Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He just pissed off a lot of people in this country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/

Let's just hope that the people elected to Congressional seats have more than half a brain and vote this gak down.

I'm really starting to look at congress..both the House and Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, IRS, DHS, DoE, EPA, and a few other Dept. as comedy gold lately. Its like they going against the will of the people or claiming to know what best is for the "people". Its like watching all play Whack o Mole with everyone hitting on the same board. Not to start a damn bash session but the only ones in public office that are abiding by the people are the damn Tea Party reps. Before someone get on a damn high horse about the Tea Party. Step out the box and look at from another view.

Will never be ratified by the Senate...

No worries...

This is a joke right?

When has ANYTHING the UN done actually meant something?

The domestic impact of this treaty is utterly nonexistent. Unlike the ACA, this is only 17 pages and you should read it if you want to know what is in it before you get all worked up.

It doesn't matter whether we sign it since it has to be ratified by 50 member states (which is quite a ways off), and it seems unlikely our own country will ratify it anyway so, misguided and irrelevant at best.

Although we should ratify it. Our status as either the worlds largest arms dealer isn't exactly something to be proud of, IMO. As much as we scream about weapons of mass destruction, those don't really get used much if ever; but the small arms we export get used every day. As the Syria thread pointed out, what - 1200? people were killed with Sarin, but about 10 times that number were killed with bullets*.

*and yes, in Syria specifically, the majority were Russian bullets, but I think it was still a good general analogy for our selective distaste

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm really starting to look at congress..both the House and Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, IRS, DHS, DoE, EPA, and a few other Dept. as comedy gold lately. Its like they going against the will of the people or claiming to know what best is for the "people". Its like watching all play Whack o Mole with everyone hitting on the same board. Not to start a damn bash session but the only ones in public office that are abiding by the people are the damn Tea Party reps. Before someone get on a damn high horse about the Tea Party. Step out the box and look at from another view.

Obamacare, Syria, this nonsense...the list goes on and on. Typical "do as I say, don't do as I do" high horse liberalism. And the useful idiots who vote these people into power are the ones who get screwed the hardest. I guess they get what they deserve for expecting handouts and being so easily swayed by communist rhetoric.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm really starting to look at congress..both the House and Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, IRS, DHS, DoE, EPA, and a few other Dept. as comedy gold lately. Its like they going against the will of the people or claiming to know what best is for the "people". Its like watching all play Whack o Mole with everyone hitting on the same board. Not to start a damn bash session but the only ones in public office that are abiding by the people are the damn Tea Party reps. Before someone get on a damn high horse about the Tea Party. Step out the box and look at from another view.

Obamacare, Syria, this nonsense...the list goes on and on. Typical "do as I say, don't do as I do" high horse liberalism. And the useful idiots who vote these people into power are the ones who get screwed the hardest. I guess they get what they deserve for expecting handouts and being so easily swayed by communist rhetoric.

Like how they wanted to be exempt from the new healthcare laws

Careful Ouze. The US didn't sign the Anti Land Mine Treaty. I just hate it when time and effort is wasted on something we all know is not going to happen. I can see why we shouldn't sign it due to it being a "launch point" (possible) to implement laws that might go against the 2nd Amendment. UN resolutions should not be signed if it conflicts with our Constitution.

Edit

That's another negative for me. If the ACA was/is so damn great why are they trying to bail from it. What has me worried now as the perception that businesses are dumping their Healthcare for retiree's into the Obamacare fold. Makes me wonder when they were pounding this ACA act did they thought of that.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm really starting to look at congress..both the House and Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, IRS, DHS, DoE, EPA, and a few other Dept. as comedy gold lately. Its like they going against the will of the people or claiming to know what best is for the "people". Its like watching all play Whack o Mole with everyone hitting on the same board. Not to start a damn bash session but the only ones in public office that are abiding by the people are the damn Tea Party reps. Before someone get on a damn high horse about the Tea Party. Step out the box and look at from another view.

Obamacare, Syria, this nonsense...the list goes on and on. Typical "do as I say, don't do as I do" high horse liberalism. And the useful idiots who vote these people into power are the ones who get screwed the hardest. I guess they get what they deserve for expecting handouts and being so easily swayed by communist rhetoric.

In this thread, we argue that our current elected officials don't represent the will of the people while simultaneously bemoaning the fact that a plurality of useful idiots voters voted these politicians into office via free and fair elections, predicated upon pre-election platforms resembling pretty closely how they governed once elected.

I don't want to interrupt you guys, like, staring into each others eyes like Iceman and Maverick, all close to each other, while you keep muttering all quietly "truly, Obama is history's greatest monster"; but as someone who enjoys pointing out imperfections in public discourse I feel obliged, nay, compelled to mention that your positions do not dovetail as nicely as you seem to think they do.

 Jihadin wrote:
Careful Ouze. The US didn't sign the Anti Land Mine Treaty. I just hate it when time and effort is wasted on something we all know is not going to happen. I can see why we shouldn't sign it due to it being a "launch point" (possible) to implement laws that might go against the 2nd Amendment. UN resolutions should not be signed if it conflicts with our Constitution.

I don't think "well, while there isn't any problem with this legislation, but it might in the future inspire some unrelated problematic legislation" is a good stance to consider lawmaking from. You could toss out just about any legislation based on that stance. Deal with legislation as it occurs on it's own merits.

There are some cites here you may find useful.

And I do agree with us refusing to sign the landmine ban, for what it's worth. While I think the limitations of the specifics of how we wage warfare is totally a political decision, in this particular case it doesn't seem to me to be a good one: we don't know what future battlefields will require and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.

 Ouze wrote:

n this thread, we argue that our current elected officials don't represent the will of the people while simultaneously bemoaning the fact that a plurality of useful idiots voters voted these politicians into office via free and fair elections, predicated upon pre-election platforms resembling pretty closely how they governed once elected.

I don't want to interrupt you guys, like, staring into each others eyes like Iceman and Maverick, all close to each other, while you keep muttering all quietly "truly, Obama is history's greatest monster"; but as someone who enjoys pointing out imperfections in public discourse I feel obliged, nay, compelled to mention that your positions do not dovetail as nicely as you seem to think they do.

What is that? Is that sense you're speaking? Sir, I believe you're in the wrong place at the moment. The "Liberal's Club for Ruining America" is over there ----->

Don't go over there Ouze. I have cookies here and a great selection of beers here in the "Common Sense" faction. We eventually shall rise up and gather around to rock this place to ground, burn it up and burn it down we're going to rock this place to the ground....---stuck on loop<---

The "common sense" faction is well balanced, but no one wants to play it because all the other ones have way better DPS :(

We have the Colt that was made by Samuel Colt. Not only does it works great against Demons/daemons but quite effective on the human leeches we call politicians 8)

I don't think its particularly good policy for the executive to go about agreeing to treaties that it knows won't get ratified back home. That just makes government look weak, and unable to be dealt with.

But compared to the bundle of out and out political insanity that got unleashed in this thread, I think that's a fairly minor issue. Seriously, when any political thread can end up with at least one ultra-conservative nattering on about stuff like "useful idiots... being so easily swayed by communistic rhetoric" then anyone who thinks sensible political discourse is an important part of democracy, and decent governance an essential part of a successful country, needs to realise there is a major problem.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
This is a joke right?

When has ANYTHING the UN done actually meant something?

WHO program to vaccinate against polio.

Relapse wrote:
He just pissed off a lot of people in this country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/

My God that is horribly written. The article doesn't even mention the UN resolution by name until the 12th sentence, and even then does so reluctantly.

Also:

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

 sebster wrote:
I don't think its particularly good policy for the executive to go about agreeing to treaties that it knows won't get ratified back home. That just makes government look weak, and unable to be dealt with.
.

It another one of Obama's "lines". I almost believe he hopes it doesn't get ratified so he can use it for some type of gain down the line or he's just trying to show he's worth that Nobel prize that got slimed his way.

 dogma wrote:

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

If I ever wanted to write a book on the methods of manipulative, dishonest journalism, I would call that book 'Explicitly' and start my book by talking about that article, and the above quoted sentence, and how the word 'explicitly' is used to imply something that is just completely absent from reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It another one of Obama's "lines". I almost believe he hopes it doesn't get ratified so he can use it for some type of gain down the line or he's just trying to show he's worth that Nobel prize that got slimed his way.

I don't think Obama hopes it will or won't get ratified. It won't be ratified, and everyone knows that. Instead, I expect Obama hopes he can satisfy the activists who support this legislation, and I expect he knows that the people who freak out about it are never voting Democrat anyway. So on that front it might be clever politics, but in terms of governance it just isn't good practice to have the executive making deal with the world that he can't actually honour.

But I don't think that's much of an issue compared to the sheer, balls out political crazy that's been posted in this thread.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

If I ever wanted to write a book on the methods of manipulative, dishonest journalism, I would call that book 'Explicitly' and start my book by talking about that article, and the above quoted sentence, and how the word 'explicitly' is used to imply something that is just completely absent from reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It another one of Obama's "lines". I almost believe he hopes it doesn't get ratified so he can use it for some type of gain down the line or he's just trying to show he's worth that Nobel prize that got slimed his way.

I don't think Obama hopes it will or won't get ratified. It won't be ratified, and everyone knows that. Instead, I expect Obama hopes he can satisfy the activists who support this legislation, and I expect he knows that the people who freak out about it are never voting Democrat anyway. So on that front it might be clever politics, but in terms of governance it just isn't good practice to have the executive making deal with the world that he can't actually honour.

But I don't think that's much of an issue compared to the sheer, balls out political crazy that's been posted in this thread.

I have to confess that was idle speculation on my part. It's no doubt like you say, just a sop for the masses, but you are also correct it makes him look weak when he keeps cranking out acts like this that carry no weight.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't want to interrupt you guys, like, staring into each others eyes like Iceman and Maverick, all close to each other, while you keep muttering all quietly "truly, Obama is history's greatest monster"; but as someone who enjoys pointing out imperfections in public discourse I feel obliged, nay, compelled to mention that your positions do not dovetail as nicely as you seem to think they do.

I like your style

Relapse wrote:
I have to confess that was idle speculation on my part. It's no doubt like you say, just a sop for the masses, but you are also correct it makes him look weak when he keeps cranking out acts like this that carry no weight.

It doesn't make him look weak - it'll be played as Republicans getting in the way of good reform (which it basically is).

But it does make the presidency look weak, as previous presidents have looked weak whenever they've signed stuff that didn't end up ratified. Not that all those instances would necessarily have been cause to complain about, as those presidents might have had reasonable expectation that they could get the treaty ratified, and so any international perception of weakness was likely worth the chance that it might have got over the lien. But treaties like this, that are basically DOA, well that's just reminding the world how ineffectual the office of POTUS can be sometimes.

 Ouze wrote:
The domestic impact of this treaty is utterly nonexistent. Unlike the ACA, this is only 17 pages and you should read it if you want to know what is in it before you get all worked up.

It doesn't matter whether we sign it since it has to be ratified by 50 member states (which is quite a ways off), and it seems unlikely our own country will ratify it anyway so, misguided and irrelevant at best.

Although we should ratify it. Our status as either the worlds largest arms dealer isn't exactly something to be proud of, IMO. As much as we scream about weapons of mass destruction, those don't really get used much if ever; but the small arms we export get used every day. As the Syria thread pointed out, what - 1200? people were killed with Sarin, but about 10 times that number were killed with bullets*.

*and yes, in Syria specifically, the majority were Russian bullets, but I think it was still a good general analogy for our selective distaste

Why again should we ratify this?
Also: "Our status as either the worlds largest arms dealer isn't exactly something to be proud of, I" Im sorry, "either" what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to confess that was idle speculation on my part. It's no doubt like you say, just a sop for the masses, but you are also correct it makes him look weak when he keeps cranking out acts like this that carry no weight.

It doesn't make him look weak - it'll be played as Republicans getting in the way of good reform (which it basically is).

But it does make the presidency look weak, as previous presidents have looked weak whenever they've signed stuff that didn't end up ratified. Not that all those instances would necessarily have been cause to complain about, as those presidents might have had reasonable expectation that they could get the treaty ratified, and so any international perception of weakness was likely worth the chance that it might have got over the lien. But treaties like this, that are basically DOA, well that's just reminding the world how ineffectual the office of POTUS can be sometimes.

No sebster, this is just the latest in a string of things that OhBlowMe has done that tells the world he IS weak. The current Occupier of the White House is an ill fitting empty suit.

Why again should we ratify this?

Because when you're the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and the world is concerned about the proliferation of armaments, it's a little douchey to look at the world and give them the middle finger spewing some insanity about how they're trying to take our guns away which the UN resolution is clearly NOT intended to do. The resolution is about the international arms trade, not domestic ownership, and further it is about regulating a market that is not well regulated internationally which concerns some people.

 sebster wrote:
I don't think its particularly good policy for the executive to go about agreeing to treaties that it knows won't get ratified back home. That just makes government look weak, and unable to be dealt with.

But compared to the bundle of out and out political insanity that got unleashed in this thread, I think that's a fairly minor issue. Seriously, when any political thread can end up with at least one ultra-conservative nattering on about stuff like "useful idiots... being so easily swayed by communistic rhetoric" then anyone who thinks sensible political discourse is an important part of democracy, and decent governance an essential part of a successful country, needs to realise there is a major problem.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
This is a joke right?

When has ANYTHING the UN done actually meant something?

WHO program to vaccinate against polio.

The US is a republic sebster, NOT a democracy.....

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

For clarity:

Republic: A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Democracy: A government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

EDIT: Hence the term 'Democratic Republic'

 LordofHats wrote:

Why again should we ratify this?

Because when you're the largest arms manufacturer in the world, and the world is concerned about the proliferation of armaments, it's a little douchey to look at the world and give them the middle finger spewing some insanity about how they're trying to take our guns away which the UN resolution is clearly NOT intended to do. The resolution is about the international arms trade, not domestic ownership, and further it is about regulating a market that is not well regulated internationally which concerns some people.

You didnt read the document, did you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The terms are not mutually exclusive.

For clarity:

Republic: A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Democracy: A government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

EDIT: Hence the term 'Democratic Republic'

Hence the United States being a representative republic. Words do indeed have meaning, its a shame the educators with an agenda taught you otherwise....

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The US is a republic sebster, NOT a democracy.....

First up, that has nothing to do with my point. It wouldn't matter if your country was a kleptocratic cult in which the mobster oligarchy deferred final say to the number of clouds in the sky, and senior officials still shouldn't go around signing treaties that have no chance being confirmed domestically.

Second up, we just had this thread, and this was explained many, many times.

I'll just copy and paste what I explained there;

Democracy - people cast a vote, giving them a say in how they are governed.
Republic - the head of state isn't a hereditary position.

Example of a country that is both a democracy and a republic - The United States of America
Example of a country that is a democracy, but not a republic - The United Kingdom
Example of a country that is a republic, but not a democracy - Zimbabwe
Example of a country that is neither a republic nor a democracy - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia


It isn't very hard to understand, and it should be very, very embarassing to you that up until now you didn't understand the political terms that apply to your own country. It should be something that you looked to fix as soon as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
No sebster, this is just the latest in a string of things that OhBlowMe has done that tells the world he IS weak. The current Occupier of the White House is an ill fitting empty suit.

OhBlowMe?

So you're pretty much just a parody at this point?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The US is a republic sebster, NOT a democracy.....

The US is a democracy. You can argue that it didn't become one until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920 but claiming that it isn't one now, in the year 2013, is nonsense.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
You didnt read the document, did you?

I read it, and also read this.

The most important bit:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

But please, explain how the Arms Trade Treaty is a gross affront to rights of gun owners.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The current Occupier of the White House is an ill fitting empty suit.

How can a suit be ill-fitting if it is empty?

I remember the good old days, all the way back in the 2000's, when it was considered treason to say bad things about the President and to call him names while US soldiers were getting shot at in other countries.

Or something like that...

 d-usa wrote:
I remember the good old days, all the way back in the 2000's, when it was considered treason to say bad things about the President and to call him names while US soldiers were getting shot at in other countries.

Or something like that...

I'm fairly certain that such a time never existed... Or if it did, it ended right after the "communist scare" in the 1950s.