NationStates Jolt Archive

Both candidates, McCain first, then Obama, have voiced support for expansion of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.

McCain vows to back changes to disabilities law By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer


COTTONWOOD, Ariz. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain is pledging support for a proposal to expand protections for disabled people under an 18-year-old landmark civil rights law.


Speaking from Arizona by satellite to a disabilities forum in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said Saturday that revisions to the Americans With Disabilities Act must leave no doubt that it was intended to protect from any discrimination that's based on physical or mental disabilities.

The Supreme Court generally has exempted from the law's protection people with partial physical disabilities, as well as people with physical impairments that can be treated with medication or devices such as hearing aids.

"We must clarify the definition of a disability to assure full protection for those the law is intended to serve," said McCain, who was spending the weekend at his nearby northern Arizona getaway.

A month ago, the House passed a bill to extend protections to people who take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer, or use prosthetic limbs. McCain, a co-sponsor of the 1990 law, said he intends to support a similar bill in the Senate.

McCain said blame for the narrowed scope of the law shouldn't be placed on the Supreme Court, but rather on Congress. "In all due respect, I would put the blame right back on us for not writing legislation that is strong enough and specific enough so that the Supreme Court wouldn't even have to consider these cases," McCain said.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was headed back to the United States from an international trip and didn't attend the forum, has said he supports the bill so that it could override court decisions that narrowed the law's scope. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, an Obama surrogate who helped write the 1990 law, also spoke at the forum.

The forum marked the anniversary of the law, which prohibits discrimination against the disabled in employment, public accommodations, transportation and telecommunications.

The event also was aimed at giving presidential campaigns an opportunity to flesh out their positions on disability issues and at highlighting a voting bloc that is often ignored, said Rebecca Panoff, spokeswoman for the American Association of People with Disabilities, one of the advocacy groups that organized the forum.

"Some people aren't registered (to vote), because they aren't engaged in the political process because they don't feel they are being addressed," Panoff said, noting that there are 37 million people with disabilities who are eligible to vote in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_disabilities

It's not quite enough to make me vote for McCain, but I applaud his efforts. It's disgraceful that the last three administrations have allowed this law to be enforced in such a half-assed manner. My only wish is that there had been some mention of no longer allowing buildings to be exempt from being made accessible on account of their age.

Noooooooo! Even the right has gone left!!!! This is surely a sign of the aproxolypse.

Noooooooo! Even the right has gone left!!!! This is surely a sign of the aproxolypse.

McCain was a co-sponsor of the original. It's not out of character for him to support something he helped introduce. :wink:

What? The Republican party is putting up someone for President who has a history of Liberal voting? WTF!

What is it with you minorities always demanding more money from the government? Silly welfare fanboys.

is the rest of the republican party in favor of these changes?

What is it with you minorities always demanding more money from the government? Silly welfare fanboys.

Ruffy, I think you're taking the satire thing a little too far. It's a good thing I knew you were kidding.

is the rest of the republican party in favor of these changes?

I have no idea, but my gut feeling is that this is the kind of thing many of them would see as a good budget cut to make. I haven't beenable to find a tlly of the original vote, but I did find this quote from GHW Bush when he signed it:

I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.

To me it looks like they knew right from the start that the law was too vague, and not inclusive enough.

Both candidates, McCain first, then Obama, have voiced support for expansion of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_disabilities

It's not quite enough to make me vote for McCain, but I applaud his efforts. It's disgraceful that the last three administrations have allowed this law to be enforced in such a half-assed manner. My only wish is that there had been some mention of no longer allowing buildings to be exempt from being made accessible on account of their age.
This is applause worthy. I gotta tell ya, Maineiacs, one thing that pisses me off is how much you and others like you get the shaft when you deserve to be able to be on the same footing as the rest of us.

Noooooooo! Even the right has gone left!!!! This is surely a sign of the aproxolypse.
Sarcasm...yes?

To me it looks like they knew right from the start that the law was too vague, and not inclusive enough.

yeah but they got it passed and it has been a good thing for the country. fixing it now may be late but....at least we arent still fighting for the concept of basic human rights for the handicapped.

This is applause worthy. I gotta tell ya, Maineiacs, one thing that pisses me off is how much you and others like you get the shaft when you deserve to be able to be on the same footing as the rest of us.


Sarcasm...yes?

One of the things that pisses me off the most is the attitude that some people have that the provisions of the ADA are "special priviledges" that they resent having to pay taxes for. These things are necessary for us to function at a level approaching the able-bodied. It's levelling the playing field, not special priviledges. Not all of us are rotting away in a corner living off disability checks; some of us can and do contribute to society, and those that don't would for the most part do so if they could. I myself just finished a degree so that I could contribute, and I won't resent having to pay taxes; since I have benefitted from public funds myself, I'll be happy to put back into the system.

yeah but they got it passed and it has been a good thing for the country. fixing it now may be late but....at least we arent still fighting for the concept of basic human rights for the handicapped.

I suppose you're right; a half-assed law is better than no law at all, but it is still frustrating.

I think that any expansion of the ADA is a folly. It's already too expansive, there's no reason to require businesses to have handicapped parking, or ramps etc. Not to mention every bus that has been fitted to be accessible. Its just a waste of money, so politicians can have some feel good legislation. I'm all for the non-discriminatory parts as far as employment, as long as someone can do a job as well as anyone else, it shouldn't be an issue.

Now the purposed changes are just ridiculous, are people who "take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer, or use prosthetic limbs" are not handicapped, maybe prosthetic, but I'm pretty sure most people with fake limbs don't go around with a wooden stick for a leg anymore. In other words, these people are functioning members of society. I mean, diabetes? whats the point... Certainly many people with allergies have a harder time.

One of the things that pisses me off the most is the attitude that some people have that the provisions of the ADA are "special priviledges" that they resent having to pay taxes for. These things are necessary for us to function at a level approaching the able-bodied. It's levelling the playing field, not special priviledges. Not all of us are rotting away in a corner living off disability checks; some of us can and do contribute to society, and those that don't would for the most part do so if they could. I myself just finished a degree so that I could contribute, and I won't resent having to pay taxes; since I have benefitted from public funds myself, I'll be happy to put back into the system.

Exactly. It's bullshit.

The thing is, though, we have to set aside anger and try explaining it to those who look at it that way in a way that will get them to listen. If we just berate them for their bullshit, they'll not understand why and they'll increase their resistance.

If we instead explain things carefully, they'll be more receptive to listening, and may very well shut up about it.

I dunno...I think it's worth a shot anyway. I realize it's not as emotionally satisfying, but it'll ultimately be better.

This is great news for us handicapped folks. :D

There's still some work to do though. An incident at the train station I had two weeks ago was completely unacceptable and I will be seeking legal action because of it.

This is great news for us handicapped folks. :D

There's still some work to do though. An incident at the train station I had two weeks ago was completely unacceptable and I will be seeking legal action because of it.

and what was wrong?

I think that any expansion of the ADA is a folly. It's already too expansive, there's no reason to require businesses to have handicapped parking, or ramps etc. Not to mention every bus that has been fitted to be accessible. Its just a waste of money, so politicians can have some feel good legislation. I'm all for the non-discriminatory parts as far as employment, as long as someone can do a job as well as anyone else, it shouldn't be an issue.

Now the purposed changes are just ridiculous, are people who "take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer, or use prosthetic limbs" are not handicapped, maybe prosthetic, but I'm pretty sure most people with fake limbs don't go around with a wooden stick for a leg anymore. In other words, these people are functioning members of society. I mean, diabetes? whats the point... Certainly many people with allergies have a harder time.

"No reason to require businesses to have handicapped parking or ramps"? The reason is so that those who cannot use the stairs can get into those buildings. Why should it matter that prosthetics are no longer of the "peg leg" variety? As for those on meds for things like epilepsy, do you have epilepsy? I've had cancer. I can tell you that it is for a fact debilitating. If you've not dealt with these conditions, how do you know they aren't debilitating? I'm not sure what it is you're objecting to.

and what was wrong?During track maintenance the MTA had set up buses to take people from that specific station to another one to bypass the track maintenance.

I needed to go to the city for an important meeting and was unable to because the MTA, which usually operates ADA-compliant buses, decided to hire a chartered bus service instead of their own buses.

These buses, of course, did not have handicapped accessibility, which meant I was able to attend the meeting I HAD to go to, which in turn got me in all sorts of deep shit.

I got a refund and a comment card. That doesn't repair the irreversible damage it caused, and I'm going to be doing more than leaving a comment on a stupid card.

During track maintenance the MTA had set up buses to take people from that specific station to another one to bypass the track maintenance.

I needed to go to the city for an important meeting and was unable to because the MTA, which usually operates ADA-compliant buses, decided to hire a chartered bus service instead of their own buses.

These buses, of course, did not have handicapped accessibility, which meant I was able to attend the meeting I HAD to go to, which in turn got me in all sorts of deep shit.

I got a refund and a comment card. That doesn't repair the irreversible damage it caused, and I'm going to be doing more than leaving a comment on a stupid card.

So, you're going to sue the city, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees (even if you don't win) and damages. Doesn't that seem a little...selfish?

So, you're going to sue the city, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees (even if you don't win) and damages. Doesn't that seem a little...selfish?Nope, not at all.

Millions of dollars? Seriously? Aren't you pushing that just a little bit?

It's got nothing to do with selfishness here, and everything to do with recognizing they did a serious wrong to Maraque here.

Millions of dollars? Seriously? Aren't you pushing that just a little bit?

It's got nothing to do with selfishness here, and everything to do with recognizing they did a serious wrong to Maraque here.Thank you. :D

So, you're going to sue the city, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees (even if you don't win) and damages. Doesn't that seem a little...selfish?

Maraque lost business because of this. How is he to recoup those losses?

Millions of dollars? Seriously? Aren't you pushing that just a little bit?

It's got nothing to do with selfishness here, and everything to do with recognizing they did a serious wrong to Maraque here.

Yes, millions of dollars. Have you ever heard of anyone suing a city for less? No offense ment, but he isn't a saint anymore then we are. It's just part of the sue happy society we live in today. Instead of filing a written complaint with someone high up on the food chain, he's going to try to cash a nice check and cost the taxpayers of New York millions of tax dollars that could otherwise be used for other, more meaningful things.

I'm not going to stand here and say I wouldn't do the same thing in his situation (if it is factual), but I can still be critical of it.

"No reason to require businesses to have handicapped parking or ramps"? The reason is so that those who cannot use the stairs can get into those buildings. Why should it matter that prosthetics are no longer of the "peg leg" variety? As for those on meds for things like epilepsy, do you have epilepsy? I've had cancer. I can tell you that it is for a fact debilitating. If you've not dealt with these conditions, how do you know they aren't debilitating? I'm not sure what it is you're objecting to.

To what degree has building ramps and having handicapped parking increased, employment for disabled people?

my point on prosthetics is that they are made to function as the original limb would have, where as before there was no such technology.

epilepsy drugs tend to have side effects of nausea, or unsteadiness, as well as irritability ( http://www.vhi.ie/hfiles/hf-066.jsp ) I wouldn't consider those disabling, sure it sucks but I don't feel it requires government protection.

Cancer, sucks my grampa died that way, but I don't see why legal protections need to be afforded to people who have an illness. I guess I'm not sure what benefit such people would derive from the change, that I could agree with. As it is I don't believe in giving people cash benefits for their disability.

During track maintenance the MTA had set up buses to take people from that specific station to another one to bypass the track maintenance.

I needed to go to the city for an important meeting and was unable to because the MTA, which usually operates ADA-compliant buses, decided to hire a chartered bus service instead of their own buses.

These buses, of course, did not have handicapped accessibility, which meant I was able to attend the meeting I HAD to go to, which in turn got me in all sorts of deep shit.

I got a refund and a comment card. That doesn't repair the irreversible damage it caused, and I'm going to be doing more than leaving a comment on a stupid card.

and did you have any alternative, or ask them if any kind of service was available for you? Certainly you could have called for a cab or van or something, no? and possibly made your meeting.

and did you have any alternative, or ask them if any kind of service was available for you? Certainly you could have called for a cab or van or something, no? and possibly made your meeting.Of course I asked if there was an alternative to the bus; there was none. They only had those buses, and did nothing to accommodate their handicapped riders as they usually do.

My wheelchair is non-collapsible, and because of this it is unable to fit in almost every regular cars trunk, so a cab is out of the question - not to mention the two cab companies I know of don't travel out of the county, let alone 65 miles in each direction to New York City.

I was unable to get a car service to send out a van at moments notice - which is understandable given many ask you to do so days or sometimes weeks in advance. The cost was too expensive as well - ten times as much as the train would've cost, which I could not afford.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNfY7fHQnM

Yes, millions of dollars. Have you ever heard of anyone suing a city for less? No offense ment, but he isn't a saint anymore then we are. It's just part of the sue happy society we live in today. Instead of filing a written complaint with someone high up on the food chain, he's going to try to cash a nice check and cost the taxpayers of New York millions of tax dollars that could otherwise be used for other, more meaningful things.

I'm not going to stand here and say I wouldn't do the same thing in his situation (if it is factual), but I can still be critical of it.You assume I'm suing for millions of dollars, when in all actuality I'm suing for my losses (and only my losses), and then just on principle alone - you can't break the law and expect to get away with it.

I despise people who sue for pointless bullshit just to make a quick buck.

And like written complaints get anywhere. They don't. I've done it enough times with no actual result to know speaking directly with someone is better (not by much). I did just that and it was a complete waste of my time.

McCain was a co-sponsor of the original. It's not out of character for him to support something he helped introduce. :wink:

Actually, given his flip-flopping, it is.;)

To what degree has building ramps and having handicapped parking increased, employment for disabled people?

my point on prosthetics is that they are made to function as the original limb would have, where as before there was no such technology.

epilepsy drugs tend to have side effects of nausea, or unsteadiness, as well as irritability ( http://www.vhi.ie/hfiles/hf-066.jsp ) I wouldn't consider those disabling, sure it sucks but I don't feel it requires government protection.

Cancer, sucks my grampa died that way, but I don't see why legal protections need to be afforded to people who have an illness. I guess I'm not sure what benefit such people would derive from the change, that I could agree with. As it is I don't believe in giving people cash benefits for their disability.

1) Well, ramps and parking spaces allow the disabled to get to those places of employment, so that would be how it increases their employment. It also allows the disabled to patronize shops, thereby increasing business.

2) Newer prosthetics function nearly like real limbs -- not totally. If you don't believe me, feel free to sever a limb and find out for yourself.

3) I'm sure those with epilepsy would likely disagree with you. I contend that it's their opinions, and those of their doctors that matter rather than yours, seeing as how you have no experience with the disorder and no medical expertise.

4) I don't know what benefits they could derive that you could agree with either, considering that it looks rather unlikely that you would agree to anything. Also, the ADA does not in and of itself provide cash benefits for disabilities, unless you know something I don't. If that's the case, please share the information with me so that I can inform the government that they owe me back payments dating to at least 1990. I could use the money to help pay off my college loans.

In the future, kindly make sure you know what you're talking about before you speak on a subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNfY7fHQnM

I'm not sure what this clip proves other than that Penn Gillette is an asshole.

I'm not sure what this clip proves other than that Penn Gillette is an asshole.

Lots of guys his size seem to be, at least in my experience.

1) Well, ramps and parking spaces allow the disabled to get to those places of employment, so that would be how it increases their employment. It also allows the disabled to patronize shops, thereby increasing business.

I don't deny that the ramps could feasibly allow more access to jobs, however unless you can show me that its actually increased employment among the disabled, I'm likely to think it hasn't done any good.


2) Newer prosthetics function nearly like real limbs -- not totally. If you don't believe me, feel free to sever a limb and find out for yourself.

yea, nearly, which probably means they're not disabled, but have pretty much full use of the limb.

3) I'm sure those with epilepsy would likely disagree with you. I contend that it's their opinions, and those of their doctors that matter rather than yours, seeing as how you have no experience with the disorder and no medical expertise.

Then I'm sure you could easily find some doctors who would back up the disabled status of those on such medicine, or diabetes medicine.


4) I don't know what benefits they could derive that you could agree with either, considering that it looks rather unlikely that you would agree to anything. Also, the ADA does not in and of itself provide cash benefits for disabilities, unless you know something I don't. If that's the case, please share the information with me so that I can inform the government that they owe me back payments dating to at least 1990. I could use the money to help pay off my college loans.

I was refering to SSDI and SSI, while the ADA doesn't provide these benefits, it seems that individuals covered by the ADA would be eligible for those benefits. I don't see how expanding the definition of disabled in this new version of the ADA wouldn't also increase the number of those eligible for such benefits.

In the future, kindly make sure you know what you're talking about before you speak on a subject.

sure thing

I don't deny that the ramps could feasibly allow more access to jobs, however unless you can show me that its actually increased employment among the disabled, I'm likely to think it hasn't done any good.

Unless a building is flush with the ground or has an access ramp, those in wheelchairs cannot get into that building. Do you truly not see how that is beneficial, or are you just pretending not to so you can keep up this ridiculous argument?


yea, nearly, which probably means they're not disabled, but have pretty much full use of the limb.

Your self-centeredness is appalling. Again, since you seem to be the type of person who is incapable of understanding that just because they've not experienced something that does not mean that that thing is untrue or does not exist, my advice to you is to sever a limb so that you can experience what it it like to be an amputee.


Then I'm sure you could easily find some doctors who would back up the disabled status of those on such medicine, or diabetes medicine.

Of course you can find doctors who can tell you what the effects are. I believe that's what I said. What was your point here?



I was refering to SSDI and SSI, while the ADA doesn't provide these benefits, it seems that individuals covered by the ADA would be eligible for those benefits. I don't see how expanding the definition of disabled in this new version of the ADA wouldn't also increase the number of those eligible for such benefits.


sure thing

It might very well do that. Perhaps it might not. What's your point? Please clarify your objection to the ADA. Is it just that you don't understand it?

Now the purposed changes are just ridiculous, are people who "take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer, or use prosthetic limbs" are not handicapped, maybe prosthetic, but I'm pretty sure most people with fake limbs don't go around with a wooden stick for a leg anymore. In other words, these people are functioning members of society. I mean, diabetes? whats the point... Certainly many people with allergies have a harder time.

Epilepsy, eh? If only my medication didn't control my seizures quite so well... :(

(Don't yell at me, I'm kidding and I haven't had any sleep. Which is really not good for my seizures, actually)

Unless a building is flush with the ground or has an access ramp, those in wheelchairs cannot get into that building. Do you truly not see how that is beneficial, or are you just pretending not to so you can keep up this ridiculous argument?

I see how it is beneficial, but building the ramp has its own costs, and unless you can prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, its not a good idea.

Your self-centeredness is appalling. Again, since you seem to be the type of person who is incapable of understanding that just because they've not experienced something that does not mean that that thing is untrue or does not exist, my advice to you is to sever a limb so that you can experience what it it like to be an amputee.

:rolleyes:


Of course you can find doctors who can tell you what the effects are. I believe that's what I said. What was your point here?

That the point of NSG, generally is to prove someone wrong, not tell them to find out for themselves why they're wrong.


It might very well do that. Perhaps it might not. What's your point? Please clarify your objection to the ADA. Is it just that you don't understand it?

Well I've already mentioned handicapped parking, and the requirement for wheelchair ramps. Lawsuits like Maraque's would be another example. The bill has so many provisions for how things must be built that I don't know all of them, so there's probably more that I object to.

epilepsy drugs tend to have side effects of nausea, or unsteadiness, as well as irritability ( http://www.vhi.ie/hfiles/hf-066.jsp ) I wouldn't consider those disabling, sure it sucks but I don't feel it requires government protection.

Looking up the side effects of a drug used to combat a disability does not = understanding the disability. The drugs AIDS patients take have nasty side effects like vomiting, too, but that's hardly the greatest of their issues.

3) I'm sure those with epilepsy would likely disagree with you. I contend that it's their opinions, and those of their doctors that matter rather than yours, seeing as how you have no experience with the disorder and no medical expertise.

I'm epileptic, only diagnosed a few years ago, and I can tell you that epilepsy runs a huge gamut, from the kind that's easily controllable with medication (like mine, thankfully) and kinds that are wholly unresponsive to medication, with a lot of shades of grey.

Luckily for me, my medication keeps me from having seizures (most of the time--I have one every now and then, usually a bad combination of sleep deprivation and alcohol). Without the medication, though, the situation would not be good--I've passed out and fallen many times, shook, hit my head, bit my tongue open or bruised myself thrashing. For the people whose epilepsy doesn't respond well to meds, this is a huge problem and probably does deserve disabled status.

Of course, everything has a different degree of severity. It would be truly assholeish if I tried to take advantage of the ADA, because my epilepsy is under control and doesn't effect my daily life. Some people will always choose to abuse the system like that, though.

I see how it is beneficial, but building the ramp has its own costs, and unless you can prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, its not a good idea.



:rolleyes:



That the point of NSG, generally is to prove someone wrong, not tell them to find out for themselves why they're wrong.



Well I've already mentioned handicapped parking, and the requirement for wheelchair ramps. Lawsuits like Maraque's would be another example. The bill has so many provisions for how things must be built that I don't know all of them, so there's probably more that I object to.

Why do you object? And as to your first question here, do you really advocate denial of civil rights based on cost-analysis? How do you justify that? And to the epilepsy medication question, I do not have epilepsy, but Ryadn does, so perhaps she can tell you how debilitating it is.

Ryadn, sorry to drag you into this, but he's being deliberately obtuse and pretending he doesn't understand me. I thought perhaps a first hand account would satisfy him.

Why do you object? And as to your first question here, do you really advocate denial of civil rights based on cost-analysis? How do you justify that? And to the epilepsy medication question, I do not have epilepsy, but Ryadn does, so perhaps she can tell you how debilitating it is.

Ryadn, sorry to drag you into this, but he's being deliberately obtuse and pretending he doesn't understand me. I thought perhaps a first hand account would satisfy him.

well you should know first hand accounts don't count for much.

I've made it pretty clear what I don't like about it. And yes, cost-benefit is a legitimate reason so curtail someones rights, it happens all the time. I can justify it based on logic, and not gut feelings about how the world ought to be, with everyone "equal". If doing something causes more harm than good, its bad. Simple enough logic for you? If you really want to go down morality lane we can get some fundamentalists in here to start writing laws.

well you should know first hand accounts don't count for much.

I've made it pretty clear what I don't like about it. And yes, cost-benefit is a legitimate reason so curtail someones rights, it happens all the time. I can justify it based on logic, and not gut feelings about how the world ought to be, with everyone "equal". If doing something causes more harm than good, its bad. Simple enough logic for you? If you really want to go down morality lane we can get some fundamentalists in here to start writing laws.

That made... absolutely no sense. Whatsoever.

...

OMG, old smilies back! :tongue:

well you should know first hand accounts don't count for much.

I've made it pretty clear what I don't like about it. And yes, cost-benefit is a legitimate reason so curtail someones rights, it happens all the time. I can justify it based on logic, and not gut feelings about how the world ought to be, with everyone "equal". If doing something causes more harm than good, its bad. Simple enough logic for you? If you really want to go down morality lane we can get some fundamentalists in here to start writing laws.

How does the ADA harm you? Allowing us access to jobs and services is treating us as equals. Those of us in wheelchairs cannot function in society without these things. Why do you feel it is ok to deny me rights? Because you don't want to spend the money? Fine; then leave this country and move to some place that doesn't have similar laws. So long as you are part of this society, you should contribute to it, like it or not. Your wants are not more importnat than anything else. There is no logical reason public poilcy should harm others based on personal fiat on your part. You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it. And suppose someone decides it isn't cost efficient to allow you equal rights? By your logic, that would be ok with you. Thank you for two things: first, proving my point in post #10 about people's attitudes. Second, for reminding me what I dislike about Libertarians. It's not that they care about themselves first, it's that they care about themselves exclusively. Good day, sir, and please come back when you've finished High School and have some life experience.

is the rest of the republican party in favor of these changes?

No. McCain is in many ways a freak. However, he is better than Bush in the most important issue which is the environment.

well you should know first hand accounts don't count for much.

I've made it pretty clear what I don't like about it. And yes, cost-benefit is a legitimate reason so curtail someones rights, it happens all the time. I can justify it based on logic, and not gut feelings about how the world ought to be, with everyone "equal". If doing something causes more harm than good, its bad. Simple enough logic for you? If you really want to go down morality lane we can get some fundamentalists in here to start writing laws.

Tell me, what would do a business more good?

1) Public image as considerate of the needs of the disabled and handicapped.

or

2) Public image as insensitive to the needs of disabled and handicapped.

For further consideration, assume the competition for said business has a public image as insensitive to the disabled and handicapped.