See Also: Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, which Republicans wouldn't sign to save their own life.
#40 | Posted by snoofy
At the time of the Declaration's adoption by the General Assembly in 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt said, "In giving our approval to the declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations."
Why the hell isn't it a treaty, a binding agreement, or law?
1948-2026.
Any administration could have made it to permanent.
Why sign off on a worthless, unenforceable document? Symbolic gestures don't prevent atrocities.
Make it a treaty and let's see how many nations sign off on it.
Most likely, it'll be just like the ICC.
If everyone consistently voted for the less bad option, the country would rapidly become less bad.
#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
And that's pathetic.
The husband wastes 2 billion dollars.
The wife wastes 1 billion dollars.
The lover of both these wasteful fools wouldn't waste like either.
SCREW the correct choice! We want the lesser of two evils because our evil is not as evil as yours.