Once again, conservatives show their true color...

[animalius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us...es-treaty.html

Even Mccain and Bob Dole couldn't sway the tea party dominated republican party.

Good grief...

[frankfrank]

This is helping to ensure that the Republican Party, which is now DEAD TO ME, will forever remain so.

What an incredible collection of shitheads entirely beholden to the Tea Party, the ultra-rich, and to Grover Nordquist, while ignoring their constituencies. Please, just die out already.

[star-warrior]

Keeping it classy, I see.

[Jack Springer]

What was the purpose of this treaty if we already have the ADA?

Sounds like political posturing to me.

[JayHawk]

The purpose of the treaty was to push the ADA type provisions in other nations around the world... remember that part where you were so dismayed that America doesn't lead anymore? Now you know which party prevents us from taking leadership stances in the world.

[Lestatnj]

What was the purpose of this treaty if we already have the ADA?

Sounds like political posturing to me.

The UN Treaty is BASED on the US Disability Act signed by Bush I. Basically, the UN took our Law & created a world wide law, it's flattering. How stupid of these heartless idiots not to ratify it. They actually walked past Dole in his WHEELCHAIR to vote NO. Elizabeth should have slapped each one as they went past her.

Some of the GOPpers were "afraid" that the UN would have a "say" on the homeschooling of disabled kids in the US, even though that was explained to them as UNTRUE.

Do you ever disagree with ANYTHING the GOP stupids say or do?

[T-Rexx]

Since Republicans voted against banning discrimination of people with disabilities, I can only assume that Republicans favor discrimination against the handicapped.

That party has some serious problems.

[xbuzzerx]

Since Republicans voted against banning discrimination of people with disabilities, I can only assume that Republicans favor discrimination against the handicapped.

That party has some serious problems.

Republicans wave away the need for any special protections for any discriminated against group on the basis that it's all technically covered under equal protections, no matter how much evidence you can bring to bear that it's insufficient to actually translate into equal protections for anyone not striaght, white and male.

[Just_Believe18]

The purpose of the treaty was to push the ADA type provisions in other nations around the world... remember that part where you were so dismayed that America doesn't lead anymore? Now you know which party prevents us from taking leadership stances in the world.

Quoted for truth.

I hope you read that response to your question, Jack_Springer. The approval of the treaty was more symbolic of the United States setting a model example of how we treat disabled people in our country so that other countries would be influenced to do the same.

[Jack Springer]

I'm not an expert on the ADA or the UN version ... and I doubt any of you guys are either.

Therefore, I asked the question -- why have a treaty when we already have a US law that protects our citizens?

If the purpose is to push "US style laws" then who are interested those countries can talk to the US -- they don't need the UN telling them what they can do. If you see the UN treaty as a forceable treaty then -- you just proved my belief that the UN wants to create laws going beyond the laws of individual countries.

Symbolic reasonings? The world can look our law and see how we treat disabled citizens. If you're a world traveler, you'd understand that the USA goes out of it's way to make disabled people comfortable.

Here's a link to an article written a person who has a child that is disabled. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-parents.html

[Just_Believe18]

I'm not an expert on the ADA or the UN version ... and I doubt any of you guys are either.

Therefore, I asked the question -- why have a treaty when we already have a US law that protects our citizens?

If the purpose is to push "US style laws" then who are interested those countries can talk to the US -- they don't need the UN telling them what they can do. If you see the UN treaty as a forceable treaty then -- you just proved my belief that the UN wants to create laws going beyond the laws of individual countries.

Symbolic reasonings? The world can look our law and see how we treat disabled citizens. If you're a world traveler, you'd understand that the USA goes out of it's way to make disabled people comfortable.

Here's a link to an article written a person who has a child that is disabled. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-parents.html

Because this treaty is based off of the Americans with Disabilities Act that we passed decades ago. This is a U.N. affirmation of the ideals and principles our laws hold onto. As a separate treaty, that 126 countries have signed onto, it is a public, international embarrassment for the United States to not ratify a treaty that respects the rights and dignities of disabled people. When you're talking about a nation showing leadership, this is a prime example of how Republican obstructionism kept the United States from leading the world.

To compare, it would be like Greece rejecting a U.N. treaty that supports democracy even though they historically shaped the concept of democracy. The same thing here. We set the standards and models of how disabled people should be treated for the rest of the world, and thanks to Republicans, we just rejected our own beliefs.


Your link is a joke by the way. It's not just any "person," or American Joe. It's Rick Santorum, one of the most reviled and repulsive politicians in the United States. There's not a man in this forum who would respect Santorum's opinion on anything he had to say, so why you're citing him as a source is beyond me.

[TX-Beau]

....why you're citing him as a source is beyond me...

Because him and those like him are the only people petty vindictive, and cruel enough to lie and fuck over the handicapped.

- - - Updated - - -

OH an Yeah, ANOTHER DEMO PUSHED OUT OF THE BIG TENT!

How are the disabled likely to vote in the future?

[Lestatnj]

Gee, quoting World News Daily's latest nutjob Santorum really gives credibility to an argument. Next you'll be quoting him on birth control & gay rights.

[vulgar_newcomer]

What was the purpose of this treaty if we already have the ADA?

Sounds like political posturing to me.

imagine that you defending and/or trying to find away to defend these shit lickers

[Jack Springer]

Santorum has a child with a disability -- do you? He and his wife are concerned about the future of their child.

No one has yet given a reason why this treaty is important to the people of the United States.

I'm impressed that you looked at the link ... I appreciate that.

Because this treaty is based off of the Americans with Disabilities Act that we passed decades ago. This is a U.N. affirmation of the ideals and principles our laws hold onto. As a separate treaty, that 126 countries have signed onto, it is a public, international embarrassment for the United States to not ratify a treaty that respects the rights and dignities of disabled people. When you're talking about a nation showing leadership, this is a prime example of how Republican obstructionism kept the United States from leading the world.

To compare, it would be like Greece rejecting a U.N. treaty that supports democracy even though they historically shaped the concept of democracy. The same thing here. We set the standards and models of how disabled people should be treated for the rest of the world, and thanks to Republicans, we just rejected our own beliefs.


Your link is a joke by the way. It's not just any "person," or American Joe. It's Rick Santorum, one of the most reviled and repulsive politicians in the United States. There's not a man in this forum who would respect Santorum's opinion on anything he had to say, so why you're citing him as a source is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -

Gee, quoting World News Daily's latest nutjob Santorum really gives credibility to an argument. Next you'll be quoting him on birth control & gay rights.

The article was from the DB.

At least we know you didn't read it.

[TX-Beau]

Santorum has a child with a disability -- do you? He and his wife are concerned about the future of their child.

No one has yet given a reason why this treaty is important to the people of the United States.

LOL that just makes him look like a liar AND an asshole.

Why would people go out of their way to provide you with "reasons," what would be the point?

[TX-Beau]

You want reasons, go look at someone besides the right wing fantasy factory.

[JayHawk]

What is important to remember is that it only failed by five votes. Reid promised to put it on the floor in January again when the good side will have five more votes. Fuck the retards. Wait that was insensitive.... fuck the republicans....

[Ninja108]

SOrry,there is nothing from World Net Daily that can be considered valid.

[palemale]

Republicans wave away the need for any special protections for any discriminated against group on the basis that it's all technically covered under equal protections, no matter how much evidence you can bring to bear that it's insufficient to actually translate into equal protections for anyone not striaght, white and male.

The Equal Protection Clause is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The Republicans always seem to forget Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which says:

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[palemale]

I'm not an expert on the ADA or the UN version ... and I doubt any of you guys are either.

Therefore, I asked the question -- why have a treaty when we already have a US law that protects our citizens?

If the purpose is to push "US style laws" then who are interested those countries can talk to the US -- they don't need the UN telling them what they can do. If you see the UN treaty as a forceable treaty then -- you just proved my belief that the UN wants to create laws going beyond the laws of individual countries.

Symbolic reasonings? The world can look our law and see how we treat disabled citizens. If you're a world traveler, you'd understand that the USA goes out of it's way to make disabled people comfortable.

Here's a link to an article written a person who has a child that is disabled. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-parents.html

For one thing, this treaty, like most, does not take affect until a specific number of countries have ratified it. It also establishes a committee that carries out the functions of the convention. After another specified number of countries have ratified the convention, the committee is enlarged. It appears that both of those thresholds have been exceeded. There are, thankfully, a lot more countries governed by political parties that are more civilized than the Republican Party. It would have been an important display of American leadership if this country had ratified the convention early.

Also, the United States can not have representatives on the committee until it ratifies it. This may come as a shock to you, but Americans with disabilities travel abroad. Do you not think it important for our government to take steps that would benefit American citizens traveling abroad?

Typical Republican hypocrisy. They oppose abortion, believing every fetus should be born. Yet, they will do nothing that will enable everyone who is born to realize their full potential in life.

[HenryReardon]

Yet, they will do nothing that will enable everyone who is born to realize their full potential in life.

Actually our constitution already guarantees that for All Americans, so there is no need for any further action.

If you seriously believe that this treaty will make one iota of difference in much of the world, you are seriously deluded.
Congress should be deeply suspicious of anything that comes out of the UN.

[xbuzzerx]

Actually our constitution already guarantees that for All Americans, so there is no need for any further action.

If you seriously believe that this treaty will make one iota of difference in much of the world, you are seriously deluded.
Congress should be deeply suspicious of anything that comes out of the UN.

I have never understood this automatic mindset (and you would be saying this REGARDLESS of the issue coming out of the U.N.) other than to conclude it comes from a reactionary mindset that believes authority, leadership or change emanating from utterly anywhere other than the U.S. should be inherently opposed.

[HenryReardon]

a reactionary mindset that believes authority, leadership or change emanating from utterly anywhere other than the U.S. should be inherently opposed.

It's hardly reactionary. The US is an independent country and, as such, should not recognize any authority coming from outside its borders.

[Kulindahr]

I rely on provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act almost daily. I'd say that gives me a different and more pointed perspective here.

Republicans want America to be a world leader. So let's ask what sort of leadership we just provided.

The Senate failed to ratify a treaty that was written to take US law and apply it to the world. That announces, "We really don't like or own law", or "We don't consider the rest of you to be equal to us, so you're not deserving of the same protections".

As I understand that treaty, it would have guaranteed that if I were to travel abroad, the same protections I have here would be guaranteed elsewhere. The US could have used the treaty to make sure that I, as a US citizen, had those protections because the world had followed the US lead and guaranteed them. But the Senate vote told the world we really don't believe in our own principles, and aren't interested in leading... thank you very much.


Every service dog that encounters any of the Republicans who voted against this should lift a leg and give a uniquely canine salute.

[Kulindahr]

It's hardly reactionary. The US is an independent country and, as such, should not recognize any authority coming from outside its borders.

Odd position, that, considering the Constitution disagrees with you by providing for recognizing the authority of treaties.

[chrisrobin]

It's hardly reactionary. The US is an independent country and, as such, should not recognize any authority coming from outside its borders.

...such as Internatiional Human Rights law or the provisions as stipulated in the Geneva Convention.

[palemale]

Actually our constitution already guarantees that for All Americans, so there is no need for any further action.

See my post #27 above. If the drafters of the 14th Amendment believed that amendment provided all the necessary protections, why did they give power to Congress to enforce the amendment with appropriate legislation. By your logic, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Title VII, etc, were all unnecessary.

[Lestatnj]

Santorum has a child with a disability -- do you? He and his wife are concerned about the future of their child.

No one has yet given a reason why this treaty is important to the people of the United States.

I'm impressed that you looked at the link ... I appreciate that.



- - - Updated - - -



The article was from the DB.

At least we know you didn't read it.

Why would I want to read ANYTHING by Santorum, when I know it's BS.....AGAIN, those "fears" of homschoolers were showed by various senators, both Rep & Dem to be unfounded.

Hopefully Reid will do as he says & reintroduce this in Jan

[Kulindahr]

I wonder if Jack would go for a Senate vote which attached to the treaty a definition of disabilities lifted from US law, along with an affirmation of the rights of parents?

[HenryReardon]

See my post #27 above. If the drafters of the 14th Amendment believed that amendment provided all the necessary protections, why did they give power to Congress to enforce the amendment with appropriate legislation. By your logic, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Title VII, etc, were all unnecessary.

Most of them were.

[HenryReardon]

Odd position, that, considering the Constitution disagrees with you by providing for recognizing the authority of treaties.

A treaty is an agreement to do or not to do certain things. It is hardly a transferrence of power.

[xbuzzerx]

Most of them were.

Let me guess. White?

A treaty is an agreement to do or not to do certain things. It is hardly a transferrence of power.

Oh please of course it can be. How do you think we have military presence or bases on the land of other countries? By treaty. Treaties can establish shared jurisdiction for laws, military responsibilities, whatever else.

[Kulindahr]

Most of them were.

Seems you think you know better than those who wrote and passed that piece of the Constitution.

[Kulindahr]

A treaty is an agreement to do or not to do certain things. It is hardly a transferrence of power.

Then you should have no objection to the Senate ratifying this one.

[HenryReardon]

Then you should have no objection to the Senate ratifying this one.

Why should the Senate waste its time on what is essentially feel good" legislation?
It won't accomplish anthing, nor will it change anything.

[xbuzzerx]

Why should the Senate waste its time on what is essentially feel good" legislation?
It won't accomplish anthing, nor will it change anything.

It won't or you're fundamentally opposed to the possibility of international treaties/laws changing anything?

Sounds more like the latter.

[HenryReardon]

It won't or you're fundamentally opposed to the possibility of international treaties/laws changing anything?

.

I'm opposed to the US agreeing to anything that emerges from the UN. In fact, I would prefer that we get out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US.

[xbuzzerx]

I'm opposed to the US agreeing to anything that emerges from the UN. In fact, I would prefer that we get out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US.

Then drop the facade of you're against it because of waste/won't work/blah blah.

Just say what you really mean so that those of us who actually want to discuss the content aren't being derailed by someone pretending their opposition to it is a made-up swammy projection of its potential effects when it's really not what you're opposed to.

[HenryReardon]

Then drop the facade of you're against it because of waste/won't work/blah blah.

Just say what you really mean so that those of us who actually want to discuss the content aren't being derailed by someone pretending their opposition to it is a made-up swammy projection of its potential effects when it's really not what you're opposed to.

It happens to be a wast of effort. Feel good legislation always is. Politicians, expecially liberals, pass a useless bill and pat themselves on the back saying that they've thereby solved the problem.

[xbuzzerx]

It happens to be a wast of effort. Feel good legislation always is. Politicians, expecially liberals, pass a useless bill and pat themselves on the back saying that they've thereby solved the problem.

That's your opinion. We actually have someone in this thread who has mentioned how it would affect them personally.

[Just_Believe18]

Actually our constitution already guarantees that for All Americans, so there is no need for any further action.

If you seriously believe that this treaty will make one iota of difference in much of the world, you are seriously deluded.
Congress should be deeply suspicious of anything that comes out of the UN.

It's hardly reactionary. The US is an independent country and, as such, should not recognize any authority coming from outside its borders.

Talk about a low-information voter. It takes you just 1-2 minutes of research on the Internet. Can you please make the effort to inform yourself before you post something as ridiculous and wildly inaccurate as this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tates_treaties
1900–1949
1900 - Treaty between Spain and the United States for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines. Concluded November 7, 1900; ratification advised by Senate January 22, 1901 .. ratified by the President January 30, 1901; ratifications exchanged March 23, 1901; proclaimed March 23, 1901.
1901 – Hay-Pauncefote Treaty – nullified Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in exchange for free access to build a canal across Central America
1901 – Boxer Protocol AKA Treaty of 1901, Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China – one of the Unequal Treaties with China
1902 – Naturalization Convention – with Haiti
1903 – Hay-Herran Treaty – the U.S. attempt to acquire a lease on Panama from Colombia (not ratified by Colombia)
1903 – Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty – establishes the Panama Canal Zone
1905 – Treaty of Portsmouth – ends Russo-Japanese War; negotiated by Theodore Roosevelt
1905 – Taft-Katsura Agreement – Japan and U.S. agree on spheres of influence in Asia
1906 – Second Geneva Convention – treatment of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea
1906 – Inter-American Convention Establishing the Status of Naturalized Citizens Who Again Take Up Residence in the Country of Their Origin
1907 – Gentlemen's Agreement – limiting Japanese immigration to the U.S.
1907 – Naturalization Convention – with Peru
1908 – Naturalization Convention – with Portugal
1908 – Naturalization Convention – with El Salvador
1908 – Naturalization Convention – with Honduras
1908 – Naturalization Convention – with Nicaragua
1908 – Naturalization Convention – with Uruguay
1909 – Boundary Waters Treaty – regulates water quantity and water quality along the boundary between Canada and the United States.
1911 – Naturalization Convention – with Costa Rica
1911 – North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 – first international treaty for wildlife preservation
1912 – International Opium Convention – first international drug control treaty
1916 – Treaty of the Danish West Indies – U.S. purchase of the Danish West Indies, renaming them the United States Virgin Islands
1916 – Migratory Bird Treaty - Environment treaty with the United Kingdom representing Canada, to protect birds which migrate between Canada and the U.S.[5]
1917 – Lansing-Ishii Agreement – trade treaty between the U.S. and Japan
1918 – Migratory Bird Treaty - Environment treaty with the United Kingdom representing Canada, to protect birds which migrate between Canada and the U.S.
1919 – Treaty of Saint-Germain – ends World War I between Allies and Austria (not ratified by U.S.)
1919 – Treaty of Versailles – ends World War I between Allies and Germany (not ratified by U.S.)
1920 – Treaty of Trianon – regulates the borders of Hungary (not ratified by U.S.)
1921 - United States Peace Treaty with Austria[6] – separate World War I peace agreement between United States and Austria
1921 – Treaty of Berlin – separate World War I peace agreement between United States and Germany
1921 - United States Peace Treaty with Hungary[7] – separate World War I peace agreement between United States and Hungary
1922 – Washington Naval Treaty – limits the naval armaments race, supplement to restrict submarine warfare and ban chemical warfare was rejected by France.
1923 – Treaty of Lausanne – sets the boundaries of modern Turkey
1925 - Anglo-American Convention - American acceptance of the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine and supervision of British performance as mandatory of the Mandate for Palestine.
1928 – Kellogg-Briand Pact – calls "for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy"
1929 – Third Geneva Convention – establishes rules for the treatment of prisoners of war
1930 – London Naval Treaty – regulates submarine warfare and shipbuilding
1930 - Convention Between the United States and Great Britain – Definitely delimits the boundary between North Borneo (then a British protectorate) and the Philippine archipelago (then a U.S. Territory)
1934 – Treaty of Relations – agreements between United States and Cuba [8] s:United States - Cuban Agreements and Treaty of 1934
1937 – Treaty Defining Liability for Military Service, etc. – with Lithuania
1941 – Atlantic Charter – World War II allied agreement (not clear if this is a treaty or, if so, whether ratified)
1944 – Bretton Woods Agreement – establishes the rules for commercial and financial relations among the major industrial states
1945 – Potsdam Agreement – World War II allied agreement (not clear if this is a treaty or, if so, whether ratified)
1945 – UN Charter – establishes the United Nations
1946 – Bermuda Agreement – bilateral treaty on Civil Aviation between U.S. and United Kingdom
1946 – Treaty of Manila (1946) – United States recognizes independence of the Republic of the Philippines
1947 – General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – establishes rules for international trade
1947 – Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 – establishes peace in Europe after World War II
1947 – Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) – Western Hemisphere mutual defense
1947 – Convention on International Civil Aviation AKA Chicago Convention – establishes International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
1949 – North Atlantic Treaty (Treaty of Washington) – establishes NATO mutual defense organization
1949 – Fourth Geneva Convention – establishes rules for the protection of civilians during times of war
[edit]1950–1999
1951 – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – (with U.S. qualifications)
1951 – Treaty of San Francisco – a peace treaty between the Allied powers and Japan; ends the Pacific conflict of World War II
1951 – Mutual Defense Treaty – between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
1951 – Treaty of Security between the United States and Japan (updated 1960)
1952 – ANZUS Treaty – mutual defense alliance between Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.
1953 – Mutual Defense Treaty – Created an alliance with South Korea, and established the basis of South Korean adherence with U.S. Government consulations on North Korean policy
1954 – U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement
1954 – Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty – creates SEATO mutual defense organization
1954 - Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty
1955 – Central Treaty Organization AKA CENTO, the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), Baghdad Pact – creates CENTO mutual defense organization
1955 – The Open Skies Treaty – allow access to other nations' military activities by means of aerial surveillance flights
1956 – Dutch-American Friendship Treaty
1957 – International Atomic Energy Treaty (US PL 85-177)
1958 – 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement – with United Kingdom
1960 – Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan – mutual defense treaty with Japan
1961 – Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (US PL 87-297)
1961 – Antarctic Treaty – governs international relations in Antarctica
1961 – Columbia River Treaty (ratified in 1964) – with Canada to manage water in the Columbia River valley
1961 – Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
1961 – Alliance for Progress
1961 – Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
1962 – Nassau agreement – defense treaty with United Kingdom
1963 – Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
1963 – Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage
1963 – Partial Test Ban Treaty
1966 – U.S.–Thai Treaty of Amity – commercial treaty with the Kingdom of Thailand
1967 – Outer Space Treaty
1968 – Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
1969 – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
1970 – Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
1970 – Boundary Treaty of 1970 – settles U.S. – Mexico border on Rio Grande
1971 – Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms
1971 – Convention on Psychotropic Substances
1972 – Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty AKA ABM Treaty (U.S. withdrew in 2002)
1972 – SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty)
1972 – Biological Weapons Convention
1972 – Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) (implemented by U.S., but not signed)
1972 – Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement – regulates water quality along the U.S.-Canadian border
1973 – Paris Peace Accords – with North Vietnam ending the Vietnam War
1974 – Threshold Test Ban Treaty
1977 – Torrijos-Carter Treaties – transfer of Panama Canal to Panama
1978 – Camp David Accords – between Israel and Egypt; negotiated and signed in U.S.
1978 – Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1978) – regulates water quality along the U.S.-Canadian border
1979 – SALT II (not ratified by U.S.)
1985 – Plaza Accord – G-5 agreed to devalue the US dollar in relation to the Japanese yen and German Deutsche Mark by intervening in currency markets
1986 – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations
1988 – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) – with U.S. and USSR
1988 – United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
1988 – United Nations Convention Against Torture
1989 – Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
1990 – Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany – final World War II peace with Germany and Allies
1991 – Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe - Signed by all 16 NATO members and Warsaw Pact nations; ratified by all 16 NATO states, the eight successor states to the USSR that have territory in Europe, and the six former Warsaw Pact nations
1991 – START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) – with US and USSR
1992 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified with qualifications by U.S. Senate)
1992 – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
1993 – Oslo Accords – between PLO and Israel; negotiated with U.S. involvement
1993 – Chemical Weapons Convention
1993 – START II (ratified by U.S. and Russia)
1994 – North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
1994 – Kremlin accords – US and USSR missile and nuclear weapons control
1994 – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea AKA Law of the Sea, LOS (not ratified by U.S.)
1994 – Colorado river dispute – with Mexico on water quality and quantity
1995 – Dayton Agreement – ends war and determines the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina; negotiated and signed in U.S.
1995 – General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
1996 – WIPO Copyright Treaty – protects computer programs and databases
1996 – WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
1996 – Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (signed but not ratified by U.S.)
1997 – Worldwide Chemical Weapons Convention
1998 – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("unsigned" by the U.S.)
[edit]2000–current
2000 – Patent Law Treaty (PLT) – (not ratified by U.S.)
2001 – Convention on Cybercrime – a highly controversial proposal (U.S. Senate ratified August 2006 [9])
2002 – SORT (Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty) AKA Moscow Treaty – limits the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the U.S.
2004 – International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture AKA "International Seed Treaty" – to assure farmers' access to seeds of the world's food security crops (not ratified by U.S.)
2005 – Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement
2010 – New START (The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) U.S./Russia Treaty – limits the nuclear arsenal capabilities of Russia and the U.S. while allowing for inspection.

[MisterB]

Maybe the "feel good legislation" doesn't affect you directly, but I bet it just might affect some folks you know. I pay a lot of property taxes to live in Northern Virginia. I don't have children, yet I routinely vote for bond initiatives relating to education, parks, recreation, roads, infrastructure, etc.

Why? Because i have neighbors with children who benefit from these initiatives; it's for the greater good.

That's why I just don't understand the opposition to this. It will be interesting to see where these republicans go from here on this and the so many other issues that cost them the Presidency last month.

[palemale]

I'm opposed to the US agreeing to anything that emerges from the UN. In fact, I would prefer that we get out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US.

After WW I, isolationists torpedoed American membership in the League of Nations, perhaps dooming its viability. How well did that turn out?

Why would you want the USA to get out of the UN? How would that make the world a better place?

[cgymike]

^The UN is a fucken useless organisation anyway. Why anyone would want to be a member is beyond me. Feckless is the word that comes to mind. No wonder Iran likes to use them as a pulpit. What a joke. Their HQ building is falling apart too...kinda symbolic dontya think?

[opinterph]

Their HQ building is falling apart too...kinda symbolic dontya think?

Maybe it could use a facelift.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/120309959

[palemale]

Maybe it could use a facelift.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/120309959

The building got severely damaged by the storm surge from Hurricane Sandy.

[palemale]

^The UN is a fucken useless organisation anyway. Why anyone would want to be a member is beyond me. Feckless is the word that comes to mind. No wonder Iran likes to use them as a pulpit. What a joke. Their HQ building is falling apart too...kinda symbolic dontya think?

Can you explain why you think it is useless?

[frankfrank]

I wonder if Jack would go for a Senate vote which attached to the treaty a definition of disabilities lifted from US law, along with an affirmation of the rights of parents?

He would probably go for a YEA Senate vote on it, if it included provisions that the federal ADA was repealed - leaving the United States only defending rights of the handicapped BY SUGGESTION. I understand the treaty would give the UN no enforcement powers and, with ADA gone, there would also be no legal requirement within U.S. borders to enforce such things either.

Why should the Senate waste its time on what is essentially feel good" legislation?
It won't accomplish anthing, nor will it change anything.

Where were you guys when Boehner's HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES was spending interminable amounts of time threatening to completely shut the government down if there was not complete removal of the small amounts of funding that PBS and Planned Parenthood get? That was far more wasteful than this thing in front of the Senate.

Didn't the Senate ALREADY waste the **same amount** of time by vetoing the ratification, as they would have spent by instead passing it?

I'm opposed to the US agreeing to anything that emerges from the UN. In fact, I would prefer that we get out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US.

WARNING!! WARNING!!! THE BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE COMING!! They're gonna land right in yo' neighbor's yard and investigate to make sure that their daughter, who they're home schooling, is indeed in a home with wheelchair ramps, handicap-equipped bathrooms, and an elevator. If not, that SAME You-Knighted Nayshuns is gonna kidnap their daughter and take her to a secret U. N. education camp somewhere in the Atlas Mountains.

[Kulindahr]

Why should the Senate waste its time on what is essentially feel good" legislation?
It won't accomplish anthing, nor will it change anything.

At the very least it will give the US moral leverage 'against' nations who vote for it but then don't follow it.

If it were up to me, the Senate would ratify, and then the US would introduce a measure in the UN to sanction any member that voted for it but doesn't live up to it -- like, by suspending their voting privilege.