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.
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.
Last edited by Spesh; 12-09-2012 at 02:20 AM.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing"I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
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.