Support NeoGAF

[WickedAngel]

Do tell.

I already have on multiple occasions.

There is nothing discriminatory about a movement to offer the same rights to everyone and having a different name for the two of them, nor is the government responsible for the fact that some of you perceive "civil union" as being a lesser term than "marriage". "Civil union" doesn't carry the connotations that "marriage" does because the term is relatively new; that doesn't make it inferior, nor does it make the government biased for attempting to find neutral ground that can satisfy both sides of the argument.

I wrote this quite some time ago but you weren't paying attention. Discrimination is an act that either makes a movement for or against a people and shows partiality to one side over the other. The government can't call "civil unions" a "marriage" without discriminating against Conservatives who, right or wrong, feel that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. They can, however, offer the same rights and privileges to homosexual couples under a different title, thus fulfilling their responsibility to homosexuals while remaining neutral enough to refrain from discriminating against others. The government is responsible for giving homosexuals the same rights as everyone else; they aren't responsible for establishing a sense of satisfaction for something so irrelevant as the terminology that is used to describe those rights (Especially when the terminology itself isn't offensive or inflammatory).

The "Separate But Equal" history in the United States wasn't even remotely comparable. In fact, it was the exact opposite; they went to institutions with the same label as white children but faced poor conditions, inconvenient locations, and a lesser educational experience all around. There was nothing equal about their situation and the GMC Vs. Chevrolet comparison is much more appropriate to the discussion.

A civil union isn't a "lesser" marriage; it's just the way that the government maintains neutrality between both sides and refrains from discrimination. You're not going to be pulled outside and beaten to death if you and your partner say you're getting married in spite of the fact that it says "Civil Union" on your marriage papers.

 

[Zaptruder]

Obama really isn't that old, nor would I consider him haggard, take it easy son.

Kidding aside, this is why Obama supporters scare me. Do you honestly believe what you are typing here? Can you give me some good reasons why he is the greatest thing since Jesus?

It's a bit hyperbolic yes. But, what I'm saying is based off what I'm seeing in reports.

On one hand, you have reports about a guy that is hampering himself, by not accepting lobbyist funding, because he doesn't believe that's the way politics should be run; and it shouldn't be; special interest groups, throwing money around in order to force an agenda... it's basically one step short of bribery; the candidate doesn't have to fufill their promises to these groups once in power... but often do, so that they can retain their funding in future elections.
Yet the guy that's hampering himself, has built an incredibly successful grassroots movement nonetheless; he's inspiring people directly, reaching out to them with charisma, oratory skill, and it's not without substance; it's just goodness on all levels; he's not just charismatic... he has the intelligence and ability to back it up, which makes him such an appealing candidate.

On the otherside, you have McCain... doesn't clearly define his positions; what has bubbled its way through the noise of the MSM is that he plans on carrying on a lot Bush's policies and positions... including the most disastrous one; Iraq. He announces that he plans on running a clean campaign, and yet within the same hour at another event turns around and takes a cheap shot at Obama. If you get this guy in power, you'd have to legitimately worry about health issues as well. This guy isn't nearly as charismatic as someone like Reagan; if he is elected, he IS going to get beat up on a lot, like Bush was... a presidency is an incredibly taxing job. Even if the president is shitty, do you really want him carking it half way through and leaving the job up to his lieutenant?

In this sense... the differences between the candidates is clear as day; more of the same, or a new change. The opportunity cost of keeping this status quo is massive... to not move forwards socially, economically, technologically... it's not something America can afford... and it's even something that affects the rest of the world negatively.

Ultimately... do you honestly see McCain as some one that can make large positive strides towards the future? Do you approve of the direction the country has headed since 9/11?

What about Obama... do you really think he's just putting on a front? Just another politician? Despite his actions, his positions... is it really ok to just categorise him as another guy that just wants the title and not the responsibility?

 

[Gaborn]

I already have on multiple occasions.

There is nothing discriminatory about a movement to offer the same rights to everyone and having a different name for the two of them, nor is the government responsible for the fact that some of you perceive "civil union" as being a lesser term than "marriage".

Sure there is, the discrimination is opening a particular status to some citizens but not to others. Are you suggesting that it WOULD be ok if african americans (and only what are currently called "marriages" involving african americans) had their relationships with each other and other races as "civil unions"? Or if someone interpreted the Loving decision to grant civil union rights but not a right to marry? If a man can marry a woman there's no reason why a woman shouldn't have the same right under a law, otherwise it's gender discrimination.

"Civil union" doesn't carry the connotations that "marriage" does because the term is relatively new; that doesn't make it inferior, nor does it make the government biased for attempting to find neutral ground that can satisfy both sides of the argument.

Again, sure it does make it discriminatory, because the entire point of giving legal recognition to gay relationships in a new regulatory scheme created uniquely for them is to separate them and stigmatize them. It points out that they're not "like" other couples.

I wrote this quite some time ago but you weren't paying attention. Discrimination is an act that either makes a movement for or against a people and shows partiality to one side over the other.

I'm with you so far.

The government can't call "civil unions" a "marriage" without discriminating against Conservatives who, right or wrong, feel that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

Which is why we now have interracial "civil unions," to appease the opponents of interracial marriage. Seriously, recognizing that gay relationships have the same legal recognition as straight relationships discriminates against no one. Conservatives (and religious liberals like Obama) are free to disagree with the decision but it in no way impacts their lives.

They can, however, offer the same rights and privileges to homosexual couples under a different title, thus fulfilling their responsibility to homosexuals while remaining neutral enough to refrain from discriminating against others.

That's not being neutral, that's seeing the need to single out a particular group with an entirely arbitrary and pernicious gender based distinction. It's unnecessary because we already have the framework needed to allow for gay marriage, why spend the effort creating an entirely new scheme if not to stigmatize gays?

The government is responsible for giving homosexuals the same rights as everyone else; they aren't responsible for establishing a sense of satisfaction for something so irrelevant as the terminology that is used to describe those rights (Especially when the terminology itself isn't offensive or inflammatory).

The fact that the term proposed is different than for other groups is enough to be offensive. I also find it interesting that it's mostly straight people that think the term "marriage" should be irrelevant to gays. I guess it's easy to ignore stigmatization when you're not experiencing it.

The "Separate But Equal" history in the United States wasn't even remotely comparable. In fact, it was the exact opposite; they went to institutions with the same label as white children but faced poor conditions, inconvenient locations, and a lesser educational experience all around. There was nothing equal about their situation and the GMC Vs. Chevrolet comparison is much more appropriate to the discussion.

I don't believe I heard the GMC vs Chevy comparison, but I don't agree. Marriage has a rich history in this country, but more importantly it carries a unique, clear status. You know what someone says when they say "I'm married to so and so" or "this is my husband so and so" (or wife of course). It's a lot less clear to say "this is my partner so and so." Marriage has a universality to it, people know what it means. Civil Unions are too different, too clearly identifying of the person, and too impersonal. Again, there's no rationale for gender based discrimination in marriage laws.

A civil union isn't a "lesser" marriage; it's just the way that the government maintains neutrality between both sides and refrains from discrimination. You're not going to be pulled outside and beaten to death if you and your partner say you're getting married in spite of the fact that it says "Civil Union" on your marriage papers.

True, but it won't be accurate. What box do you check on a form that says "Married, divorced, widowed/widower, never married"? What do you tell your parents? Hell, why should you be able to file tax returns as a MARRIED couple in California but as a "unioned" couple for federal purposes? What's the rational basis for excluding gays from marriage?

 

[WickedAngel]

You are incapable of rational compromise and seem to be wholly unfamiliar with the democratic process. Democracy isn't getting everything you want at the expense of others; you say you understand this but seem completely incapable of putting it into practice.

I can't even respectfully disagree with someone who labels everyone who doesn't agree with him as a bigot. There is no logical discourse to be had with someone who labels one of the most forward-thinking presidential nominees as a bigot and claims that his efforts, while falling short of completely satisfying every minor quibble that the gay community may have, are discriminatory for suggesting a compromise that would be the largest victory for the aforementioned community in the history of the United States.

There isn't anything left to discuss on this matter. We will never agree.

 

[Gaborn]

You are incapable of rational compromise and seem to be wholly unfamiliar with the democratic process. Democracy isn't getting everything you want at the expense of others; you say you understand this but seem completely incapable of putting it into practice.

What other group in the history of the nation has been asked to support and vote for a candidate campaigning in part on giving them second class status? It's not that much different than an African American supporting George Wallace. Sure he may have had some ideas that appealed to some people, or some of their impulses, but on their core issues he would have denied them some of their basic rights and freedoms.

I can't even respectfully disagree with someone who labels everyone who doesn't agree with him as a bigot.

And yet you want to defend someone who views my relationships as second class, as worth less than other relationships? How exactly do you expect me to respond to that?

There is no logical discourse to be had with someone who labels one of the most forward-thinking presidential nominees as a bigot and claims that his efforts, while falling short of completely satisfying every minor quibble that the gay community may have, are discriminatory for suggesting a compromise that would be the largest victory for the aforementioned community in the history of the United States.

There's not a conflict with calling the "most forward-thinking" presidential candiate a bigot if you feel they are bigoted on some issues. And I'm sorry, but civil unions are NOT a minor quibble, it'd be similar to a black family voting for segregated schools in the hopes that one day their school district would be integrated.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

 

[reilo]

Oh jesus fuck we are still arguing over this? Can you guys please make a new thread or something?

 

[TDG]

Oh jesus fuck we are still arguing over this? Can you guys please make a new thread or something?

I second this.

 

[domokunrox]

In other news, Obama is getting alot of heat from all the CNN analysts today.

 

[bob_arctor]

In other news, Obama is getting alot of heat from all the CNN analysts today.

About what? The public financing thing?

 

[sangreal]

And I'm sorry, but civil unions are NOT a minor quibble, it'd be similar to a black family voting for segregated schools in the hopes that one day their school district would be integrated.

The two are not even remotely on the same level. Segregated versus Integrated is more than just a title, unlike Marriage versus Civil Union. If people wanted to call integrated schools Segregated, then maybe you'd have a point. I can understand why the issue is important to people, but you don't have to belittle the racial equality movement along the way.

 

[domokunrox]

About what? The public financing thing?

Yeah, that and NAFTA.

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah, that and NAFTA.

Man, McCain's pretty lucky he's never done anything or known anyone worth scrutiny ever.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

In other news, Obama is getting alot of heat from all the CNN analysts today.

In related news, McCain continues his free media ride.

 

[mckmas8808]

There's not a conflict with calling the "most forward-thinking" presidential candiate a bigot if you feel they are bigoted on some issues. And I'm sorry, but civil unions are NOT a minor quibble, it'd be similar to a black family voting for segregated schools in the hopes that one day their school district would be integrated.

No It'd be like blacks going from not getting public school funding at all to voting for public school funding (say $500 million a year), but for segregated schools.

I'm pretty sure that would have been a HUGE victory. Going from $0 to $500 million a year even though the schools are segregated is better than getting no money at all.

In this case you would have said no to the half a billion dollars per year and waited until schools were integrated. But you, your kid(s), neighbors, family, etc would have missed out on some education because you were to greedy and arrogant to make short term concessions.

You might want to lose some of that pride of yours.

 

[bob_arctor]

Yeah, that and NAFTA.

*Snooze* Especially the financing one. Nobody fucking cares.

 

[Gaborn]

No It'd be like blacks going from not getting public school funding at all to voting for public school funding (say $500 million a year), but for segregated schools.

I'm pretty sure that would have been a HUGE victory. Going from $0 to $500 million a year even though the schools are segregated is better than getting no money at all.

In this case you would have said no to the half a billion dollars per year and waited until schools were integrated. But you, your kid(s), neighbors, family, etc would have missed out on some education because you were to greedy and arrogant to make short term concessions.

You might want to lose some of that pride of yours.

It's not a matter of pride, it's recognizing that supporting someone who believes in actively promoting your second class status is against your self interest. Put it this way, if 2 candidates back in the early 60s were running for the school board, one pro segregation but offering more money for black schools, and one favoring a trickle of integration (10% integration a year say) but no additional funding for the still mostly black schools... who would you vote for? The integration candidate SOUNDS better, but at 10% a year most students will be out of school by the time they get around to being integrated. On the other side more money that day sounds better, but at the cost of preferring segregation to integration.

In reality I suspect most blacks would not vote in that election, because in both cases the choices have unacceptable policies.

 

[reilo]

Make a new thread. I beg of you.

 

[Gaborn]

Make a new thread. I beg of you.

Why? this is discussing the merits of Obama's political position on a very important issue to some people. Obviously poli-gaf has strong opinions on the subject and there's no reason to have multiple threads on the subject, if a mod or admin authorizes me to or does so themselves I'd be happy to but until then I think it'd be superfluous.

 

[reilo]

Why? this is discussing the merits of Obama's political position on a very important issue to some people. Obviously poli-gaf has strong opinions on the subject and there's no reason to have multiple threads on the subject, if a mod or admin authorizes me too or does so themselves I'd be happy to but until then I think it'd be superfluous.

You haven't even discussed Obama in over three days. McCain's position on this hasn't even been dissected.

Besides, some of you called Obama a bigot for wanting Civil Unions. Classy debate right there.

 

[Gaborn]

You haven't even discussed Obama in over three days. McCain's position on this hasn't even been dissected.

Besides, some of you called Obama a bigot for wanting Civil Unions. Classy debate right there.

I maintain Obama's position is bigoted, I make no comment on the man himself, I'm sure he sincerely means well with his position. And I would say I did discuss McCain's position. He's against gay marriage and against civil unions, my sense is that position is better than Obama's because he wouldn't entrench a separate aligning system the affect of which is to stigmatize gay couples all in the name of promoting equality. On other gay rights issues Obama is almost certainly better but if you want marriage equality than I'd rather have a hardliner like McCain now to build the impetus at the state level for marriage equality than a 95%er like Obama who may sway states to believing his rhetoric on civil unions.

 

[reilo]

 

[Stinkles]

He is maintaining a position that is broadly palatable to get elected. Folks in here either imagining or pretending he's actually a homophobe based on that, are derailing the thread.

Once he's elected we will find out what the true temperature of the issue and his stance on it are. Until then everything else is just noise. Don't act like you don't know this.

 

[Gaborn]

He is maintaining a position that is broadly palatable to get elected. Folks in here either imagining or pretending he's actually a homophobe based on that, are derailing the thread.

Once he's elected we will find out what the true temperature of the issue and his stance on it are. Until then everything else is just noise. Don't act like you don't know this.

Oh come on. at some point you can't just say "he'll change his position to one you'll like when he gets elected." at some point the more he does that the harder it will be for him to get reelected and the more dishonest he'll seem. Some of you think he'll be for drug decriminalization at least again once he gets elected, for gay marriage (for the first time) when he gets elected, will remain for NAFTA now (after flipping) regardless of what Ohio thinks or does and how close it becomes in a battle with McCain. At some point if he's advocating a political stand you have to start by assuming he MEANS it.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh come on. at some point you can't just say "he'll change his position to one you'll like when he gets elected."

I didn't say anything of the kind. I said he's maintaining this position for the election. I have no idea what goes on in the man's mind. Maybe after he's elected he will become the bigot you keep alleging. McCain is taking a more aggressive stance against it because he has a narrower, more easily offended base. Obama is hedging his bets.

 

[domokunrox]

*Snooze* Especially the financing one. Nobody fucking cares.

Its the highlight of the day in american politics, like it or not. Someone had to care, if nobody cared, why is it "news". Are you suggesting that we call it "nobody fucking cares"? I'm just relaying information really. No need to put your crusader helmet on and get the mace ready.

 

[User 10639]

Oh my god, stop it, please stop. I am soooooo on your side on this issue, gaborn, but you're being more annoying than usual. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase stooooooooop.

 

[reilo]

Its the highlight of the day in american politics, like it or not. Someone had to care, if nobody cared, why is it "news". Are you suggesting that we call it "nobody fucking cares"? I'm just relaying information really. No need to put your crusader helmet on and get the mace ready.

Over 75% of people polled said they did not give a shit.

It's just the media needing something to talk about.

 

[Gaborn]

I didn't say anything of the kind. I said he's maintaining this position for the election. I have no idea what goes on in the man's mind. Maybe after he's elected he will become the bigot you keep alleging. McCain is taking a more aggressive stance against it because he has a narrower, more easily offended base. Obama is hedging his bets.

Honestly, as I said earlier I don't care what's in his mind, I care about the policies he's advocating. And right now he's advocating against gay marriage and for civil unions. I believe civil unions ultimately hurt the case for marriage equality and ultimately if he wanted to be helpful I wish he'd simply shut up on the marriage issue period. It's his advocacy of second class status for gays that is grating to us, not that he's against gay marriage. If he was silent about it or at a minimum didn't resort to tired bromides on the issue it'd be a lot easier to stomach.

icarus-daedalus - I'm not the one that keeps bringing the issue up, I'm going to respond to challenges and misrepresentations of my position. Other than that I tend to agree with you, it's annoying to have to repeat myself ad nauseum.

 

[WickedAngel]

Its the highlight of the day in american politics, like it or not. Someone had to care, if nobody cared, why is it "news". Are you suggesting that we call it "nobody fucking cares"? I'm just relaying information really. No need to put your crusader helmet on and get the mace ready.

You're operating under the idea that "news" is an accurate description of what mainstream media provides.

 

[ratcliffja]

Yeah, Gaborn, I would recommend that you simply make a new thread. I definitely see your point and have my own opinion on it, but I don't want to derail this thread further. I will simply say that what I see is the ideal solution just wouldn't work in today's America because far too many people consider marriage a legal status and would be enraged if it was changed because of "the gay people". It's very sad, but it's the world we live in. If Radical Reformation showed us anything, it's that rapid changes in civil rights can cause enough resentment to make it much harder for a group of people to get the rights that they desire. Hopefully, granting homosexuals the ability to have civil unions would only be the FIRST step towards equality. Indeed, I think it's good to know that Obama is looking for strong steps towards long-term change rather than lots of short-term change.

 

[Stinkles]

Honestly, as I said earlier I don't care what's in his mind, I care about the policies he's advocating. And right now he's advocating against gay marriage and for civil unions. I believe civil unions ultimately hurt the case for marriage equality and ultimately if he wanted to be helpful I wish he'd simply shut up on the marriage issue period. It's his advocacy of second class status for gays that is grating to us, not that he's against gay marriage. If he was silent about it or at a minimum didn't resort to tired bromides on the issue it'd be a lot easier to stomach.

You're just being obtuse now. You know full well that if he wants to get elected in the United States he cannot advocate Gay marriage openly. Civil Unions is a band aid just confusing enough to appease the dumber conservatives. He has to say something and it can't be, "I am against gay marriage," or he loses a bunch of his base.

If you think he should be so principled that he should back out completely, advocate Gay Marriage openly and hand the reins to Hillary or McCain, just say that. That is the natural progression of your premise.

Personally I think Gays should be entitled to be married, but I think it's more important right now to shift the whole country to a better place. I am willing to sacrifice present semantics for future change.

 

[domokunrox]

You're operating under the idea that "news" is an accurate description of what mainstream media provides.

I'm not providing an argument here. Someone said that 75% didn't give a shit, so fuck the other 25%.

25% might change their position, and who cares right?

Right.

 

[The Lamonster]

He is maintaining a position that is broadly palatable to get elected. Folks in here either imagining or pretending he's actually a homophobe based on that, are derailing the thread.

Once he's elected we will find out what the true temperature of the issue and his stance on it are. Until then everything else is just noise. Don't act like you don't know this.

derailing the thread.

derailing the thread.

(Gaborn's redundancies are) derailing the thread.

.

 

[Gaborn]

You're just being obtuse now. You know full well that if he wants to get elected in the United States he cannot advocate Gay marriage openly. Civil Unions is a band aid just confusing enough to appease the dumber conservatives. He has to say something and it can't be, "I am against gay marriage," or he loses a bunch of his base.

I'm not being obtuse and I understand that it's extremely difficult for a politician to back gay marriage. Then again, how many national politicians have attempted to lead on the issue? I relate it back to LBJ. He had every reason not to support the civil rights movement as a candidate and as a President. Yet, because he believed it was right he was willing to see the parties realign and to FIGHT for the rights of blacks as equal citizens who didn't need to fear lynch mobs or the government, at least not as much. I wish Obama either led on the issue for gay marriage or simply remained silent on it, don't tell me that he's supportive of the gay community when he's advocating for us to be considered second class.

If you think he should be so principled that he should back out completely, advocate Gay Marriage openly and hand the reins to Hillary or McCain, just say that. That is the natural progression of your premise.

I don't think that at all, especially if he doesn't believe gay couples deserve to be married. Instead I'd respectfully ask him to stop talking about civil unions at all. Stopping talk of civil unions is not the same as asking him to promote gay marriage.

Personally I think Gays should be entitled to be married, but I think it's more important right now to shift the whole country to a better place. I am willing to sacrifice present semantics for future change.

I understand why a heterosexual feels that way.

Now, with that I understand people want me to drop it, so I will.

 

[guess]

What is the thread being derailed from?

Anyway, I think I've got it now:

Obama = bad bigot
McCain = not as bad bigot
Barr = doesn't matter if he is a bigot

oh and Nader = no one seems to care

 

[reilo]

What is the thread being derailed from?

Anyway, I think I've got it now:

Obama = bad bigot
McCain = not as bad bigot
Barr = doesn't matter if he is a bigot

oh and Nader = no one seems to care

No.

Obama = bad bigot that is setting gay rights back one hundred years
McCain = bigger badder bigot, but his stance is going to help gay marriage more than Obama's
Babar = who?
Nader = he's still alive?

 

[Gaborn]

What is the thread being derailed from?

Anyway, I think I've got it now:

Obama = bad bigot
McCain = not as bad bigot
Barr = doesn't matter if he is a bigot

oh and Nader = no one seems to care

(sorry, one more correction here) McCain is a worse bigot, but ultimately his lack of support for civil unions is going to lead to gay marriage faster. By not creating and supporting a parallel faux marriage system for gays there's more impetus for marriage equality.

edit - thank you Reilo, lol at Barr and Nader's characterizations.

 

[The Lamonster]

What is the thread being derailed from?

Anyway, I think I've got it now:

Obama = bad bigot
McCain = not as bad bigot
Barr = doesn't matter if he is a bigot

oh and Nader = no one seems to care

You guys don't understand how vigorously Obama is trying to court Christians. Marriage is a religious thing that doesn't allow same-sex couples to get married. It's as simple as that.

 

[sc0la]

What is the thread being derailed from?

Derailed? naw, it mades its own fucking new set of tracks and is currently south-north bound

 

[reilo]

Derailed? naw, it mades its own fucking new set of tracks and is currently south-north bound

South-North bound? So it's stuck on an infinite loop and going nowhere? Very apt!

Spoiler

I know you meant South TO North bound, but going South and North at the same time is so much more appropo

 

[Formless]

You guys don't understand how vigorously Obama is trying to court Christians. Marriage is a religious thing that doesn't allow same-sex couples to get married. It's as simple as that.

No, marriage is secular. I'm agnostic and I can still marry. Gays can't everywhere, which I think is wrong. If a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage, it doesn't have to. The only thing is I'd curb some of the legal benefits for gay couples that relate to the possibility of child birth, but not child care necessarily.

 

[avatar299]

Oh my god, stop it, please stop. I am soooooo on your side on this issue, gaborn, but you're being more annoying than usual. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase stooooooooop.

Go Gaborn, go! Discuss civil unions and the civil rights movements

I'm sorry, but this is better than talking about Obama's logo. Far more educational.

 

[Gaborn]

No, marriage is secular. I'm agnostic and I can still marry. Gays can't everywhere, which I think is wrong. If a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage, it doesn't have to. The only thing is I'd curb some of the legal benefits for gay couples that relate to the possibility of child birth, but not child care necessarily.

I'm just curious, are you American or European? Because adoption and reproductive issues are pretty well settled in the US, only one state currently has a specific ban on gay adoption right now for example (that being florida) everywhere else either gays can adopt or no unmarried person can adopt. as for other issues like that, surrogacy is legal everywhere I know of, as is IVF. Cloning is... not practical/possible.

Avatar - I won't discuss gay marriage for now, but other related issues are certainly at least worth exploring.

 

[Mumei]

Oh my god, stop it, please stop. I am soooooo on your side on this issue, gaborn, but you're being more annoying than usual. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase stooooooooop.

Second this.

Though I would like to see a second topic for the discussion.

 

[Tamanon]

Here's a much scarier thing that's going for a vote soon in the house

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377

A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

:/

 

[Gaborn]

Here's a much scarier thing that's going for a vote soon in the house

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377



:/

I wonder what the odds are we'll be in Iran before the election. (well, beyond special forces/spies and such that are probably already at least looking things over in there)

 

[avatar299]

I wonder what the odds are we'll be in Iran before the election. (well, beyond special forces/spies and such that are probably already at least looking things over in there)

I doubt it.

 

[thekad]

We don't have the resources for war. Otherwise, we'd already be in Iran.

 

[Gaborn]

I doubt it.

I don't know, I think the odds are 50/50... whether they get struck militarily by israel and/or whether they get some sort of military reaction (involving combat/actual destruction of their property) by us. But I think it's more like 80% there is SOME sort of responsive reaction against them.