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

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html?hpid=z5

[© tweed]

on a side-note how hard is it to collect disability for psychiatric reasons in the US?  I have been considering this as a potential career-path.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Rick and Mike can go f*** themselves.  F*** them both.

[Simfan34]

What on earth is wrong with these people? Are they secret Democrat double agents? Why would anyone oppose something like this?? They should be hit with sticks.

[© tweed]

What on earth is wrong with these people? Are they secret Democrat double agents? Why would anyone oppose something like this?? They should be hit with sticks.

because the energy behind the GOP is akin to a fascist hate-group.  the (smart) money will increasingly get scared and back the Democrats... too late?

[memphis]

Nah, just another part of the GOP war on reality. It's a UN conspiracy theory.

[RI]

It's pretty stupid, but his opposition really doesn't have anything to do with disabilities. It has everything to do with home-schooling. Title is exceedingly hyperbolic, to say the least, especially since the treaty would do less than nothing. I suppose that makes his opposition such too, though. Basically it's a lot of screaming and moralizing by both sides about nothing.

[Indy Texas]

What on earth is wrong with these people? Are they secret Democrat double agents? Why would anyone oppose something like this?? They should be hit with sticks.

They're going to keep it up unless their fellow party members (including you) start hitting them with sticks.

The Texas Legislature has had a "Black Helicopter Caucus" for years. I never thought I'd see 36 US Senators oppose what is essentially a non-binding resolution not to mistreat disabled people.

[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...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The most offensive part of this for the black helicopter crowd has to be Article 4 Section 5: "The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions."

If that ain't an attack on our federal system of government as it is currently practiced (much to the irritation of foreign governments when our State governments at times ignore treaties ratified by the Federal government) then I don't know what is.

[Knives]

I don't understand how some people think.

[Franzl]

This could be from the Onion.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Good for them. Those crippled and blind fellows are prominent members of the 47% crowd. They should finally stand up and take personal responsibility for their lives. Not being able to see and walk are not excuses for these moochers. 

[Franzl]

Good for them. Those crippled and blind fellows are prominent members of the 47% crowd. They should finally stand up and take personal responsibility for their lives. Not being able to see and walk are not excuses for these moochers.  

Indeed, we don't need such parasites in real America mooching off the government.

I mean, they could start their own business or something, but what do they do? They play the disabled card and become dependent on government. Is it surprising America is going downhill when people would rather collect welfare checks than work for a living?

[DC Al Fine]

The most offensive part of this for the black helicopter crowd has to be Article 4 Section 5: "The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions."

If that ain't an attack on our federal system of government as it is currently practiced (much to the irritation of foreign governments when our State governments at times ignore treaties ratified by the Federal government) then I don't know what is.

This

I'd also like to point out that I doubt China or Saudi Arabia ratifying these treaties will lead to effective action so the entire exercise is irrelevant.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, learning lessons from the Cameron government, are they?

Though that ought to be 'on disabled people' not 'the disabled', ideally.

[J. J.]

First, I would question the need for the treaty.

Second, I would much rather let a US Court make determinations about what constitutes "reasonable accommodation," that I would an international body. 

[DrScholl]

To put it simply, these people need to constantly have someone to fight against and now the disabled are the target.

[anvi]

Why call for a rejection of the convention outright?  Why not make Senate ratification depend on our attaching reservations and interpretive declarations about provisions of concern onto our ratification, as is standard practice in the UN and as has been done by many countries which have ratified?  Why can't you deal with enforcement concerns that way?

As a disabled person, I find the reasons being given in the story and above for outright rejection annoying.  We shouldn't sign onto any convention if other nations might not live up to the convention's requirements?  International recognition of equal rights to education, access and employment opportunities is "irrelevant"?  Since we're a sovereign nation, we should respect the rights of other sovereign nations to discriminate against disabled people?  Jesus.  

[hopper]

Just when you thought the Republicans would get it as to why they lost in 2012. The Stupid Part of their Party makes its presence felt yet again. The GOP does some stupid things(like this for example) that all they have to blame for the decline of their party brand is themselves.

[J. J.]

Why call for a rejection of the convention outright?  Why not make Senate ratification depend on our attaching reservations and interpretive declarations about provisions of concern onto our ratification, as is standard practice in the UN and as has been done by many countries which have ratified?  Why can't you deal with enforcement concerns that way?

Wouldn't that require a renegotiation of the treaty?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a disabled person, I'm not sure that I agree.  We complain here about a number of things in foreign counties, but should the US or the UN try to force them to change as a matter of international law?  When does it end from being good to being imperialist? 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did anybody even read my post?

[anvi]

Attaching reservations or interpretive declarations does not require a renegotiation of a convention.  Lots of countries decide to ratify conventions or agreements and just attach their reservations to the ratification, declaring that they won't be bound by some certain set of its provisions, but giving credence to the agreement in the main. 

In addition, let's forget disabilities for a moment; when does international recognition of human rights in general pass from being good to being imperialist?  The U.N. is an organization where every nation gets a vote and every nation decides if it wants to ratify an agreement or not, so we're not exactly talking about forcing another unwilling country to buy opium we've grown in a colony or enforcing a foreign education curriculum on somebody.  We're deciding if we think certain standards of humane treatment should be the aspiration of every nation, and agreeing to live up to those standards ourselves.

Our own laws already measure up to most of the provisions of the persons with disabilities convention the U.N. put forward.  So these guys in the Senate are now saying that, because we're a sovereign nation, we don't want to be held to standards on an international stage that we already hold ourselves up to domestically?  What is that?  And, unless I missed something, I don't remember hearing Lee or Santorum complain about this when the convention was circulated for endorsement in the UN in 2006.  So, again, what is this?   

[Maxwell]

*too much*

[Svensson]

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...

Shh. You know how partisans are with facts.