Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20602953



I don't pay much attention to American politics these days, but sometimes something happens that's so stupid even I can't ignore it.

Essentially, a bunch of Senate Republicans saw that the UN was sponsoring this treaty and immediately rejected it on the basis that they believed it would somehow erode American sovereignty:



Yet, the treaty does not have any provisions that would change existing American law, and in fact it's based on the Americans With Disabilities Act that was pushed by George W Bush and signed by Obama.

So yeah...

Disabled people having less freedom than others is a cornerstone of American society.

Maybe they should stop complaining about being disabled and get a f*cking job. Maybe then they won't be so impaired, the lazy crips.

I'm proud of Republicans. They're deciding to not grant themselves any special rights. Most of them were born with degeneration in the white matter of certain parts of their brain associated with learning and feeling empathy. This disability is commonly known as "psychopathy".

Common symptoms of psychopathy include but are not limited to:
-Excelling in business, banking, and politics.
-Theft
-Bed Wetting
-Starting Fires
-Animal Cruelty
-Assault
-Battery
-Sadism
-Vindictiveness
-Egomania
-Superficial Emotions and Empathy
-Rape
-Child Rape
-Murder
-Serial Murder
-Mass Murder
-Genocide
-Democide
-Autodemocide

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm proud of Republicans. They're deciding to not grant themselves any special rights. Most of them were born with degeneration in the white matter of certain parts of their brain associated with learning and feeling empathy. This disability is commonly known as "psychopathy".

Common symptoms of psychopathy include but are not limited to:
-Excelling in business, banking, and politics.
-Theft
-Bed Wetting
-Starting Fires
-Animal Cruelty
-Assault
-Battery
-Sadism
-Vindictiveness
-Egomania
-Superficial Emotions and Empathy
-Rape
-Child Rape
-Murder
-Serial Murder
-Mass Murder
-Genocide
-Democide
-Autodemocide

I wouldn't say thats just republicans. imo thats politicians in general lol

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Maybe they should stop complaining about being disabled and get a f*cking job. Maybe then they won't be so impaired, the lazy crips. Exactly.

This was just another way for disabled people to suck on the government's teat, and take all my tax dollars to trick out their wheelchairs.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I wouldn't say thats just republicans. imo thats politicians in general lol

Yeah, but there's a difference. When it comes to sex for example, Democrats and liberals tend to cheat on their wives, usually in public, and often using national security secrets as pillow talk. Republicans and conservatives on the other hand like to wear diapers in cemeteries and often enjoy ****ing children and running child pornography rings.

soooo what would a Republican-Democrat be like?.....

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
soooo what would a Republican-Democrat be like?..... Republocrat?

Demo-as in not the full version just a level or timer before stopping...sometimes both
Crat-civil rat

Repub-drunks that have enough brain cells left to realize they need more space
lican-they think about anything salty they can lick...anything

i think both are bad but obviously Democrats win

Originally posted by Villelater
Demo-as in not the full version just a level or timer before stopping...sometimes both
Crat-civil rat

Repub-drunks that have enough brain cells left to realize they need more space
lican-they think about anything salty they can lick...anything

i think both are bad but obviously Democrats win In the forest, an elephant lives 4 years, and the donkey lives 9. Ergo Democrats>Republicans.

Lame.

Disabled people, as a fact, cannot be equal to their abled counterparts. There are things they just cannot do that their abled counterparts can. It is utterly stupid to think that there needs to be a special provision to make things equal.


1.Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons.

Stupid. Some disabled people lack the ability to make individual, autonomous decisions. Some of them lack the ability to act independently of abled persons. Throwing a silly blanket statement like this out there just shows that this is more about a "feel-good" message of idiots pandering for votes than it is about actually making meaningful lawful contributions to the civilized world.


2.Non-discrimination

Impossible: they have to be discriminated against as a necessity in some situations. No, paraplegic dude, you cannot take that escalator at the mall. No, quadriplegic gal, you cannot ride that roller-coaster. No, cerebral palsy guy, you cannot go to the gun firing range. No, mentally disabled friend, you cannot sign those legal documents.

"Throwing a silly blanket statement like this out there just shows that this is more about a "feel-good" message of idiots pandering for votes than it is about actually making meaningful lawful contributions to the civilized world."

3.Full and effective participation and inclusion in society.
See point #2.


4.Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
I agree with this but you shouldn't legislate
bullsh*t like this. "I think people should appreciate daisies. Not enough people appreciate daises. Make it a law!" Sure, humans are not daises, but you get the point.

5.Equality of opportunity
See points 1 and 2.

6.Accessibility
That should be up to the business owners, not the law. If a business wants to be an a**hole to a specific group of customers, let them. Do force them to pander their business to specific groups.

7.Equality between men and women
Stupid. Almost irrelevant. Is this implying that women are "disabled" compared to men? It is non sequitur to sneak this bullsh*t into the "treaty".

8.Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities

"Evolving" WTF? Were they trying for an oxymoron? Are they trying to imply their disabilities are getting worse and worse? And, some children with disabilities lack the ability to even comprehend the concept of "identity". This is making my brain hurt. Who wrote this bullsh*t? Someone who has no idea what disabilities are, obviously. A bet a politician wrote this.




Basically, this is just more sensationalist garbage. It makes for a great headline, though. It certainly makes people rally around the "cause" for why the GOP is stupid, right?

Generally speaking, seems like the GOP is at a crossroads. Voter demographics are changing, and adaptation is going to be especially difficult for a party that prides itself on conservatism (oh, the irony). But hopefully, the era of wealthy WASPS in charge is coming to a close.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Respect for inherent dignity . . . Stupid.

Stopped reading there.

Originally posted by Mindship
Generally speaking, seems like the GOP is at a crossroads. Voter demographics are changing, and adaptation is going to be especially difficult for a party that prides itself on conservatism (oh, the irony). But hopefully, the era of wealthy WASPS in charge is coming to a close.
On the flip side, the democratic party may try even less in the future because they'll be more certain that they have a strong bloc of gratis votes that don't need to be wooed.

It's what's already happened with the black and gay votes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Stopped reading there.

Yeah, if that is how you read things, you are probably better suited not reading things. Context is pretty important of which you seem to overlook.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the flip side, the democratic party may try even less in the future because they'll be more certain that they have a strong bloc of gratis votes that don't need to be wooed.

It's what's already happened with the black and gay votes. Given human nature, yeah, I can see some of what you're saying (as it stands, blacks and gays still decisively chose Obama). But still, that's a matter of effort, not fundamental change. The GOP needs to think outside its conservative box; in effect, it's like it has to go against its default nature, not just avoid complacency. Either party can be complacent, but the Dems at least are not stuck in a 1950s time warp.

Originally posted by dadudemon
this is just more sensationalist garbage.

pot, meet kettle

Originally posted by Oliver North
pot, meet kettle

IDGI

the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate.


No, you shut up.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate.

Oh, that is what you meant. You're clearly wrong, of course.

I am open to some education, though. How his this "treaty" Politically Correct?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate. He is a contrarian by nature. If this forum's demographic was primarily conservative, and the majority of the topics were anti-liberal in nature, he would be championing PC.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
He is a contrarian by nature.

That's slightly true. I am not a contrarian: I only argue against stuff that is wrong or clearly lacks perspective.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
If this forum's demographic was primarily conservative, and the majority of the topics were anti-liberal in nature, he would be championing PC.

You cannot pass off my own words as you original idea: that is something I have said of myself. Just take out the "PC" and put in "correct information", and your statement would be a very close paraphrase to what I have said of myself, before. I do it with my Mormon comrades when they get stupid with their conservatardness.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're clearly wrong, of course.


of course

Originally posted by Oliver North
of course
You missed an important question in my post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You missed an important question in my post.

I didn't call it PC, I said your rant seemed like it was written in that tone. That might be my misinterpretation, but, let me try to elaborate:

To the part of the treaty that is intended to fight against discrimination that people with disabilities face, you posted this (you also used this as an answer to most other points, but lets just highlight the discrimination section):

Originally posted by dadudemon
2.Non-discrimination

Impossible: they have to be discriminated against as a necessity in some situations. No, paraplegic dude, you cannot take that escalator at the mall. No, quadriplegic gal, you cannot ride that roller-coaster. No, cerebral palsy guy, you cannot go to the gun firing range. No, mentally disabled friend, you cannot sign those legal documents.

"Throwing a silly blanket statement like this out there just shows that this is more about a "feel-good" message of idiots pandering for votes than it is about actually making meaningful lawful contributions to the civilized world."

Except that is completely irrelevant. It is not discriminating against a person when their disability causes a real limitation. What you have pointed out are limitations, not discrimination. Blind people cannot be lifeguards because of a physical limitation. Blind people face immense discrimination when trying to find employment for jobs they are equally qualified for.

Like, not only did you misinterpret what the point of the section is, you did it in such a way that only highlights the need for its existence. Not only that, some of your examples don't hold up either. With the exception of the roller-coaster, or maybe very severe cases of cerebral palsy, considerations can be made for all of those things to happen. I'm not saying they need be legally mandated, but an escalator could easily be made to accommodate a wheelchair.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Except that is completely irrelevant. It is not discriminating against a person when their disability causes a real limitation. What you have pointed out are limitations, not discrimination. Blind people cannot be lifeguards because of a physical limitation. Blind people face immense discrimination when trying to find employment for jobs they are equally qualified for.

Like, not only did you misinterpret what the point of the section is, you did it in such a way that only highlights the need for its existence. Not only that, some of your examples don't hold up either.

It looks like you do not know what "discriminate" means, even in context. I don't think I believe that about you, however:

"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

Not letting a person in a wheel chair take the escalator is discrimination specifically because of their "category" of disability and lack of ability. Not allowing someone, with debilitating cerebral palsy, to shoot at a firing range is discrimination specifically because of their disability and lack of ability.

Using your words, it is discrimination because of their limitations, and rightly so.


Originally posted by Oliver North
With the exception of the roller-coaster, or maybe very severe cases of cerebral palsy, considerations can be made for all of those things to happen. I'm not saying they need be legally mandated, but an escalator could easily be made to accommodate a wheelchair.

I like it when businesses make those accommodations. However, I do not like it to be forced accommodations. The business should get to chose to make those, not forced. So it would appear we agree that it does not necessarily mean it should be legally mandated. HOORAY!

/sigh

exhibit B)

Originally posted by Oliver North
/sigh

exhibit B)

You're right: discriminating against certain groups of the disabled is not actually discriminating nor is it a good idea to discriminate against them because they need equality in all facets of society. My post was just a knee-jerk reaction to the "Treaty." My bad.

the fact that this is your response to something trying to end discrimination against handicapped people is nonsensical, like you are deliberately trying to be satirical or something

EDIT: Like, if I wanted to mock your position, I'd say something like "now them blind folk wanna be lifeguards! Damn special treatment, they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps... etc", which I don't actually think is very far from what you are saying...

pfft wheelchairs. maybe they should just get up and walk their lazy asses up the stairs like everyone else. more entitlements and special privileges for people who dont deserve them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
6.Accessibility
That should be up to the business owners, not the law. If a business wants to be an a**hole to a specific group of customers, let them. Do force them to pander their business to specific groups.


I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.

But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.

Originally posted by Robtard
I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.

But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.

If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.

Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.

For small enough businesses, I can see giving them some leeway, but I don't have a problem saying that someone who operates a two-story mall has an obligation to make sure there is at least an elevator somewhere.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.

Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.

That's part of why it's still a grey area to me, there should be government assistance for a business owner who is being forced to install handicap assess, imo.

I know of a business who had to spend close to $220,000 to retrofit a ramp and elevator so someone bound to a wheelchair could get inside the building (building is a against a hillside, so this is why it cost so much); that was 3 years ago and to date not a single person has used the ramp/elevator. Granted, this is probably a rare situation with older buildings costing this much to make accessible.

Originally posted by Robtard
know of a business who had to spend close to $220,000 to retrofit a ramp and elevator so someone bound to a wheelchair could get inside the building

see, I agree with you here

it is probably unreasonable to expect any company to be able to foot that type of a bill, given they are under a certain size, and the government should have either step in and assist or relax the requirements.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For small enough businesses, I can see giving them some leeway, but I don't have a problem saying that someone who operates a two-story mall has an obligation to make sure there is at least an elevator somewhere.

WHY DO YOU HATE THE RICH!!!! COMMUNIST SCUM!

Jokes aside, as noted, building a new building with access can be relatively cheap compared to retrofitting a pre handicap law building to conform with new(er) laws.

Originally posted by Robtard
COMMUNIST SCUM!

mother****er

we're not friends anymore

Originally posted by Robtard
Jokes aside, as noted, building a new building with access can be relatively cheap compared to retrofitting a pre handicap law building to conform with new(er) laws.

oh, for sure. and ya, as I said, in the situation of retrofitting old buildings the state should decide on a case by case basis how to deal with it, but unless it is owned by some large business, offer some type of assistance.

Originally posted by Robtard
I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.

But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.

I'm okay with...maybe.....maybe.....forcing mega corporations to have to accommodate the disabled with things such as ramps, guard rails, hand rails, and elevators. But not mid-size to small businesses.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.

Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.

I fully support your post and everything in it. If I knew of a big business that made no secret of being assholes to the disabled, you bet your sweet ass that I'd take my business elsewhere even if it meant paying a bit more.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For small enough businesses, I can see giving them some leeway, but I don't have a problem saying that someone who operates a two-story mall has an obligation to make sure there is at least an elevator somewhere.


Not too sure about the second part. I'd say if the owner owned a very successful franchise of several dozen malls (such as General Growth Properties), maybe then I would think about governments possibly requiring accommodations for the disabled. I would have to hear the arguments against forcing big-business to accommodate the disabled before I solidified my position on that, however.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: Like, if I wanted to mock your position, I'd say something like "now them blind folk wanna be lifeguards! Damn special treatment, they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps... etc", which I don't actually think is very far from what you are saying...


Well, I was with you until you said "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". So, yeah, you took it much too far. It's more like, "That's stupid and absurd to say that a blind person should get to be a lifeguard." I'd stop there.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
pfft wheelchairs. maybe they should just get up and walk their lazy asses up the stairs like everyone else. more entitlements and special privileges for people who dont deserve them.

They also intentionally try to guilt trip you. The way they look at us normals when we walk up stairs, as if we're doing it to be assholes, is only partly true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not too sure about the second part. I'd say if the owner owned a very successful franchise of several dozen malls (such as General Growth Properties), maybe then I would think about governments possibly requiring accommodations for the disabled. I would have to hear the arguments against forcing big-business to accommodate the disabled before I solidified my position on that, however.

just as a point of trivia really, but have you ever worked with or had any prolonged experience with either physically or mentally handicapped people?

EDIT: I mean besides just living in Oklahoma.... zing!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I was with you until you said "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". So, yeah, you took it much too far. It's more like, "That's stupid and absurd to say that a blind person should get to be a lifeguard." I'd stop there.

except, the point is, that is where most people start when dealing with discrimination against the disabled.

like, your response to the issue was to restate that the people are disabled in the first place.

yes, a blind person will never be a lifeguard; no, they should not be subject to discrimination when attempting to find employment they are qualified for. lol, c'mon man...

Originally posted by Oliver North
just as a point of trivia really, but have you ever worked with or had any prolonged experience with either physically or mentally handicapped people?

Answered in PM.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: I mean besides just living in Oklahoma.... zing!

you sunnuva!

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, a blind person will never be a lifeguard; no, they should not be subject to discrimination when attempting to find employment they are qualified for. lol, c'mon man...

That is not the argument made in the treaty. "Do not discriminate against the disabled community for positions that they are qualified to do." is not equal to "Full and effective participation and inclusion in society." and "Non-discrimination".

you're right, clearly they want blind lifeguards

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/300005_222766284522913_1433490976_n.jpg

Originally posted by Oliver North
you're right, clearly they want blind lifeguards

You're right, ignorant, sweeping, borderline insensitive language should have been agreed to by the US Senate. Those evil bastards.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/300005_222766284522913_1433490976_n.jpg

Clearly, Chest is an angry, ignorant, knee-jerking idiot.



Reading through the articles, it seems great and then it has something stupid. IMO, this 'treaty' is another example of something that tries too hard to make too many people happy.

Why can't we find a happy medium like Uganda? World gets in uproar about killing gays? Coolios, we'll just council them and imprison anyone who promotes homosexual agendas.

Compromise makes the world go round.

Originally posted by dadudemon





Clearly, Chest is an angry, ignorant, knee-jerking idiot.

There's a guy I know like that--he has donuts in his sig.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Clearly, Chest is an angry, ignorant, knee-jerking idiot.

Yes, he is.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's a guy I know like that--he has donuts in his sig.

U mad because I didn't fall inline with everyone else in being angry at the GOP for smacking down this treaty? Sorry, I just can't be like you and that Chest guy: I see the treaty as mostly shite meant for improper "feel-good" pandering.

The Republicans shot down the treaty because it was a Democratic Treaty, and they're Republicans.

If there is going to be a bill passed, it must be the Republicans who come up with it. The Democrats don't really care, as long as the world is a better place. Call that pandering, eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that we get more and more rights and continually have less and less to complain about, but complain more and more.

We need to raise the bar.

"James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron."

"James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is...James Cameron."

- South Park, Raising the Bar

Originally posted by Dolos
The Republicans shot down the treaty because it was a Democratic Treaty, and they're Republicans.

If there is going to be a bill passed, it must be the Republicans who come up with it. The Democrats don't really care, as long as the world is a better place. Call that pandering, eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that we get more and more rights and continually have less and less to complain about, but complain more and more.

We need to raise the bar.

"James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron."

"James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is...James Cameron."

- South Park, Raising the Bar


Democrats: paragons of truth, righteousness, and freedom of the American people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Democrats: paragons of truth, righteousness, and freedom of the American people.

I hear they're not afraid of getting head while in office either.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/06/02/billclinton.jpg

Come on now, we beat you guys twice in a row, quit acting like you don't know.

Originally posted by Dolos
I hear they're not afraid of getting head while in office either.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/06/02/billclinton.jpg

Come on now, we beat you guys twice in a row, quit acting like you don't know.


I don't get that second part but I admired Clinton, in school, for getting it on.

Originally posted by Dolos
Come on now, we beat you guys twice in a row, quit acting like you don't know. If I understand this correctly, Repubs are still ahead by 1, ie, beat Dems 3x/row: Reagan, Reagan, Bush I.

Gore 'messed' up. It's up to Hillary in 2016/2020 to tie and defeat.

http://tn.loljam.com/14/upload/post/201211/13/2371/54fc0264c9c940b0fb009e47ff87db0c.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
U mad because I didn't fall inline with everyone else in being angry at the GOP for smacking down this treaty? Sorry, I just can't be like you and that Chest guy: I see the treaty as mostly shite meant for improper "feel-good" pandering.
You sound like a less vitriolic/foul-mouthed Zeal right now.

Originally posted by Mindship
If I understand this correctly, Repubs are still ahead by 1, ie, beat Dems 3x/row: Reagan, Reagan, Bush I.

Gore 'messed' up. It's up to Hillary in 2016/2020 to tie and defeat.

http://tn.loljam.com/14/upload/post/201211/13/2371/54fc0264c9c940b0fb009e47ff87db0c.jpg

You seem to forget Roosevelt, who single handedly beat them with 4x. Truman brought that up to 5x to make this a win for the Democrats.

4x was actually already performed by the Republicans before (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur).

Though, to be fair, that's really all child's play compared to the 7x combo of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams).

Which I believe shows us the power of working together (that's a joke based on the name of their party )

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to forget Roosevelt, who single handedly beat them with 4x. Truman brought that up to 5x to make this a win for the Democrats.

4x was actually already performed by the Republicans before (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur).

Though, to be fair, that's really all child's play compared to the 7x combo of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams).

Which I believe shows us the power of working together (that's a joke based on the name of their party ) Presidential election history was never a real interest of mine, which was why I started with Reagan. Still, shame on me for completely forgetting about FDR.

oh dear my mistake. didnt read what chest said. phew that kid was angry. my bad indeed, that was just intended to show what a deplorable douche-clown santorum is. i sure hope the chest comment didn't rustle any jimmies here.

I say it's perfectly logical to take advice as to the treatment and well being of infirm people from a former senator who sleeps with still born children.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh dear my mistake. didnt read what chest said. phew that kid was angry. my bad indeed, that was just intended to show what a deplorable douche-clown santorum is. i sure hope the chest comment didn't rustle any jimmies here.
Here's a philosophical question: is it possible for an angry idiot to speak truth/make a good point once you comb away the anger and idiocy?

I think it is.

Cut away the second paragraph (which is basically a long insult) and his post isn't that unreasonable.

perhaps i should have ended my post with

oh and i don't think he's an idiot...or wrong...just mad

Originally posted by focus4chumps
perhaps i should have ended my post with

oh and i don't think he's an idiot...or wrong...just mad
Angry, not mad.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sound like a less vitriolic/foul-mouthed Zeal right now.

I have plenty of criticism for the GOP: they are definitely not angels. I just don't get the chance around these parts because everyone is so rabidly opposed to the GOP.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh dear my mistake. didnt read what chest said. phew that kid was angry. my bad indeed, that was just intended to show what a deplorable douche-clown santorum is. i sure hope the chest comment didn't rustle any jimmies here.

I thought Santorum was being an ass, actually. But I thought you posted that for Chest's commentary. My bad.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Angry, not mad.

Well, he did come off a bit psychotic...as though he were about to punch a Republican baby.




About the treaty (gasp! a directly on topic post!):

Undue burden...


What do you peeps think should be the line for requiring accommodations from a business? I think the line should be a business with 1000 or more employees and/or an annual revenue of $500,000,000 or more. At that point, I think a business should be required to have things like ramps into buildings, bigger elevators with accessible buttons, braille on some of the signs, handrails meant for accommodating the disabled, and alternative methods of delivering company information (training in audio form, video form, instead of just writing, for example).


Is that reasonable? Did I set the bar too high? Do I need to reconsider and say...make smaller businesses get down on some of this?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
perhaps i should have ended my post with

oh and i don't think he's an idiot...or wrong...just mad
Being unable to express yourself without lots of profanity and obvious personal attacks is a symptom of stupidity, or at least of a lack of self control.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Being unable to express yourself without lots of profanity and obvious personal attacks is a symptom of stupidity, or at least of a lack of self control.

I politely disagree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I politely disagree.


Fine, then. I impolitely disagree you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fine, then. I impolitely disagree you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Ha, I applaud you!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I politely disagree.
pQSceJJ1Clc

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Being unable to express yourself without lots of profanity and obvious personal attacks is a symptom of stupidity, or at least of a lack of self control. You're a bit elitist for a... writing major.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You're a bit elitist for a... writing major.
Do I have to call you *****, too? uhuh