GM Discussion Thread

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

[Associate Justice PiT]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

     I see none of that in the bill. Basically, you get a credit card, spend wildly, & when you get to the point where they normally would jack it over 20%, they just dump you & you basically try to get bailed out so you can actually have credit again in the future.

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

     I see none of that in the bill. Basically, you get a credit card, spend wildly, & when you get to the point where they normally would jack it over 20%, they just dump you & you basically try to get bailed out so you can actually have credit again in the future.

The bill does exactly that...

First, those who would, as you said, "spend wildly" are the ones not getting cards because of this bill. That ensures that fewer people need to be bailed out. For those who have already gotten stuck in such a situation, or who want to get a good deal, they take the education course, pass a test and receive a little bump. Hopefully that will also ensure they don't spend wildly again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

     I see none of that in the bill. Basically, you get a credit card, spend wildly, & when you get to the point where they normally would jack it over 20%, they just dump you & you basically try to get bailed out so you can actually have credit again in the future.

The bill does exactly that...

First, those who would, as you said, "spend wildly" are the ones not getting cards because of this bill. That ensures that fewer people need to be bailed out. For those who have already gotten stuck in such a situation, or who want to get a good deal, they take the education course, pass a test and receive a little bump. Hopefully that will also ensure they don't spend wildly again.

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

[Associate Justice PiT]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

     I see none of that in the bill. Basically, you get a credit card, spend wildly, & when you get to the point where they normally would jack it over 20%, they just dump you & you basically try to get bailed out so you can actually have credit again in the future.

The bill does exactly that...

First, those who would, as you said, "spend wildly" are the ones not getting cards because of this bill. That ensures that fewer people need to be bailed out. For those who have already gotten stuck in such a situation, or who want to get a good deal, they take the education course, pass a test and receive a little bump. Hopefully that will also ensure they don't spend wildly again.

     But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Again with wild, unlikely, fantastical scenarios dreamt up by economic conservatives. The average credit card interest rate is somewhere around 14-15%, and everything you're complaining about (people getting cards, maxing them out, etc) still happens with or without an interest rate cap.

Credit card companies can still jack up the costs to the limit, which is 5.33% higher than the supposed average of all credit cards on the market, to recoup their losses. People are going to have to pay it back eventually, I'm sorry they have to do it at less than 35% or some other outrageous rate. (And, quite frankly, the point of a credit card is to spend money you don't have.)

[Purple State]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Again with wild, unlikely, fantastical scenarios dreamt up by economic conservatives. The average credit card interest rate is somewhere around 14-15%, and everything you're complaining about (people getting cards, maxing them out, etc) still happens with or without an interest rate cap.

Credit card companies can still jack up the costs to the limit, which is 5.33% higher than the supposed average of all credit cards on the market, to recoup their losses. People are going to have to pay it back eventually, I'm sorry they have to do it at less than 35% or some other outrageous rate. (And, quite frankly, the point of a credit card is to spend money you don't have.)

With all do respect, considering the worst case scenario is always the smart play. RL events have made me a very cynical person, I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with it for our time together in the Senate.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Again with wild, unlikely, fantastical scenarios dreamt up by economic conservatives. The average credit card interest rate is somewhere around 14-15%, and everything you're complaining about (people getting cards, maxing them out, etc) still happens with or without an interest rate cap.

Credit card companies can still jack up the costs to the limit, which is 5.33% higher than the supposed average of all credit cards on the market, to recoup their losses. People are going to have to pay it back eventually, I'm sorry they have to do it at less than 35% or some other outrageous rate. (And, quite frankly, the point of a credit card is to spend money you don't have.)

With all do respect, considering the worst case scenario is always the smart play. RL events have made me a very cynical person, I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with it for our time together in the Senate.

If we always assume the worst case scenario we're not going to get much done.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

I never advocated for irresponsibility, I just don't see thinks going as smoothly as you and Marokai claim they will, things never do.

Again with wild, unlikely, fantastical scenarios dreamt up by economic conservatives. The average credit card interest rate is somewhere around 14-15%, and everything you're complaining about (people getting cards, maxing them out, etc) still happens with or without an interest rate cap.

Credit card companies can still jack up the costs to the limit, which is 5.33% higher than the supposed average of all credit cards on the market, to recoup their losses. People are going to have to pay it back eventually, I'm sorry they have to do it at less than 35% or some other outrageous rate. (And, quite frankly, the point of a credit card is to spend money you don't have.)

With all do respect, considering the worst case scenario is always the smart play. RL events have made me a very cynical person, I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with it for our time together in the Senate.

If we always assume the worst case scenario we're not going to get much done.

The ends to a means my friend, I regard an inactive Senate as a good thing, the last time they are getting stuff the done the more freedoms are being protected. . The smart way to do legislation is two as much as possible take into account as much as possible both the best and worst case scenarios when crafting legislation. Yes sometimes you have to take some things on faith, but most of the time both should be accounted for, and dealt with. Yes that means the legislation might be longer and much more specific, well thats the price of smart legislating.

[Purple State]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

I never advocated for irresponsibility, I just don't see thinks going as smoothly as you and Marokai claim they will, things never do.

I actually think that the announcement that credit companies will be cutting some people is exactly what should happen. That is a step in the right direction. Once the credit education programs are used things will even out. This is working exactly as planned so far.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

I never advocated for irresponsibility, I just don't see thinks going as smoothly as you and Marokai claim they will, things never do.

I actually think that the announcement that credit companies will be cutting some people is exactly what should happen. That is a step in the right direction. Once the credit education programs are used things will even out. This is working exactly as planned so far.

     Well if that's your view of things, then that is fine. I remember though that some people in the debate thread made it sound like it would be a great loss for some people to have their credit permanently revoked.

[DownWithTheLeft]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

[Marokai Backbeat]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

Yes I believe we got the point after you repeated yourself a dozen times and basically didn't respond to anyone who seriously responded to you.

[Purple State]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

We will see how long Jamaica goes before it decides that maybe discriminating against homosexuals isn't worth losing us as a trading partner... Let's see how it plays out long-run before you start attacking legislation. Does no one have a long-run view of things?

[Marokai Backbeat]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

We will see how long Jamaica goes before it decides that maybe discriminating against homosexuals isn't worth losing us as a trading partner... Let's see how it plays out long-run before you start attacking legislation. Does no one have a long-run view of things?

Unfortunately seeing how it plays out relies on our conservative RPP GM.

[Purple State]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

We will see how long Jamaica goes before it decides that maybe discriminating against homosexuals isn't worth losing us as a trading partner... Let's see how it plays out long-run before you start attacking legislation. Does no one have a long-run view of things?

Unfortunately seeing how it plays out relies on our conservative RPP GM.

My hope is that the GM will be more neutral and avoid serving as a lackey to party politics. This is also why I believe it should not be terribly hard to dismiss the GM. It is all too easy to go crazy with personal partisanship and so I hope Brandon will make sure to be impartial and report effectively.

[Franzl]

Look people, you all voted to confirm Brandon as GM....and I don't think it's a good idea to start complaining now about conservative bias.

I think Brandon is capable of keeping his news items somewhat neutral, but I'll admit that any GM will likely bring in some of his personal views. That's not really preventable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Look people, you all voted to confirm Brandon as GM....and I don't think it's a good idea to start complaining now about conservative bias.

I think Brandon is capable of keeping his news items somewhat neutral, but I'll admit that any GM will likely bring in some of his personal views. That's not really preventable.

I admire his activity, and it's only sensible that he would bring his personal view into this, but his comments are essentially the world that Atlasia operates in. He simulates economic and international activity and direction. If he comments negatively on every single left-wing bill passed then don't be surprised to find me suddenly reverse my formerly strongly held opinions on who can remove a GM.

[Franzl]

I think it would be a mistake to turn GM into a political office. If that ever happens...then we don't really need to elect senators and presidents anymore....because controlling the position of Game Moderator would give you complete influence over everything that "happens" in Atlasia.

I think it's best just to accept what the Game Moderator writes...and react appropriately. At times that can also include disregarding certain things if you don't believe that the legislation will have the described effect in reality, I suppose.

The whole "GM thing" is tricky.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think it would be a mistake to turn GM into a political office. If that ever happens...then we don't really need to elect senators and presidents anymore....because controlling the position of Game Moderator would give you complete influence over everything that "happens" in Atlasia.

I think it's best just to accept what the Game Moderator writes...and react appropriately. At times that can also include disregarding certain things if you don't believe that the legislation will have the described effect in reality, I suppose.

The whole "GM thing" is tricky.

I'm not wanting to turn it into a political office. If anything, my distaste for Brandon's actions say precisely that. It's too early to see whether or not he will basically bring his political agenda into playing god, but even Ebowed, who is far more left wing than many posters in Atlasia, was less biased when he was active.

His last update was a thinly veiled "WE'RE DESTROYING TRADE BECAUSE OF LEFT WING POLICIES!" and "CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ARE GOING TO FAIL BECAUSE OF LEFT WING LEGISLATION!" Is that just a particularly bad unbiased update or the beginning of something of a pattern? We'll see.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Common sense says the LGBT Trade and Credit Card bills won't work, not liberal or conservative bias

[Purple State]

Common sense says the LGBT Trade and Credit Card bills won't work, not liberal or conservative bias

Of course, that is coming from a hard-right conservative. As a centrist and one with decent knowledge of economics, I can tell you that the one-sided negative view that was provided of each bill is far off track, especially when we have Ahmadinejad as the most credible voice provided to bash the LGBT act.