A sad day for disability rights as a treaty fails

[Locke]

So, we agree.....there was no need for us to ratify a treaty we are the model for, because it in no way shape or form affect how we do things.

BRILLIANT!!!!

So then the question becomes, why oppose it? If it won't have even the smallest effect on the U.S., then there is no legitimate reason to vote it down...

[GoFins!]

Just to funny.

Nice ironic twist!!! Well done!

[GoFins!]

So then the question becomes, why oppose it? If it won't have even the smallest effect on the U.S., then there is no legitimate reason to vote it down...

Has anyone here read the entire treaty?

What we're told vs what it actually says vs how it's interpreted.

My state was among the first to pass seat belt laws. We were promised that it was only a secondary offense. No one could be stopped just for not wearing a seat belt. There had to be another legitimate reason for the stop before the seat belt ticket could be written. That lasted a few years until the state government needed money. Suddenly seat belt violations are a primary offense.

Traps were also outlawed here. It is illegal to use any type of harmful trap when hunting bear, cougar, coyote, wolf, raccoons, etc, etc, etc. This did not include nuisance pests such as moles, ground squirrels, etc. Once the law passed those interpreting the law read it differently than those who wrote the law and now it does include nuisance pests that dig up our yards. It was a bit embarrassing when the gounds crew at the state capital were caught using mole traps. Of course, as government workers, they weren't fined or put out of business like others. Now we poison our soil to kill the food source for these nuisance pests to keep them out of our yards. It's just a matter of time before all poison that has a negative effect on our rivers, lakes and ocean.

Could our elected officials have voted against a law because of what might be in it or how it might be interpreted? Absolutely. How much time do they get to read and understand UN treaties? It's not uncommon for legislation to be finalized in the morning and voted on in the afternoon before anyone except the authors know all the details.

[Spesh]

So then the question becomes, why oppose it? If it won't have even the smallest effect on the U.S., then there is no legitimate reason to vote it down...

There was absolutely no real reason to vote against it. It was a no brainer bill. The supposed reasoning is Republicans want to prevent United Nations troops from storming homes. I really believe im missing out because thoughts like that just never occur to me. Ever.

To be fair, GOP has to play to their base. The United Nations isnt exactly popular among conservatives. But this sort of pettiness is beyond absurd. There is a theory floating around that many voted against this to avoid tea party challenges in future elections, but even that "logic" rings false to me. The fact that they pulled Bob Dole from his deathbed to attend this mockery just makes this entire thing all the more more disgraceful.

Either way, ill be laughing my ass off when conservatives nerdrage about the need for our "leadership" around the world. We create a gold standard that the rest of the world wants to adopt that has absolutely no down side and Republicans cant vote against it fast enough. I suppose our "leadership" is only warranted when it comes to staring through the scope of a rifle.

[MoFinz]

So then the question becomes, why oppose it? If it won't have even the smallest effect on the U.S., then there is no legitimate reason to vote it down...

Sure there is.....if it doesn't mean anything, why commit to it? In other words, we spend way too much time celebrating symbolism, instead of really focusing on substantive change.

I have a drivers license.....why do i need a UN treaty to validate drivers licenses?

[Locke]

Sure there is.....if it doesn't mean anything, why commit to it? In other words, we spend way too much time celebrating symbolism, instead of really focusing on substantive change.

I have a drivers license.....why do i need a UN treaty to validate drivers licenses?

The commitment was minimal. If anything, this was a symbolic gesture to show that the U.S. is still the preeminent power in the world. In that respect, there was an advantage to getting on board with this. The right likes to pound their chest about American exceptionalism, yet they turn down an opportunity to actually show that? Nope. You cannot convince me that this wasn't anything other that Republicans being douchebags. With no tangible negative to this, the only reason not to do it is to be a jerk...

[MoFinz]

The commitment was minimal. If anything, this was a symbolic gesture to show that the U.S. is still the preeminent power in the world. In that respect, there was an advantage to getting on board with this. The right likes to pound their chest about American exceptionalism, yet they turn down an opportunity to actually show that? Nope. You cannot convince me that this wasn't anything other that Republicans being douchebags. With no tangible negative to this, the only reason not to do it is to be a jerk...

Shouldnt symobolism mean something? What would this have changed? ESPECIALLY in the US? Again....words without deeds are worthless. What would our commitment to do what we have been doing accomplish in the rest of the free world? Would Russia or China have improved their treatment of vets? Does anyone know what other countries treatment of their vets is like?

I appreciate symbolism, i really do. I appreciate the Rocky or The Rudy that faces insurmountable odds and while they may not win, they can be victorious, their courage inspires others to dream and drive them to be their best. Nothing suggests this treaty would have improved one vets life....so whats the symbol we are suppose to aspire to? We already lead because we have had ADA and now some UN countries aspire to do what we have....they symbolism has already been achieved.

[Locke]

Shouldnt symobolism mean something? What would this have changed? ESPECIALLY in the US? Again....words without deeds are worthless. What would our commitment to do what we have been doing accomplish in the rest of the free world? Would Russia or China have improved their treatment of vets? Does anyone know what other countries treatment of their vets is like?

I appreciate symbolism, i really do. I appreciate the Rocky or The Rudy that faces insurmountable odds and while they may not win, they can be victorious, their courage inspires others to dream and drive them to be their best. Nothing suggests this treaty would have improved one vets life....so whats the symbol we are suppose to aspire to? We already lead because we have had ADA and now some UN countries aspire to do what we have....they symbolism has already been achieved.

I can see that side of the argument, and I don't disagree with it. But it also doesn't answer the question as to why vote it down. Was it something that was little more than just fluff? Probably. Would it have hurt the U.S. in any way? Doubtful. Would it have improved our relations with other countries? TBD. All things considered, what should have been a pretty simple approval and something that was a footnote in the middle of the New York Times became this political grand stand. In my opinion, it's stuff like this that allowed the most vulnerable incumbent in the past 30 years win reelection in an electoral beat down...

[MoFinz]

I can see that side of the argument, and I don't disagree with it. But it also doesn't answer the question as to why vote it down. Was it something that was little more than just fluff? Probably. Would it have hurt the U.S. in any way? Doubtful. Would it have improved our relations with other countries? TBD. All things considered, what should have been a pretty simple approval and something that was a footnote in the middle of the New York Times became this political grand stand. In my opinion, it's stuff like this that allowed the most vulnerable incumbent in the past 30 years win reelection in an electoral beat down...

I know you don't mean this specific example, but as a whole body of work.....yeah, you're spot on. It's not that people are enamored with Obama as a President, but between him and Romney, there was no real viable alternative. I understand your point on the symbolic nature of this treaty, i'm afraid i just don't subscribe to it. In my opinion, a hollow gesture means little to your allies and only emboldens your enemies to attack you for not doing enough

[phins_4_ever]

Shouldnt symobolism mean something? What would this have changed? ESPECIALLY in the US? Again....words without deeds are worthless. What would our commitment to do what we have been doing accomplish in the rest of the free world? Would Russia or China have improved their treatment of vets? Does anyone know what other countries treatment of their vets is like?

I appreciate symbolism, i really do. I appreciate the Rocky or The Rudy that faces insurmountable odds and while they may not win, they can be victorious, their courage inspires others to dream and drive them to be their best. Nothing suggests this treaty would have improved one vets life....so whats the symbol we are suppose to aspire to? We already lead because we have had ADA and now some UN countries aspire to do what we have....they symbolism has already been achieved.

This is exactly wrong with society. Modeling symbolism after fictional (Forest Gump) or partially fictional characters or stories (Rocky, Rudy) and disregarding real life symbolism.