America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by tailgater. 49 replies replies.
US votes against UN resolution.
Speyside Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
US votes against UN resolution condemning death penalty for same gay sex joining the fine countries of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Doesn't that make you proud of the Trump administration. Sorry people I have tried to respect his presidency, but he doesn't deserve my respect.
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
So, we're gonna start killing gay-homos..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
and what was it gonna cost us in dollars to agree with the UN..?? Huh
Speyside Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
No, be we seem to be OK with other countries doing that.
victor809 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
But the saudis let him touch the cool glowing orb. Why wouldn't he vote with them?
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Speyside wrote:
No, be we seem to be OK with other countries doing that.



there's more to it than that.. this was probably just a small part of something else... Mellow
TMCTLT Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
DrafterX wrote:
and what was it gonna cost us in dollars to agree with the UN..?? Huh



THIS ^^^ and what about context???


"We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns about the resolution's approach to condemning the death penalty in all circumstances; and, it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether," Nauert said. "We had hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully, as the United States does."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-defends-us-vote-against-death-penalty-ban-at-the-un/article/2636429
delta1 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
smh...
gummy jones Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
if only the op were stating the jist of the overall bill, not a single bullet point on homosexuality and apostasy

here is the actual resolution (as far as i can tell)

http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

no, it isnt just "should gays be killed," it is essentially a recommended ban on the death penalty the world over for any cause and there was a similar vote under obama/rice as i understand it

but its hard to turn all facts into trump bashing so facts sometimes have to be invented
victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I'm a "meh" on this.

It is neither as bad as Gummy says nor as innocuous as Spey says.

The resolution doesn't force us to ban the death penalty.
But it also isn't just condemning/stopping the death penalty for gays ....

It does acknowledge that in some countries the death penalty is imposed unfairly on people who are poor, or gay, or a specific race, or act wrong.
... more appropriately, it "deplores" and "condemns" that.... and urges states with the death penalty to ensure they don't kill people for being poor, mentally ill, gay, or whatever.

But then it "Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty to consider doing so"....

... we know that's not gonna happen any time soon. But the language is wishy washy... "to consider doing so".... so we could sign it and say we "considered it" and promptly decided not to....

But what really is likely the kicker is that it has about 3 paragraphs where it "calls upon states...." with the death penalty to provide a butt-load of information to the UN about how it's applied and a whole lot of data we just likely aren't going to want to provide.

So I'm a "meh". It doesn't really read how trump detractors think it reads... but it doesn't really read how trump supporters want to say it reads.

Mostly we didn't vote for it because it's a bureaucratic request.
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
In other words you're keeping the fence warm while TW is away... Mellow
MACS Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
gummy jones wrote:
if only the op were stating the jist of the overall bill, not a single bullet point on homosexuality and apostasy

here is the actual resolution (as far as i can tell)

http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

no, it isnt just "should gays be killed," it is essentially a recommended ban on the death penalty the world over for any cause and there was a similar vote under obama/rice as i understand it

but its hard to turn all facts into trump bashing so facts sometimes have to be invented


I was about to ask what else was in it to make us vote against it... thanks.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
In other words you're keeping the fence warm while TW is away... Mellow


Being able to read and make assessments for oneself is an important skill. You should try it some day.
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
victor809 wrote:
Screw TW... Not talking




OhMyGod
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
In communist England TW screws me! OhMyGod



.... didn't know you flew there too Drafter.
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Mad
JadeRose Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
I heard Teedubbya is bringing Drafter back some Spotted Dick
Krazeehorse Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Looks like a lot of wasted resources to create a resolution condemning anything. Big a$$ building. Lots of energy to run said building. And tons of people running around with Franklin day planners deciding on what they're not going to do anything about next.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
Krazeehorse wrote:
Looks like a lot of wasted resources to create a resolution condemning anything. Big a$$ building. Lots of energy to run said building. And tons of people running around with Franklin day planners deciding on what they're not going to do anything about next.



Let's shut that bitch down.
Speyside Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Seems to me that condemning the death penalty for LGBT people for just being themselves, for youths under 18, for pregnant women, for religious beliefs, for retarded people, for poor people, for sexual active unmarried women, and so on is a good thing. Asking that states consider abolishing the death penalty is only asking. The only point I can see questioning is the poor people part. But being against this resolution doesn't fly for me.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
Speyside wrote:
Seems to me that condemning the death penalty for LGBT people for just being themselves, for youths under 18, for pregnant women, for religious beliefs, for retarded people, for poor people, for sexual active unmarried women, and so on is a good thing. Asking that states consider abolishing the death penalty is only asking. The only point I can see questioning is the poor people part. But being against this resolution doesn't fly for me.



Kinda sounds like Auschwitz if you ask me.
victor809 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Spey... you forget the reporting part. We as a country generally don't like anyone meddling in our business and handing over some sort of annual report on how we are applying the death penalty is really unlikely to fly even with a dem in charge.

I agree with most of your statement... but when you combine the reporting thing which no one would go for... with the rest...

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe if it were up to some republicans (some in this forum even) applying the death penalty for being gay would totally be a plus... but this wouldn't have flown with most American politiciabs.
MACS Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
victor809 wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I fully believe if it were up to some republicans (some in this forum even) applying the death penalty for being gay would totally be a plus... but this wouldn't have flown with most American politiciabs.


Wow... really? I'd say your disdain for the majority of this community would be the perfect reason to stop frequenting it.

Nobody here wants to kill gays.
Speyside Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
You are right, I didn't mention the reporting part. I would still sign it and not follow the reporting part. This is condemning so many human rights violations, I probably forgot a few like race and lesser defense for the poor. I just feel very strongly we need to be heard condemning human rights violations.
jjanecka Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Whatever dude, it's not that big a deal.
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS... how could you possibly say that with such certainty?
TMCTLT Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
MACS... how could you possibly say that with such certainty?



Um...maybe because he doesn't get off on making broad brush inflammatory remarks just to stir the pot....maybe.
Ewok126 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
TMCTLT wrote:
Um...maybe because he doesn't get off on making broad brush inflammatory remarks just to stir the pot....maybe.



So you saying MACS does not come across as an "armchair politician" Right? If So... I have to agree. Beer
TMCTLT Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Ewok126 wrote:
So you saying MACS does not come across as an "armchair politician" with his head in his ass Right? If So... I have to agree. Beer



Close enough Chris...Beer
Ewok126 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
TMCTLT wrote:
Close enough Chris...Beer



Lol ThumpUp
MACS Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
victor809 wrote:
MACS... how could you possibly say that with such certainty?


Faith in humanity, I suppose... which is odd, considering what I do for a living. I am surrounded by criminals at work. But lets not forget, at best, they represent 3% of society.

Extrapolate that and assume that 97% of society follow the rules enough not to get arrested. Most people are good people. You had one crazed lunatic shoot up a crowd, but you had hundreds helping others and even more donating time, blood, and resources, some helping in the middle of the chaos.

I'm not a gambler, but my odds of being correct are better than yours.
Speyside Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
MACS, I agree with the above. But there is a percentage of the population who follow the rules, yet are not good people.
MACS Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Speyside wrote:
MACS, I agree with the above. But there is a percentage of the population who follow the rules, yet are not good people.


Valid point, though I still say the majority are good. Even most of the bad ones don't want to kill people.
gummy jones Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Speyside wrote:
Seems to me that condemning the death penalty for LGBT people for just being themselves, for youths under 18, for pregnant women, for religious beliefs, for retarded people, for poor people, for sexual active unmarried women, and so on is a good thing. Asking that states consider abolishing the death penalty is only asking. The only point I can see questioning is the poor people part. But being against this resolution doesn't fly for me.


we have the death penalty in our own country

they want a "dont murder gays or apostates" resolution then write it as a one liner and pass judgement on those who dont sign it

but unlike north carolina, i guarantee google and paypal, etc dont pull out of saudi arabia et al
Gene363 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
victor809 wrote:
Spey... you forget the reporting part. We as a country generally don't like anyone meddling in our business and handing over some sort of annual report on how we are applying the death penalty is really unlikely to fly even with a dem in charge.

I agree with most of your statement... but when you combine the reporting thing which no one would go for... with the rest...

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe if it were up to some republicans (some in this forum even) applying the death penalty for being gay would totally be a plus... but this wouldn't have flown with most American politiciabs.


That would only be you, especially if they allowed the death penalty for the homeless and public defecation.
Speyside Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Gummy, I agree it is to broad a stroke, but it is far better than nothing at all. I vehemently feel we should have signed it, even with flaws. We are implicitly supporting human rights violations by not signing.
gummy jones Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Speyside wrote:
Gummy, I agree it is to broad a stroke, but it is far better than nothing at all. I vehemently feel we should have signed it, even with flaws. We are implicitly supporting human rights violations by not signing.


to you and i, this stuff is simple

to these lifelong weasels it is round and round she goes

a mix of wanting to look like you are doing something to your constituents and donors but not pissing off your allies or whatever the protected class/social cause of the day is

i am not against the death penalty and feel it should be used more often. some people, despite every opportunity in the world, show that they just cant play nice in the sandbox. with the recidivism rate being what it is for crimes against children, women, etc, i have no problem with permanent removal of certain people from society. i would venture almost no americans put homosexuals or poor or apostates in that group (although the super staunch pro abortion proponents who want further death of babies to "help" the poor may sway the numbers away from "almost no" in that regard).

once again, i am not a fan of pushing forward a bad bill/law/resolution so we can pat ourselves on the back that we "did something."

we, or at least i, are/am not complicit in the human rights crimes of other countries.

it is really hard to be a big fan of multiculturalism when it fits a prescribed narrative but not when it doesnt fit another. the first step is to thank the good Lord that you live in america - the greatest nation the world has ever seen. the second is to realize that our culture is better than others, especially those that persecute gays, women, Christians/other religions, etc and work to improve those cultures so the citizens can enjoy the freedoms we do.
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Gummy, I agree it is to broad a stroke, but it is far better than nothing at all. I vehemently feel we should have signed it, even with flaws. We are implicitly supporting human rights violations by not signing.


I'm not sure if I could disagree more even if I tried.

Not necessarily on this particular resolution. I haven't read it.
But with the premise that it's right and just to support resolutions or bills or laws simply because ONE aspect might be favorable.

You want a resolution on how gays are treated? Then make one.
Don't roll it into a larger issue and hope for the best.
That's the pure definition of politics, and it's what's wrong with how our world is governed.
gummy jones Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
tailgater wrote:
I'm not sure if I could disagree more even if I tried.

Not necessarily on this particular resolution. I haven't read it.
But with the premise that it's right and just to support resolutions or bills or laws simply because ONE aspect might be favorable.

You want a resolution on how gays are treated? Then make one.
Don't roll it into a larger issue and hope for the best.
That's the pure definition of politics, and it's what's wrong with how our world is governed.


a good quote from one of the people i admire most and would love to meet

[not directed at speyside]

"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
-Thomas Sowell
Speyside Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Joe, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I am stating my belief. This sanction covers many human rights violations. Not just human rights violations of gays. It certainly isn't perfect. But it is talking about stopping murder just because someone is different. LBGTQ oriented, racially oriented, females that are adulterers, females that have sex that are not married, poor people who have inadequate legal representation, youths under 18, pregnant women, apostate persons, and people with different religious beliefs. Calling it just about gays is incorrect.
MACS Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
gummy jones wrote:
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
-Thomas Sowell


I like him, too. That's a great quote... I'ma steal that one.
Speyside Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Interesting quote gummy. It makes a lot of sense.
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS... what would law abiding have to do with this at all? Or even the concept of "good". I would argue that there are people who have strong religious convictions which make them believe that there should be laws in this country making homosexuality punishable by death. There are public figures out there on the right who state as much. This board leans very right. It is not a stretch to think that some percentage (I didn't say all I said some) of people here have heard those public figures speak and thought "that makes sense.... bible says we should stone them".

As for tcby... "broad strokes"? Do you understand the definition of the word "some"? It's like every time you open your mouth you have to be wrong about something.

Gene... i would strongly support the death penalty for public defecation. Let's go full Singapore on this mutha f-er.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
victor809 wrote:
I would argue


That might be a problem.


tailgater Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
gummy jones wrote:
a good quote from one of the people i admire most and would love to meet

[not directed at speyside]

"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
-Thomas Sowell


And what about his brother Jimmy?
I heard that he cracked corn.
But I don't care.


DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
from CT..?? Huh
bgz Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Muslim countries dish out the death penalty for more than just being gay.

Gay... death
Blasphemy... death
Atheism... death (subset of blasphemy?)
Apostasy... death
Infidelity... death
Women gets raped... death of the woman (not sure how they came to this conclusion)
Shaming... death

etc...

I'll give them this, even though they breed like rats, they do manage to keep their numbers in check :D
delta1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
On principles, I agree that the US should take a leadership position on human rights issues all over the world. We have been spreading democracy and freedom and liberty for all since we became world leaders after WW1, ..and it's been great for our businesses...

backing away will diminish our ability to create partnerships that will help our businesses (exploit) the rest of the world...
tailgater Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Delta, I agree.
But (there's always a butt) the US has the death penalty. How could we endorse a resolution that forbids it?
Users browsing this topic
Guest