look into the past to see what registers of classes of people have been used for and project into the future what they may be used for. In the hands of a benevolent leader, such registers would be used to ensure the public welfare, if anything.

As humanity has yet to drum out malice, greed, and envy, perhaps to a new leader such registers may not be kept so private and may not be used for intended purposes--I hope this would never be the case. A long life of careful observation has taught me that it is best to couch blind hope and over-zealous conviction against prudence and historically based wisdom. If a register may kept of one type of people the precedent is set to keep a register of another. There is a slippery slope in all things--no matter how well intentioned.

As a side note, the register is with the State Party; however, do we truly believe that the information will not be captured in UN records? It's a UN program, hence registering with the UN. (Don't tell me I'm begging the question here.)

To borrow your words, let's get this straight. We are going back and forth about three topics.

1. Steve Benen's article and the statements made therein.
2. The treaty itself and the statements made therein.
3. The possibility of unintended consequences.

Some of the statements I made, and you called me on, were in the article. I hope we cleared that up.

The treaty itself is of good intent. Please understand, I agree with the goals and the heart of the treaty. There are atrocities committed around the world with respect to disabled people--any people. I would that they may stop. The US has blazed a path with the ADA. This treaty may be an attempt at bringing the ADA to other nations. I applaud the effort. However, the implementation is all wrong.

Unintended consequences, are just that, unintended. The treaty has provisions within it that may conflict with US laws. What will happen when a law is affected due to the treaty? Keep in mind that the law need not change for a judge to rule in favor of a treaty; thus, setting or following precedent. In effect, the law changes.

You've already basked in my apparent ceding-of-the point regarding treaties trumping the Constitution. I'm sorry, but my statements aren't wholly contradictory. An amendment was made to the Constitution to protect the US against international treaties trumping the Constitutions itself: “A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect.” Treaties cannot alter Constitutional original intent. There we have it in black and white. However, we know it's happened before and it will happen again. No, I'm not going to "Prove it!" Research for yourself cases where judges ruled in favor of treaties over Constitutional rights.

One example of an unintended consequence may be that of gay marriage. The treaty states that disable persons have the right to marry whom they choose. Could this not be construed as gay marriage, open marriage, etc? If disabled people are granted this right, why not every American? My position and your position on the issue really don't matter. What is matters is that a precedent may be set where states may lose the ability to make their own choices; the federal government via treaty will dictate a social/moral law.

The Constitution has stretch points built into it in order for interpretation in changing times. This treaty does as well. In fact, almost all laws and treaties do. It is concerning when the stretch points may be exercised against an unsuspecting participant.

For instance, you stated that it's not possible for the UN to control a State Party through the treaty. Yes, it is entirely possible. President Obama stated that coal plants can continue to be built in the US, sure; the companies will just go out of business because it will be so expensive. This is a market controlling measure. It disincentivizes the coal industry. I wouldn't hesitate to think that the UN, with it's foot in the door with a well-oiled report card system as you've indicated, may decide to help even more by limiting UN aide if tenets of this treaty are not being met to satisfaction. To who's satisfaction? A benevolent committee? Always benevolent? This is control.

You see, my original questions and the subsequent posting have given us forum to think about treaties a little more. Now, there are those that have already made up their minds. There are those that may be swayed either way. And, certainly, there are those that don't care.

If it's a debate and fight you're after, we should probably abandon English altogether and adopt discrete mathematics. If you're open to a discussion, we should probably abandon bias and adopt balanced reason.

This is all I have to say on the topic. Have at it.

And making US a laughingstock for the world......

And yes, I'm disgusted too!

mego: totally agree. just when you thought the republicans couldn't disgust us any further.

The fact we have so many of these morons is embarrassing. Who the hell elects those idiots?

Obviously, these differently abled people are all "takers" and "fakers". We can't bother the "makers" and the "shakers" with those people.

Today, 38 Republican senators shamed the U.S.A. the Senate, their party, the American people, their old friend, Bob Dole, and themselves. Their names need to be printed out and posted every single day. Mitch McConnell was one, as was Orrin Hatch, one of Dole's oldest friends. But the T-Party took precedence over honour and friendship today.

Our government has been seriously subverted by this T-Party group who are nothing short of an embarrassment to the country. They have rendered our government ineffectual and subordinate to their will. This has been going on for four years now, and especially since 2010. This is so tragic for our government that if it does not end, we will have entirely lost the will of the people to a group of crazed subversives who have no reason, no dignity, and no common sense. They are lost in the "Black helicopter" mentality, and dragging us down with them.

We need to post every one of their names tonight, and keep reminding people who and what it is that has gone so horribly wrong in Washington, DC. as to threaten our very ability to govern our own country.

People who kick the disabled in front of the whole world do not belong in the American government. I cannot even imagine where they belong.

I need someone who is more computer savvy than I am to print out a list of the 38 who voted NO! Please.

I found it at the beginning of the blog.

India LeCarre,

I still thought it was worth posting:

Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Kirk (R-IL)

So glad to see that the two asshat Senators from the state in which I now reside (TN) voted against it. At least they stick to their backwards beliefs. They're consistent, even if it is consistently moronic and embarrassing.

Wait, when they say disabled, they mean us liberals right? I mean we are all obviously mentally handicapped (retarded). How can we explain voting for intellectual half-whits and not to mention those evolutionary challenged types (you know who I mean). AMIRITE!!!

That Santorum has a child with a chronic health condition makes his vote even more shameful.

Exactly right. Shameful and odd. People with special needs children have first hand knowledge of the difficulties and hardships of the disabled... you would think he would be in that camp, but apparently not.

People with special needs children recognize they do not want the UN involved in the medical affairs of the US.

61 senators disagree

Proper: You clearly have no idea what this law does - there is NO UN involvement in American laws!! Do yourself a big favor and catch a clue!!!

just to say that i gave 'proper' a thumbs up and can't undo it ..... but, 'proper', if you are reading this, please get an education, or volunteer at the VA or some other place where the disabled get care ... republicans keep talking about America being a 'shining city on a hill' or some such stuff, but when the chance to make it so comes around their response is 'never mind'... idiots.

Anyone who attempts to justify the republican vote on this is at best uninformed, and at worst, a heartless bastard.

Proper must think he/she will never get old and feeble. Unless this is a computerized troll in which case someone please "Disable" it with a virus!

People with special needs children recognize they do not want the UN involved in the medical affairs of the US.

Provide evidence that the UN would be involved in the medical affairs of the US as it pertains to the disabled.

Hey Proper.... maybe we SHOULD have the UN involved in our medical affairs. We're #37 according to the WHO. That means 37 countries are doing a better job than we do. Or are you falling for that "we have the best health care in the world" baloney?

We need a list of these evil minded people and I hope Rachel or someone could read each and every one of their names on her should. They lack any bit of humanity. No wonder they are against passing the tax cut extension for the middleclass.

The list is at the bottom of the article - you have to click on the small link.

Santorum is no longer in the Senate, folks. He simply lead those 38 from outside the Senate Chambers.

led, not lead

Santorum is in the Senate until the end of this session!

Santorum is in the Senate until the end of this session!

@morison53, no, he's not. Santorum was defeated 6 years ago by Bob Casey.

Santorum hasn't been in the senate since 2007. Hello????

Rick Santorum's term ended in 2007.

Santorum hasn't been in the Senate since '07. He lobbied publicly against this treaty and sitting senators listened to him for some reason.

morison53-

Santorum lost reelection 6 years ago. He hasn't been in the Senate since January 2007.

edit: I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one to point this out in the time it took to read the comments and add my own. It sure would be great if msnbc had a decent comments platform that updated in real time and tracked discussions better.

Santorum has not been in the Senate or any branch of the government since 2007! He was soundly defeated for re-election for Senate in 2006!

Santorum lost relection in 2006. That was 6 years ago.

No, Santorum lost to Bob Casey six years ago.

Luckily, Santorum hasn't been in the senate since 2006.

@Whippet Good:

You liar!

Santorum was soundly beaten in 2006 by Bob Casey --who whooped his ass -by 18 points --Pennsylvania voters knew he didn't deserve to be in the SEnate any longer !

In the silence of Shooter I'll take 'Proper Action""s post (#13) as a concise version of why the Right is against a level playing field.

That's the solution. Elections have consequences.

Soldiers in wheelchairs for the most part fought for America and not for the UN. They fought for AMERICAN FREEDOM which means freedom form the undue influence of the rest of the world. Many of us have no desire to be part of the new world of governance being developed by the Brooking Institute and the OCSE.

The saddest part is that the 38 senators who voted against this would have benefitted from the passage, as they obviously are mentally handicapped. Repubs hate the UN....unless they are manipulating it into approving wars they want to fight, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You do realize you're a nutball, don't you? THE US WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE TREATY! NO US LAWS WOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THAY ARE THE STANDARD! Maybe this is subtle US empire building! I bet you'd be all for it then you right wing doofus.

"Soldiers in wheelchairs for the most part fought for America and not for the UN."

Soldiers in wheelchairs can tell me what they fought for, not you. We've spent the last decade in Republican designed adventurist wars to "bring American rights, protections and freedoms to <insert country here>" and those guys were wounded and their friends died doing it.

Yet for some reason when smart people sit down and try to do the same thing peacefully at the negotiation table, you and your ilk are against it. Why is that exactly?

Proper, I am an Englishman. Yet, I watch American politics, for the simple reason that the US has the wherewithal, to affect the rest of the world in most of what it does.

As a result of this power, you can find Americans pretty much all over the world. Now if the US has signed this bill, it would have improved things in other countries, thereby improving the day to day life of Americans that live in them country (and before you be a twit and say it their choice to live there, for the most part, america embassy staff and soldiers, dont actually get the choice of where they go)

It would have shown that Americans are willing to put aside their own petty, and I DO MEAN PETTY, feuds between republicans and democrats, to sign a bill that quite frankly could have improved the lives of countless people around the world, and earned you a good amount of goodwill, which frankly, you lot need.

Instead, you are gonna be regarded as the country who sadly just couldnt last the distance when showing the world that you are a world leader. Instead, you are showing that you rather deal in your own petty disputes, then being all you can be.

I have respect for your emergency services, when they had to handle the effects and aftermath of one of the most horrific terrorist attacks the world has ever seen. I have respect for your armed forces, and your intelligence services, who managed to find the people responsible for the attacks, and brign them to justice. court, summary, or otherwise. I have respect for quite a lot of your country.

What I dont have respect for are idiots who bring rape pregnancy into an election campaign, people who even after the president has elected by a majority of the country, still refuse to work with him or acknowledge him, idiots who cant work together on a bill that YOUR COUNTRY was a main instigator and supporter of, due to wah wah syndrome cos they didnt win an election, and I really dont have respect for idiots like you.

Lemur Lad, excellent point.

Exactly what negative effect will it have on our disabled veterans for this treaty to not have been ratified?

just asking...

I be honest, I dont know a lot on this, but consider this, most of the countries that americans have fought in, have quite a lot of ex-servicemen who visit later in life, just to see what the place is like from a tourist point of view, or maybe even to get their head straight around something that may have happened to them. Some of these ex-servicemen will almost certianly be disabled.

Now under this treaty, most of those countries that the US has fought in, would be agreeing, in effect, to improve it disabilities arrangements. Now the majority of them would of course not effect a disabled vet in the least. However, for a visiting disabled vet, he may have trouble getting into a building, accessing certain parts of town, may not have access to hearing or visually impaired materials that could in effect help him. If he fell sick in one of those countries, because of the US not signing this bill, he may not have access to certain aids that you would take for granted in the US, but that country does not consider it needed, because it not part of it disabilities plan. It sounds crazy, but im pretty sure I remember reading the story of a disabled person who had gone to a country where they had lost the limb, to help get over the trauma of it, and ironically, having a nightmare in that country, cos that country was not equipped to deal with her disability.

because the US did not sign it, countries may chose to pull out, because in effect, some of them were only being part of it because your government spent it own time and money, into encouraging them to join this bill.

Exactly what negative effect will it have on our disabled veterans for this treaty to not have been ratified?

just asking...

Strawman. The argument was that these individuals were pushing for the ratification because they care about disabled persons in other nations. If you're going to argue against someone Storm then at least take what they are actually saying and discuss it.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head, Stormguy.

1) When disabled Americans (including our Vets) travel abroad, there will be improved accomodations for them (wheelchair ramps, etc).

2) Complying with the ADA costs American companies money. By requiring other countries to comply with similar regulations, we increase foreign companies' costs, making American labor more competitive. Including our Vets.

Mike...

1)are you saying that those countries which have already ratified the treaty will either a) discriminate against Americans because we did not ratify the treaty or b) not make the improvements in their own country because we didnt sign on?

2) Once again...according to the article, we are the standard...is the treaty among 123 countries going to collapse because we did not sign it? and if that is the case, what are we going to incur financially down the road in order to help these other countries come up to our standard?

I have a friend who is the mother of an Autistic child and she is adamantly against this treaty. I have not been able to speak with her to find out her reasons, but so far, I have not found a compelling reason for us to sign the treaty.

just saying...

People overseas who are US citizens aren't protected under these laws in foreign nations unless the US agrees to participate in the treaty. That is the way all international treaties work (for the record).

Additionally yeah the US' lack of desire to participate may in fact cause the heft of the treaty to blow out: such is the burden we in the US carry because we are the world's super power. That's part of the personal responsibility that our nation carries in the world. You cannot tout that America is the greatest this and that and then turn around and act surprised when America's weight is needed in order to have influence over other nations. But most importantly it gives encouragement for the nations not participating to step their game up if they want to be taken seriously by the international community. Pretty much every other country in the world worries about world pressure and opinion, if only because tourism is a huge driving industry (and in many nations is the main driving industry) of economic growth and stability.

How can you know that your friend opposes the treaty if you haven't talked to your friend about their beliefs about the treaty? You completely debunked your own statement in one sentence (this is the second time you've done this on this thread).

Why do you assume we have to incur a financial burden? You're making a slippery slope argument here for no reason whatsoever. But let's say that we do: why is this a bad thing?

Cartoon...

1) There is this new thing that some people use...it is called the Internet. Part of that is a system called Facebook. On that, people post their feelings on a wide variety of subjects. If you read it, you can actually learn how your friends feel about things without actually talking to them. So much for your idiotic comment about how I debunked by own statement.

2). I did not assume we were going to incur a financial burden, I asked a question. Its something that you do to try and learn something. Unlike you, I do not just assume something.

Why is it a bad thing that we incur a financial burden? if you are so blind that you have to ask a stupid question like that, there is no help for you.

Before you begin your next diatribe, please go back and read my comments again. I have not expressed support or opposition to the treaty. I am trying to learn. Your snarky comments certainly do not help your side.

just saying...

There is this new thing that some people use...it is called the Internet. Part of that is a system called Facebook. On that, people post their feelings on a wide variety of subjects. If you read it, you can actually learn how your friends feel about things without actually talking to them. So much for your idiotic comment about how I debunked by own statement.

So then you'd know why she was saying what she was saying. Again you debunked yourself before you were finished. Brilliant work.

I did not assume we were going to incur a financial burden, I asked a question. Its something that you do to try and learn something. Unlike you, I do not just assume something.

What was it that I assumed here? You have no reason to make the leap that it's going to cost the US anything as treaties usually do not cost governments money, especially when they are UN treaties. Yet still you ask this question again as a sneaky slippery slope. Sorry, but you have to explain your rationale here. You're not getting off the hook that easy.

Why is it a bad thing that we incur a financial burden? if you are so blind that you have to ask a stupid question like that, there is no help for you.

So now you're assuming things about me when you just derided me on the basis of your assumption about me assuming things. The paradoxes don't stop with you, now do they? Yeah I am asking why would it be bad? You cannot just state X is bad and expect everyone to fall in line. We aren't sheep. You have to argue why it is that you believe it's bad and get from point a. to point b. For the record by making this statement you've now confirmed that you made the slippery slope I alluded to earlier. Again great job at self-contradictions.

Before you begin your next diatribe, please go back and read my comments again. I have not expressed support or opposition to the treaty. I am trying to learn. Your snarky comments certainly do not help your side.

What snarky comments? You are contradicting yourself. And I never stated that you were in favor or against. I was addressing the points that you specifically raised. You asked why should we do X and I gave you a rebuttal. You then call my statements idiotic and diatribes (meaning rambling statements) which are insults and then you state that I am the one being snarky. All I ever did was address your comments as you asked. The snark didn't start until now and that's because you called me an idiot for not immediately agreeing with you. But even so am I engaging you in debate? Yes. Am I giving you the opportunity to share your view? Yes.

As you say though: you really should stop attacking me personally and start addressing the argument instead. Practice what you preach for once man.

"A due regard for the opinion of mankind", seems to apply. You may care to look up the source.

If passed, this act will affect the rights of parents who have special needs children and those who homeschool.

You asked where does it give the reason. This would seem to be the reason no? Because "it affects the rights of parents who have special needs children." Now you COULD have stated that you don't know the specifics of why they opposed the legislation which is what I think you meant to say. But this is the no true scotsman argument. You made a statement of absolution: I don't know why she opposes it and now that, that statement of absolution has been found faulty you are attempting to modify the statement while keeping the debunked premise.

There are lots of provisions in treaties throughout history that require the participants to expend financial resources in one form or another in order for the treaty to be enforced. It is not an unrealistic question to ask. There is no slope...it either has financial obligations associated with it or it doesnt.

Storm you are specifically making this statement to imply it's going to cost the US money and somehow that is a bad thing. You don't have a reason to make this jump and given your previous posts on this blog I know for a fact that you are making this as a sneaky slipper slope which is why you affirmed that it would cost the US money by insulting me for asking why costing money would be a bad thing. If you don't believe it's going to cost any money then you wouldn't already have the presumption that costing money is a negative thing because you wouldn't already have a predisposition as to whether or not that spending was positive/negative. The fact that you do tells me you are disingenuous in your argument.

I guess you just assume that any cost associated with this treaty...if there is any...will be paid for by the "millionaires and billionaires".

And here you go. You automatically use the "question" at hand to insinuate that I would be OK with spending increases because I favor tax cuts on the top income earners (I am one of the top 20% of income earners, for the record, so it's my taxes we're talking about here). Did I make a statement giving you clarification to make this leap in logic? No. Yet here you assume it as such. Yet what did you just say a few paragraphs earlier?

Unlike you, I do not just assume something.

So here you are automatically assuming something on the basis of nothing and then use that assumption as a way of attacking me. This is another contradiction in your statement and further proof that you were already assuming the treaty would cost money even though you had no reason to make that leap in logic. Thank you for confirming my arguments correct twice now.

We are facing a financial cliff, SS and Medicare are going bankrupt and we can't afford to feed people in our own country. At some point, we have to stop spending money we dont have.

SS and Medicare cannot go bankrupt. That would mean the government itself has gone bankrupt. What you mean to say is that the programs may run a deficit with revenues which is true and I do agree that they need to be addressed, but I disagree with you on how to address that problem. Our country does not financially struggle to feed it's own people. We produce enough food and enough money (nationally speaking) to feed every single person in this country many times over. The problem that we face with food is a distribution issue. We face the same problem with electricity, Internet and other data connectivity concerns, and most importantly of all clean water. These problems I agree have to be addressed, but the overspending you are alluding to isn't the reason why these problems exist. Additionally you are making a statement of prioritization without explaining the conclusion. Who is to state that the money spent helping our disabled citizens gain equal treatment when they are overseas working or traveling is money that we can afford to not spend? You did not prove that this would be a waste. And that, I believe, is because your intention from the beginning was to introduce the idea that somehow this treaty is just a closet cause to raise taxes (the slippery slope I was talking about). Hence why the details of this treaty don't seem to bother you as much.

Do you practice at being as stupid as you are or does it come naturally to you?

I have reported you for personally insulting me. Please notice how I never personally insulted you.

Stormguy is the perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Like the 38 senators who shamed themselves today, he shames himself every time he posts a comment. This rabid, clueless T-Party mentality has to end. Unbridled stupidity...it is disgusting..and it needs to stop.

Just sayin....

Only in the mind of a bunch of liberals would a post that began trying to learn more about why this treaty is needed could it be turned into what you guys have turned it into what it has become.

You guys are a perfect example of why our leaders in Washington cant get anything accomplished. If someone doesnt agree with your opinion, the hell with them. You will force you will upon others regardless of the situation and any attempt that is made to discuss the matter.

Cartoon should be a politician..he is very good at doublespeak and twisting any comment that is made into something it isn't.

just saying...

You, dude, are a perfect example of someone who should just shut up, and go on with your day, you are clearly outmatched, and in over your head, I don't care to discuss, or debate with you, you are beyond that, stop wasting our time....

David J. Ball

Bless you! Thank you for giving us a sane outside the US perspective on this issue. I hope you have a marvelous Holiday Season.

Stormguy

As an aunt of a special needs child I am greatly sadden this treaty was not ratified. It may mean that if one day my nephew wishes to travel abroad he will not have the same rights he has here in the US. As to registering a child with disabilities or special needs that means registering the birth of that child. That means a birth certificate. Many countries won't even register the birth of a child (meaning give them a birth certificate) to a child with disabilities. Meaning that child doesn't exist in that country. It's not registering a child with disabilities or special needs birth with the UN. Get real please!

I like the fact my nephew has a birth certificate. It means one day if he should ever decide to run for POTUS he will have proof that he indeed exists and is an natural born citizen of the United Sates of America! Well at least to some people maybe not you.

Stormguy, you are contradicting yourself:

The only person trying to argue is you...I am trying to learn

Then start a riff on this Treaty possibly costing money (?) (in foreign countries?) to be paid for by millionaires? Which appears to be arguing? and if that is trying to learn, then you added the last thing

Do you practice at being as stupid as you are or does it come naturally to you?

, which IS a violation of the COH.

James...I did not ask to debate anything with you, so if you had kept your mouth shut instead of butting in where you didnt even want to go, there would not have been an issue. But of course, DUDE, you couldn't, Big Surprise.

Maria...thank you for your thoughtful input on the subject. Your perspective is greatly appreciated. However, I do not understand where you got any impression that I was not for special needs children receiving every right that any other child would receive. As a matter of fact, I have never expressed an opinion one way or the other in regards to whether we should have approved this treaty. However, as a typical liberal, you are making assumptions without actually having all the facts.

Sandy...my initial post on the matter asked a very simple question.."what negative effect would it have on our disabled veterans if we did not ratify the treaty"? After Cartoon made a response, I asked what financial obligation would we have down the road in trying to help the rest of the world come up to our standards? Is that really a bad question to ask? Given our poor financial status at this point in time, I think that it is only prudent to consider this before making obligations. I realize that the left believes we can simply finance anything that you want to do, but at some point the spending has to be curtailed.

just saying..

Stormguy

You're acting as a typical conservative by assuming that you were the sole target of my remarks. ;-) You're not. I am referring to those individuals who seem to think that by voting down this treaty they were respecting the rights of specials needs children when the exact opposite is true. Honestly I wasn't trying to say you particularly don't think special needs children shouldn't have full rights.

BTW FYI my sister-in-law is a PD who is a juvenile advocate for special needs children. She has received the ABA Juvenile Justice Award and was named one of the top ten lawyers in California. She works especially with special needs kids from low income and at risk households. She and my brother weren't please that this treaty wasn't ratified. Now don't go and think I am accusing you of anything. I just wanted you to know that my family and I have a very special perspective on this issue. So hold your horses! And thank you for your kind remark.

Stormguy, you just said

I realize that the left believes we can simply finance anything that you want to do, but at some point the spending has to be curtailed.

Which is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is just the opposite. I suggest you read some true facts rather than getting your news (not news, but opinion) from rumors and stuff Rs say about Ds.

I've been posting this link, which offers a plethora of facts, which is why it's called Zfacts.

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

Starting above, then you can look around the whole site. It is put out by an economist.

Really good info, which is fact based, not based on definitions that Rs say about Ds.

The bottom line is Rs run UP debt, while Ds get blamed and/or they say we must cut/eliminate the New Deal.

Not Exactly. We will still throw water on fires but will not sign up with treaties from the UN.

We do not need treaties from the UN to throw water on fires.

We belong to international fire safety conventions because that's civilized.

The reason that the US did not ratify the Rights of the Child treaty is because some of those billionaire political backers like to go to countries that promote child prostitution and have sex with children.

Forget it June. I love and respect your sanity... but you are talking to a few million mean-spirited, closed minded, paranoid, heaven's rejects a.k.a. the GOP. All of us with a brain and a heart know this was a shameful decision and I'm embarrassed those 38 have any positions in politics and were (somehow) voted in. Sigh.

Thanks for the shout-out, Melian. Well... guess my hopes for a sane Republican Party springs eternal -- based on what, I don't know -- but it springs eternal.

The senate probably requires a two thirds majority for a treaty. There was 61 for AND NOT THE REQUIRED 66.

Yes, the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate (67 votes) for ratification of treaties.

So if they are retired, we should stop listening to someone? Your rants get more ridiculous each time. Time to stop while you are really far behind.

Bob Dole is retired. He is 89 years old and in frail health. But his mind still works better that yours P-A.

For Sen. Dole, the price of freedom was the eternal loss of use of an arm. That's why we should listen and care about what he thinks.

You know, PA, you are an idiot. The United States was one of the founding states of the United Nations. It was created to be a place where countries could come to talk about the problems being faced in the world. It is an institution of peace. You need to get an education. You are a fool.

People like you make me sick. You think you know everything and spout your ignorance to the world leaving no doubt how absolutely idiotic and moronic you are.

Proper Action, There seems to be a huge consensus on this board that you are an idiot.

You better be careful because the UN may pass a resolution stating to the world that you are an idiot. And then the UN will come after you and your golf courses in their black helicopters.

Well, it seems like an idea that has become popular lately. Somebody says something we agree with, so we have to become vehemently opposed to it to claim vigilance against any usurpation of our decision making. (The more I look at that phrase, and repeat it over and over in my head, it just becomes a giant slop bucket of wrong.)

I may or may not agree with Bob Dole, but he is someone I can respect. And I know that Karma has a very, very good memory.

I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

@Dkcaj

I would have to disagree with your point. Republican opposition to international involvement goes way back. They have usually been isolationist which is why there was resistance to WWI and WWII. Republicans opposed the League of Nations which is why it eventually failed. The Republicans have a knee jerk reaction to these matters, except when it comes to declaring wars/military actions since Korea. And that is because they see these wars as a political issue to be used in campaigns. Now they see wars not just in terms of the political issue, but as a method to transfer wealth to business interests. War is big business and big profits.

Mike, point taken. Mine was mostly snark.

Which of those 38 are up for re-election in 2014?

Two-thirds ratification is needed for an international treaty.