GOP votes down UN treaty supposedly for equal rights of disabled, warning that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty. Think the treaty should be modified to overcome that threat then put to another vote?

tncdel 2012/12/05 16:25:03
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • NOva 2012/12/07 03:26:05
    NO [explain why not].
    I read what the treaty entailed on the UN website. We already have laws that cover everything in it and we do not need the UN to tell us how to treat our people. As far as I'm concerned they can go suck eggs.
  • Stan Kapusta 2012/12/06 03:43:34
    NO [explain why not].
    Stan Kapusta
    Since when does the U.N. dictate to the United States what to do. The NWO crap is showing it's ugly head.
  • Rebel Yell 2012/12/05 23:09:39
    Other [tell us].
    Rebel Yell
    This is why Republicans should never have any kind of power.

    What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the 1990's Americans with Disabilities Act.

    So Republicans have voted against a treaty that originated in our Congress and was so well liked by other countries, 155 other countries thought it was a great idea, too.

    So why would they do just a incredibly stupid thing? Back in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck..... 38 Republicans cast "no" votes on this. Republicans are big on signing pledges, no matter how much it would benefit thousands of people. Absolutely shameful.
  • santa6642 2012/12/05 21:33:34
    YES [explain why you think so].
    The UN is a bunch of wannabe 's looking to control everyone and everything.
  • JCD aka "biz" 2012/12/05 21:05:49
    NO [explain why not].
    JCD aka "biz"
    The UN treaty is modeled on America's own disabilities act (see Carol's comment below).
    Shouldn't American citizens be proud? Extending the benefits of US law to the whole international community?
  • Rustie 2012/12/05 20:52:50
    NO [explain why not].
    The UN has no place dictating our laws or the actions of our citizens, for good OR ill.
  • OPOA912 2012/12/05 20:21:03
    NO [explain why not].
    Kick the UN out of the U.S.
  • lee 2012/12/05 20:20:24 (edited)
    Other [tell us].
    i think republicans who voted no on this treaty should have to look Bob Dole right in the eye on the floor of the senate and tell him NO HELP FOR YOU!

    oh, wait... that's EXACTLY what they did.

    what a bunch of bastards.
  • Todd The Libertarian 2012/12/05 20:10:05
    YES [explain why you think so].
    Todd The Libertarian
    This is just Rand Paul n the tea wackers pissing on veterans,including wounded in action people like Bob Dole.Rand the Bozo wants to repeal civil rights laws.He n Hillbilly Mitch are unstable.
  • GINGERBREAD 2012/12/05 20:07:53
    Other [tell us].
    I have found that anything that these corrupt organisation proposes for this country, is an attack on our soverignty. How about this idea, Tell the UN to get the hell out of our country and go somewhere else.
  • none 2012/12/05 19:12:32
  • redhorse29 2012/12/05 19:07:23
    NO [explain why not].
    The UN should go away and leave us alone. Let the UN solve the problems in nations that need their glorious leadership. RECOMMEND the US stop or significantly reduce funding and providing military resources.
  • Texas Johnny 2012/12/05 18:40:34
    NO [explain why not].
    Texas Johnny
    We have laws on the books dealing with the equal treatment for handicapped citizens. The Americans with Disabilities Act ring a bell? Handicapped people can are accorded all rights under the Constitution, we don't need the U.N. to tell us what to do.
  • Wulfdane 2012/12/05 18:10:12 (edited)
    NO [explain why not].
    The treaty does nothing to benefit Americans and the UN already has numerous treaties guaranteeing basic human rights for all people. Had this treaty just reaffirmed those rights and added more, I would have supported it. But the treaty goes much further than that.

    The US already has the greatest legal protections for the disabled than any other country on Earth and spends more per capita on the disabled than any other country on Earth.

    The US is a sovereign country, it would violate the principals of our own Constitution to give the UN any influence over domestic budgetary/policy matters. No matter how well intended.

    The UN was created to promote global peace and basic human rights, not to interfere in domestic issues of other nations. I do not support this type of Globalism, not matter how well intended.
  • JCD aka... Wulfdane 2012/12/05 20:59:19
    JCD aka "biz"
    "Global peace AND basic human rights", correct.
  • bill.fleming.77 2012/12/05 17:54:23
    NO [explain why not].
    The treaty could be ratified to exclude certain language and we could sign it but really why? If other nations would like us to come and assist them based on our years of learning we could do this with out some BS UN treaty. ANy Senator regardless of party that signs this or any other UN Treaty is either a traitor or a fool.
  • RubenRibnik 2012/12/05 17:44:04
    NO [explain why not].
    in no way shape or form are the to vote any UN propisition into Amerian law.. do not ever give those people a starting blok here
  • Carol 2012/12/05 17:23:04
    NO [explain why not].
    The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

    How stupid is the GOP, the treaty is modeled on our own disabilities act.
  • cddjmikey 2012/12/05 17:21:43 (edited)
    NO [explain why not].
    If we already have it in place here then why the treaty ? If they already have it there why the treaty ? Shouldn't it just be that everybody gets a fair deal ? Call it common courtesy. ANYTHING by the U.N. that tries to tell us what to do should be rejected until they pay up what is owed and stop being squatters living off of us !
  • tdterry1999 2012/12/05 17:09:18
    NO [explain why not].
    Any treaty from the UN should be voted.
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/12/05 16:59:19 (edited)
  • Raymond Allamby 2012/12/05 16:46:47
    NO [explain why not].
    Raymond Allamby
    there is no threat. it's all in your minds.
  • tncdel Raymond... 2012/12/05 17:01:48
    Are you that familiar with what it exactly states and the possible ramifications of it, or are you just automatically by jerk-reflex adopting the leftwing globalist point of view?
  • Raymond... tncdel 2012/12/05 17:03:57
    Raymond Allamby
    not word for word, but generally. are you familiar with it?
  • Walt 2012/12/05 16:35:30
    NO [explain why not].
    Isn't part of this treaty a requirement for all disabled Americans to be registered on a federal disability registry? Doesn't the UN want to lower the world's population?

    I don't think that's a good combination.

    They're already putting out commercials like this one:

  • Dale 2012/12/05 16:30:22 (edited)
    NO [explain why not].
    No matter how much the treaty is changed, sovereignty will be given up. United Nations has proven time and again that is is worthless, with a "One World" government at the end. If United states wants to pass something that resembles what the treaty states, that might be quite another thing. But something out of United Nations..? That would be United States.
  • Peewee ~PWCM~ 2012/12/05 16:28:02
    NO [explain why not].
    Peewee ~PWCM~
    We don't need the UN, move them to Iraq.
  • John Hall 2012/12/05 16:27:56
    NO [explain why not].
    John Hall
    Keep the UN out of our laws and country .
  • Dagon 2012/12/05 16:26:16
  • tncdel 2012/12/05 16:26:11
    YES [explain why you think so].
    If that is possible so that U.S. sovereignty can be protected. If not, no thanks.
  • Peewee ... tncdel 2012/12/05 16:28:42
    Peewee ~PWCM~
    Considering those in charge at the UN, nothing they do would be good for the US.
  • tncdel Peewee ... 2012/12/05 17:04:21
    I'm trying to see both sides of the equation in order to view it objectively. Though my instincts tell me we should avoid it, I see that vet groups support it, so I'm wondering if it's as bad as the GOP claims.
  • SIMPATTYCO tncdel 2012/12/05 17:20:39
    Anything that gives up sovereignty to the UN is NOT a good idea .. It could be a bait and switch law growing stronger with TEETH
  • Peewee ... tncdel 2012/12/05 17:45:45
    Peewee ~PWCM~
    All that stuff sounds great in theory, but it never works. How many trillions have been spent on the 'war on poverty' and the stats have never really changed? Your instincts are usually right. Remember, it starts with little tiny chips. Before you know it, we crumble. I wish everyone worked to the betterment of mankind, but they don't. It would be interesting to see why the veterans groups support it.
  • SIMPATTYCO tncdel 2012/12/05 17:18:55
    That entire issue of loosing sovereignty is odious Especially that group of third world crooks all on the take!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/07 23:57:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals