GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did anybody even read my post?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

That's an awfully cynical view...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

That's an awfully cynical view...

One can hardly come to a different conclusion.

You do realize that many conservatives have that same view of Democrats?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Disgusting, regardless of their so-called intent.

So how did the GOP declare this war?  You site Senators Santorum and Lee.

Yet your article says, "The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh."

Seems to me the conservatives against this "war" outnumber those for it...

36 (out of 47) GOP Senators are blocking it. Who are the 11 saner Republicans: McCain, Isakson, Lugar, Barrasso, prob. Snowe and Collins, who are the other 5?

Fair enough... NOW you can say there's a war on the disabled.  Although I'd be interested to hera the 36's reasoning.

Because the disabled don't benefit them or their interests.

You really need to realize what your party has become and whar kind of people belong to it. They don't (usually) have any noble motivation...

That's an awfully cynical view...

One can hardly come to a different conclusion.

You do realize that many conservatives have that same view of Democrats?

I don't think we should start a debate about which party is better connected to reality.

What a hackish viewpoint... and that's why this forum is going down the sh**tter... you have people like me who criticize Democrats when they're wrong but also criticize Republicans when they're being stupid hacks.

But where are the Democrats on this site who say it's absured to say that Republicans don't have a noble motivation for what they do?  When Michelle Bachman makes her comments about representatives having unAmerican views, she's pounced on for assuming bad faith about her colleagues, as she should be, but when the liberals on this site do it, the Republicans who defend their party get laughed at like we're being ridiculous.

Offer some proof that the GOP genuinely has bad hearts and has malicious motivations for what they do.  Or, is it possible that the Senators opposing this are genuinely concerned about sacrificing American soverignty for UN control?  It's quite clearly not about opposing rights for disabilities, since the article even points out that the law would require basically no changes and would bring the rest of the world up to the standards of the ADA.

So, I'm not sure how you can assume that the Senators have bad faith and are doing this because the disabled don't benefit them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks still has an idealistic view of his party. That's why he has said ludicrous things in the past, like his assertions that Republicans aren't climate change deniers, that they aren't anti-intellectuals or that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would pass with lots of Republican votes.

I never said that they weren't climate change deniers, and I never said that DADT repeal would pass with "lots of Republican" votes.  I said I thought there were enough Republican votes in one of the houses (I believe the Senate, but I'm not sure), that it would've passed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, do you seriously claim Republicans are working and debating in good faith? Because virtually everything that has happened since Obama took office has proved the opposite.

The Republicans that defend every absurdity the GOP comes up with ARE ridiculous. And even if you criticize individual actions, it doesn't have any consequence as you'll still vote for the nutters.

The American "parties" are not comparable in their idiocy and trying to relativize everything "call out both sides...both sides do it", etc. is just a cheap...not to mention moderate hero...way of trying to justify support for people you know are ridiculous.

Is some of it done to be obstructionists to Obama's policies? Absolutely.  But for the most part, I still think people on both sides do their jobs in an attempt to help the country.

I'd love for you to prove to me that those opposing this bill are acting in bad faith...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And px, you're hardly the person to lecture me about ludicrous statements.  I'm not the one who posts fake quotes and every article I find that bashes the opposite party.

Do we really need a best of list? ...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138772.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157156.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=135719.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132100.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125930.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138117.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132238.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138379.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130290.0

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, do you seriously claim Republicans are working and debating in good faith? Because virtually everything that has happened since Obama took office has proved the opposite.

The Republicans that defend every absurdity the GOP comes up with ARE ridiculous. And even if you criticize individual actions, it doesn't have any consequence as you'll still vote for the nutters.

The American "parties" are not comparable in their idiocy and trying to relativize everything "call out both sides...both sides do it", etc. is just a cheap...not to mention moderate hero...way of trying to justify support for people you know are ridiculous.

Is some of it done to be obstructionists to Obama's policies? Absolutely.  But for the most part, I still think people on both sides do their jobs in an attempt to help the country.

I'd love for you to prove to me that those opposing this bill are acting in bad faith...

How am I supposed to "prove" it?

You made the claim.  How the hell should I know how you'd prove it?  I don't think you can, because I think your claim is false.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

So then if it's a knee-jerk reaction from anti-UN people, it's not a war on the disabled... it's a war on the UN.  Which was my point before.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

There was nothing hateful about this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Jesus, is Santorum the only one who doesn't know he's going to hell?

Tolerance from the left?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

There was nothing hateful about this.

I'm reasonably sure you'd defend almost anything (or at least claim it was a reasonable, well motivated position you happened to disagree with). I can only imagine if it were 1964 and Barry Goldwater were running for President...

Defend almost anything?  I've criticized the party on their healthcare stance, the filibuster (both sides on that issue), gerrymandering, Pete Hoekstra, exclusion of the libertarian wing of the party, and the stance on Cap-and-Trade, just to name a few.