I has been accepted by the UN!

Apparently my nation is not very beuatiful, and lacks nice beaches and lush forests

How was Thawmus able to endorse Antigony, Ob-la-da, and Guilexia all at the same time?

*points to user name*

That's why. That right there.

So after choosing to support gay marriages, here's where I stand:

Civil Rights: Good
Economy: Fragile
Political Freedoms: Below Average
Regional Influence: Instigator

Civil Rights went up, as expected.

Today's issue:

Workers across the nation have gone out on indefinite strike over what they claim are substandard wages in the Arms Manufacturing industry.

The Debate
"We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader Charles Jones. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well A Utopian Way of Life's economy manages without any Arms Manufacturing, huh?"
[Accept]


"We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative Beth Gutenberg. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."
[Accept]

Went with 1. My economy is fragile to begin with. Do you think that's the right choice?

I need someone to explain to me how paying workers higher wages can make an industry uncompetitive. I'm not sure how that works.

The arguement - though not addressed in those options - is that if you're shelling out more for employees, not only do you have to have a smaller workforce but can't compete as well with companies that are able to use foreign workforces hired out on a few rupees a day (i.e. - your money is going into employee wages instead of production, advertisement, your pocket, uhm...skip the last one ). There's also a debate as to whether employees with higher wages - thus feeling a bit of financial security - will work as industriously as those that eek out a living but that gets into a whole other issue.

So which option would help my economy?

Option #2 would help your economy.

I have crime problems.

yesterday I have to choose between:

More cops, education, or give several punishments. I choose more cops. but I was temted to give more punishment. looks like it was a good decision because the crime go down.

Well, I had chosen Option 3 on the Free Speech issue - though I almost went with Option 2 - because I thought it was basically saying the ol' "Your right to free speech ends where my face begins"-thing. Apparently it gets implemented a bit harsher than that, unfortunately, as somehow I made it a crime to offend someone's religious beliefs. Sigh...so just a warning to folks on that one.

My current issue:


The Issue
A recent poll has revealed high levels of dissatisfaction among the populace about tax rates.

The Debate
"Do you know how much of my year's work goes to the government?" demanded angry worker Lars Dredd. "Too much! Government spending has gotten way out of control. It needs big cuts in welfare, health, and education. But leave those subsidies to business alone. We need them to create jobs."

"It's not the AMOUNT of tax, it's where the burden falls," says student activist Konrad Love. "And at the moment, far too much of the burden is falling on the poor. People on high incomes still have more money than people on low incomes. I don't think I need to say anything more than that."

"I don't object to the amount of tax, I object to where it's being spent," says social reformer Klaus Rifkin. "I'd like to see everyone have a choice as to where their sankars go every time they fill out a tax return. Everyone would feel a lot better about opening their wallets if they had a say as to where the money went. I think you'd see a lot more public money going to education and a lot less to business."


I almost suspect I have to go with Number 3 - the other two are fairly poorly worded as well but I don't think cutting out social programs works with the current structure of my country and I'm rather happy with the flat tax currently in Ob-la-da - but I don't particularly like that idea; I won't dismiss - especially on a tax issue - but these options are "ergh". Option 2 would be more tempting if the guy didn't sound so stupid - of course rich people have more money than poor people! I also don't like to punish success - but Option 3 leaves me thinking that we'll see things like law enforcement and what-not go by the wayside.

Hmm...starting to wonder if that's part of the point of the game and it's secretly pro-politician: no matter the choices, they always boil down to sounding outrageous and bad.

Thawmus Decides:
Child Casino Shock

The Issue

Children as young as eight have been spotted gambling in some of Thawmus's seedier casinos.

The Debate

1. Social activist Konrad Jones is outraged. "Gambling needs to be outlawed immediately. It's no wonder children are becoming sucked into the vice, with adults setting such a poor example. Gambling is a stain on Thawmus's international reputation and it must be stopped!"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

2. However, Crown Casino chairperson Naki Washington says, "What's wrong with children gambling? It prepares them for the realities of life, teaching them that success or failure is not due to hard work or intelligence, but the roll of the dice. Besides, if kids weren't gambling, they'd be spraypainting trains."
[Accept]

Obviously, I'm taking #1......






Depression-ville Decides:
Harry Potter Censorship Row

The Issue

The latest "Harry Potter" book to hit schools across Depression-ville has stirred up the greatest controversy yet.

The Debate

1. "I quite enjoyed the book, until I got to the part where Harry summons evil demons to do his bidding," says religious leader Dave Utopia. "Now that's just wrong. We need to restore some sense to this debate, by which I mean we should remove this book from the shelves, salt it thoroughly, and burn it."

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

2. Teachers union President Pip Nagasawa says, "Come on, the book is fantasy! And it's a damn good read. I'd like the government to issue a statement of support for our teachers and librarians, so kids can enjoy good books without interference from religious wackos, like Christians."
[Accept]

I'm taking #1, because I outlaw everything in that country.

I read everybody's country in our region.

The one who more near to my thouts are is the Thawmus one. Ironic, right? He get my first give Endorsement.

My Kingdom is beautiful! I'm 9 in the regional rankind!

Meh, just wait until we decide whether women get any rights at all. You'll steer clear of us, then, Carlos.

clearly the game exagerated. but I think you should go with your final opinion. no matter if your final opinion is the same as the stupid guy. Becuase may sound stupid but it will be more YOUR way, and for sure you have more ways to follow YOUR way with better words than the stupid guys.

My way to choose is too choise not choose the "right way". Is more like choose MY way. and if I'm wrong I want to see why or in what way will affect my Kingdom. Of course, that is just my 2c.