Not surprisingly, Faux & Fiends plays up the “fear” angle in all this, since they have nothing of substance to add to the debate. Yes, annual fees and the like will probably go up, and that’s fine–what’ll be different is that the “fine print” will be much bigger, and there will be less of it.

As Alan Stewart Carl wrote, competition will still force these companies to come up with bigger and better deals, just to stay in the game. The deals of 2015 may not be as “sweet” as the deals of 2005, but they’ll still be good.

It matters not to me and mine, though–we dumped all our revolving credit cards in 2005, and have since seen our savings go up, and our financial stress go down. If all the credit card folks jumped into cesspools tomorrow morning and drowned themselves, it’d be about five years too late, in my humble opinion.

–Ag

Colburn has a dog collar around his neck, and the National Rifle Association has the other end of the leash.

If having guns in national parks is so important… then it should easily pass as its own piece of legislation, under its own merits–shouldn’t it?

Neither Colburn, nor his fellow legislators had the cojones to follow through on this, with the proper legislative procedure.

Cowardice substantiated. Moving on…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

http://www.newsy.com/videos/congress_amends_credit

Most STATES now have a “shall issue” concealed carry law.

Current FEDERAL law forbids carrying firearms in NATIONAL parks.

This bill will require the federal gov to conform to the provisions of the state that the park is located in.

Restated, if you have a valid carry permit issued in your state, you will be allowed to carry in a National park in your state, or in any state that has a reciprocity agreement with your state.

This right to carry in a National park ONLY applies to holders of valid concealed carry permits. If you do not have a permit, you still cannot carry in a National park.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

Might it be the case that it allows people to carry concealed weapons into parks that are in states where this is already legal? Because that makes sense to me.

As to the notion of unrelated measure in bills, is this an uncommon exception? Or do congressfolk do this fairly often? My sense is that it’s the latter, although I am open to correction. Nancy Pelosi never, say, added a minority protection law amendment to a bill about medicare funding? Tom Brownback never, say, added an amendment expanding access of churches to hunger relief money to a bill about oil exploration? Nothing like that?

If indeed it’s the case that congresscritters do this fairly often, that changes what I am wondering about. The question to me would then become “how come this one particular instance of an unrelated measure added to bill is being highly publicized?”

And then I fill in the obvious answer all by myself.