NationStates Jolt Archive

I had an idea for a new NS:G political party today while I was enjoying lunch that would reflect my political views.

The core beliefs of The Liberty Party would be that people should be free to do as they wish as long as they're not harming other people. This means that we're extremely pro civil rights, pro gay marriage, etc. In short, as long as you're not harming other people we don't care.

As far as fiscal policy is concerned we believe in a single flat tax, severely restricted (or abolished) social welfare, and severely limited government spending.

The best name that I could think of was The Liberty Party. And the motto would be, "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative."

If you are interested in joining, or have any questions feel free to post.

Surely this is just the same as the NSCL?

Youre basically talking about the American Libertarian party.

Surely this is just the same as the NSCL?

Except that they factor in things like, "public education" into their budget. As far as I'm concerned if people want things like that (education, police, etc. [i.e. most public services that we take for granted]) they can pay for that themselves. The governments responsibilities should be maintaining a military, and maintaining the infrastructure of the nation.

That is a good idea, the problem is externalities. For example what if what is good for one, harms another. Then you have to have a hiearchy of what is "good" or "bad" for people.

I don't think the working class will be pleased (enter revolution)

Also if taxes aren’t paid how will the working class pay for high education for a genius sounds like you will just make feudalism/oligarchy (which was what happened in Greece, Rome, middle ages-late industrial Europe, all of the far east and some advanced African nations (before and even after we started imperialising it) to name a few)

That is a good idea, the problem is externalities. For example what if what is good for one, harms another. Then you have to have a hiearchy of what is "good" or "bad" for people.

Here's the idea. There's a thing called a Common Rights Protocol. This would function in way similar to the Constitution of the United States. The most striking differences would be that there is no provision for free practice of religion. This would allow the government to outlaw, and jail the members of any extemeist fringe religions that infringe on the common rights of the citizens (Example, a extremist religion has been abducting and sacrificing people as part of their worship; under the CRP the government would have to power to arrest the members of the "religion" and declare it outlawed since it was violating the rights of the people it was abducting and murdering.)

Some of the rights I'd like to include in the CRP are;

1) The right to live.
2) The right to privacy.
3) The right to personal freedoms and responsibilities; As long as you dont infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.

I'll add more later but hopefully this should give you a basic idea of what im aiming for.

I don't think the working class will be pleased (enter revolution)


WOOOO! Start your party!

I don't think the working class will be pleased (enter revolution)

Also if taxes aren’t paid how will the working class pay for high education for a genius sounds like you will just make feudalism/oligarchy (which was what happened in Greece, Rome, middle ages-late industrial Europe, all of the far east and some advanced African nations (before and even after we started imperialising it) to name a few)

I never said anything about no taxes, there will just be no public education or social walfare (ideally). It is my personal belief that when you don't have a crutch to support you it changes your view on life. I.E. when people are not being fed/supported by the government they will either work (and therefore eventually raise their standings in life), or starve. I'm sure you've heard of survival of the fittest?

also how would NASA (or its NS general equivalent) find out about black holes work if there is no profitable reason to?

(enter end of Human race as one eats us)

also how would NASA (or its NS general equivalent) find out about black holes work if there is no profitable reason to?

(enter end of Human race as one eats us)
Even if they found one near us (which they wont, because you can detect them on X-Ray telescopes and we havent found any nearby) there isnt anything they could do about it. Private space exploration firms do useful things, like sending people to orbit and the moon etc. At least, those are the plans.

WOOOO! Start your party!

Quaint. I'll take that with a grain of salt....

A system very similar to this one worked very well in Hong Kong and throughout Europe and the U.S. throughout the 19th century. And look what happened, those nations have the strongest economies in the world due to the solid foundations on which they established in the industrial era.

also how would NASA (or its NS general equivalent) find out about black holes work if there is no profitable reason to?

(enter end of Human race as one eats us)

I'm guessing you've never heard of any of the many many many private space exploration startups. The idea is that firms like these will fill in the void where the now defunct government space agencies use to exist.

I like the sound of this party, it's libertarian which is my personal political philosophy. It's a shame it doesnt exist in real life. All the ecomomic conservatives seem to be religious nutters, and all the liberals seem to be pseudo-socialist environmentalists.

I like the sound of this party, it's libertarian which is my personal political philosophy. It's a shame it doesnt exist in real life. All the ecomomic conservatives seem to be religious nutters, and all the liberals seem to be pseudo-socialist environmentalists.

Exactly! I had thought of myself as a Republican (U.S.) for the longest time but was disgusted at how engrained the religious right was involved in the party.

Mind you I am a Christian (non-denominational) but I am a firm supporter of seperation of church and state.

I never said anything about no taxes, there will just be no public education or social walfare (ideally). It is my personal belief that when you don't have a crutch to support you it changes your view on life. I.E. when people are not being fed/supported by the government they will either work (and therefore eventually raise their standings in life), or starve. I'm sure you've heard of survival of the fittest?

so old lady who worked for a pittance and can't afford a pension because of it doesn’t deserve our help (mind you I'm European) and what about the Man who is unable to use his arms and legs but has kids too feed do we let them starve or have to dig coal with his teeth because there is no work? also will you let poor children (possible Einstein’s!) live in squalor?

(enter civil unrest, feudalism, mass starvation, mass pollution due to factories not having to be clean to skip tax or I could just say conditions like the industrial revolution only with the threat of communism and the whole world horrified at you populations squalor)

Your also forgetting the lower class is larger so you either won’t get elected and if by some fluke you do won’t be able to control (see what happened when the Russian government sent in troops to stop the communist revolution)

Even if they found one near us (which they wont, because you can detect them on X-Ray telescopes and we havent found any nearby) there isnt anything they could do about it. Private space exploration firms do useful things, like sending people to orbit and the moon etc. At least, those are the plans.

a black hole was an example and why do you think we aren’t living in space colonies right now? because the private industry didn't want to pay for it and the government wanted lower taxes

This platform sounds pretty similar to mine. Why start a new party when you can JOIN THE COLLECTIVE! ;)

so old lady who worked for a pittance and can't afford a pension because of it doesn’t deserve our help (mind you I'm European) and what about the Man who is unable to use his arms and legs but has kids too feed do we let them starve or have to dig coal with his teeth because there is no work? also will you let poor children (possible Einstein’s!) live in squalor?

While this is unfortunate it is no concern to the government. And are you forgetting the many charities and faith based organizations that help the poor and needy?

(enter civil unrest, feudalism, mass starvation, mass pollution due to factories not having to be clean to skip tax or I could just say conditions like the industrial revolution only with the threat of communism and the whole world horrified at you populations squalor)

The reason why there was a revolution in Russia was the feudal system. I.E. If you were a serf no matter how hard you worked you would still be poor and essentially the property of the "lord" (or whatever they called them).

Your also forgetting the lower class is larger so you either won’t get elected and if by some fluke you do won’t be able to control (see what happened when the Russian government sent in troops to stop the communist revolution)

This is preposterous speculation and nonsense. There were no mass "peoples" revolutions in Europe because they had abandoned the feudal system. By doing this it allowed the lower class that was willing to work hard enough to better their standing in society.

This platform sounds pretty similar to mine. Why start a new party when you can JOIN THE COLLECTIVE! ;)

I'd like to hear more if you'd be willing to tell me via TG, links, MSN, or AIM.

I would like to point out that, with no public education, those who are morally motivated would offer school at no expense, and much of the poor would be given ample motivation to have their children attend religious schooling, for no other reason but that they cannot afford secular schooling.

If there is anything I dislike more than forced economic behavior, it is forced religious behavior.

I tend to think that standardized basic (ages 6-14) public education is something that is very important to our social and economic liberty.

If there is anything I dislike more than forced economic behavior, it is forced religious behavior.

How is it forced? And whats to say that in this hypothetical society that there would be many different kinds of schools. I.E. You have the $45,000 a month elite school where CEO's and world leaders send their kids, then you have schools that cater to the lower classes (since there would be a market for it).

a black hole was an example and why do you think we aren’t living in space colonies right now? because the private industry didn't want to pay for it and the government wanted lower taxes
Because it would cost WAY too much (ie. several times the yearly income of several developed nations), would take decades to build and at the end of it it wouldnt achieve anything particularly useful or productive.

While this is unfortunate it is no concern to the government. And are you forgetting the many charities and faith based organizations that help the poor and needy?

so your saying its not the governments job to help its citizens?

The reason why there was a revolution in Russia was the feudal system. I.E. If you were a serf no matter how hard you worked you would still be poor and essentially the property of the "lord" (or whatever they called them).

wasn't surfs abolished after the Crimean war?



This is preposterous speculation and nonsense. There were no mass "peoples" revolutions in Europe because they had abandoned the feudal system. By doing this it allowed the lower class that was willing to work hard enough to better their standing in society.

I think you need to get your history strait (Weimar republic, labour getting to power in the U.K) also many worker rights were given leading to the massive battles the conservatives in Britain had to fight that were needed to save the country's economy

How is it forced? And whats to say that in this hypothetical society that there would be many different kinds of schools. I.E. You have the $45,000 a month elite school where CEO's and world leaders send their kids, then you have schools that cater to the lower classes (since there would be a market for it).

Its forced in the idea that you either go to a school you can afford, or you are unmarketable in the workplace. If you are going to make people benefit society to get their wages, you may want to make sure that they have the tools to be beneficial to society.

Education is a very expensive service to provide. I am not sure that the lower classes will provide a profitable market.

Because it would cost WAY too much (ie. several times the yearly income of several developed nations), would take decades to build and at the end of it it wouldnt achieve anything particularly useful or productive.

so your saying the study of the universe isn't important? also do you think I'm looking for ever night or even over century results? I think you might be asking too much even if scientist had all the money ever!

so your saying its not the governments job to help its citizens?

It is not the governments concern to help those who cannot help themselves. So in short, no.

wasn't surfs abolished after the Crimean war?

Surf's were given the right to buy their freedom.... I think.

I think you need to get your history strait (Weimar republic, labour getting to power in the U.K) also many worker rights were given leading to the massive battles the conservatives in Britain had to fight that were needed to save the country's economy

I'm sorry but I don't think of any of those as "revolutions", merely a shift in power. (except the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of Nazi Germany. MAYBE.)

How is it forced? And whats to say that in this hypothetical society that there would be many different kinds of schools. I.E. You have the $45,000 a month elite school where CEO's and world leaders send their kids, then you have schools that cater to the lower classes (since there would be a market for it).

it would still cost too much (look at how the poor get tax cuts because they can't even afford to pay that!)

so your saying the study of the universe isn't important? also do you think I'm looking for ever night or even over century results? I think you might be asking too much even if scientist had all the money ever!

HELLO? Have you been listening to anything we've been saying? There are private firms that have an intrest in space and there will always be universities and other such organaizations that will "study the universe."

It is not the governments concern to help those who cannot help themselves. So in short, no.

but you still want to have a military (enter mercenaries)



I'm sorry but I don't think of any of those as "revolutions", merely a shift in power. (except the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of Nazi Germany. MAYBE.)

they were averted revolutions look at what started to happen in eastern Europe during the 80's when even Russia knew workers were becoming restless

Its forced in the idea that you either go to a school you can afford, or you are unmarketable in the workplace. If you are going to make people benefit society to get their wages, you may want to make sure that they have the tools to be beneficial to society.

Education is a very expensive service to provide. I am not sure that the lower classes will provide a profitable market.

I'm going to throw this out here, but remember this is hypothetical.

In the U.S. education is very decentralized and therefore you have poor areas that have poor schools. (the majority of funding is on the county level)

So lets say that you have a company that provides education to poor familes for the same rate that they would have been paying in taxes, (now replaced with one low flat tax). Its just like car manufacturers make different automobiles for different levels of income, when the very large and untapped market appears for low income households wishing to educate their children it is doubtless that several private firms will step in to profit. Keep in mind that these would'nt nessecarily be as nice as the schools that CEO's send their children to but it would be education.

I had an idea for a new NS:G political party today while I was enjoying lunch that would reflect my political views.

The core beliefs of The Liberty Party would be that people should be free to do as they wish as long as they're not harming other people. This means that we're extremely pro civil rights, pro gay marriage, etc. In short, as long as you're not harming other people we don't care.

As far as fiscal policy is concerned we believe in a single flat tax, severely restricted (or abolished) social welfare, and severely limited government spending.

The best name that I could think of was The Liberty Party. And the motto would be, "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative."

If you are interested in joining, or have any questions feel free to post.


Just Libertarian-Right then.

HELLO? Have you been listening to anything we've been saying? There are private firms that have an intrest in space and there will always be universities and other such organaizations that will "study the universe."

private firms are remarkably slow when it comes to space (look at how long its taken for a private craft to enter space) and if the government hadn't travelled there making a market for research they wouldn't of

also why should private university's be bothered to research the universe there trying to run a business

I'm going to throw this out here, but remember this is hypothetical.

In the U.S. education is very decentralized and therefore you have poor areas that have poor schools. (the majority of funding is on the county level)

So lets say that you have a company that provides education to poor familes for the same rate that they would have been paying in taxes, (now replaced with one low flat tax). Its just like car manufacturers make different automobiles for different levels of income, when the very large and untapped market appears for low income households wishing to educate their children it is doubtless that several private firms will step in to profit. Keep in mind that these would'nt nessecarily be as nice as the schools that CEO's send their children to but it would be education.

but why would a poor family struggle to give there kids education? (enter child labour)

Even in the U.S there are laws that say kids must be educated and if they weren’t paying for it how would it be fair?

but you still want to have a military (enter mercenaries)

Why shouldn't there be private security firms? And I'll also say this, it is the governments responsibility to protect its citizens but to not protect them from themselves. I.E. We will maintain a military to keep you safe from foreign threats but we will not feed you and house you (those are your own personal responsibilities).

they were averted revolutions look at what started to happen in eastern Europe during the 80's when even Russia knew workers were becoming restless

I couldn't help but chuckle at that. Are you suggesting that the defunct Soviet Union was a workers paradise? (maybe strong words but you get my meaning)

but why would a poor family struggle to give there kids education? (enter child labour)

Are you saying that poor families don't care about their children?

Even in the U.S there are laws that say kids must be educated and if they weren’t paying for it how would it be fair?

I think you missunderstand, there is no law that says you have to graduate with a degree (I.E. Education) you just have to show up for school. Once you're there you are free to do whatever you want.

private firms are remarkably slow when it comes to space (look at how long its taken for a private craft to enter space) and if the government hadn't travelled there making a market for research they wouldn't of

Maybe if the federal government wasn't holding a monopoly on the industry progress would be expedited.

also why should private university's be bothered to research the universe there trying to run a business

Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that many do this now.

Why shouldn't there be private security firms? And I'll also say this, it is the governments responsibility to protect its citizens but to not protect them from themselves. I.E. We will maintain a military to keep you safe from foreign threats but we will not feed you and house you (those are your own personal responsibilities).

so why should the rich pay for the working class to be protected when they could just pay a smaller cost and get the same protection?

I couldn't help but chuckle at that. Are you suggesting that the defunct Soviet Union was a workers paradise? (maybe strong words but you get my meaning)

no I'm saying that they knew what would happen if they didn’t start to change policy's (which is what some eastern European governments didn't see and ended up with battles starting everywhere)

And where the hell did you get workers paradise from?

Are you saying that poor families don't care about their children?

they sure didn’t before child labour was abolished

I think you missunderstand, there is no law that says you have to graduate with a degree (I.E. Education) you just have to show up for school. Once you're there you are free to do whatever you want.

its still giving you the chance to have a better life wither you want it or not is up to you

I'm going to throw this out here, but remember this is hypothetical.

In the U.S. education is very decentralized and therefore you have poor areas that have poor schools. (the majority of funding is on the county level)

So lets say that you have a company that provides education to poor familes for the same rate that they would have been paying in taxes, (now replaced with one low flat tax). Its just like car manufacturers make different automobiles for different levels of income, when the very large and untapped market appears for low income households wishing to educate their children it is doubtless that several private firms will step in to profit. Keep in mind that these would'nt nessecarily be as nice as the schools that CEO's send their children to but it would be education.

I don't think it would be profitable to offer education to those of low income.

I am positive that there is some wealth redistribution going on in the public school system, as the much of the low income population does not pay taxes, yet their children go to school. So I don't see private businesses even trying to offer low income schooling. And everyone must have access to some basic education, otherwise they are very unvaluable on the labor market.

so why should the rich pay for the working class to be protected when they could just pay a smaller cost and get the same protection?

Well, it may have to do with the fact that paying the flat tax is mandatory. In addition the tax does not only pay for the military but for upkeep of the nations infrastructure.

And where the hell did you get workers paradise from?

1) I was being cheeky. 2) I said in parenthesis, "strong words, but you get my meaning."

Maybe if the federal government wasn't holding a monopoly on the industry progress would be expedited.

the federal government is even offering prize money for space industry I hardly say they have a monopoly because there not exactly building hotels up there

Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that many do this now.

yes I'm sure there well on there way to find a boldness drug to sell to the rich

because there not exactly building hotels up there


Yet another reason why the private markets should have invested in space technology years ago.

Let's get some hotels on the moon.

Well, it may have to do with the fact that paying the flat tax is mandatory. In addition the tax does not only pay for the military but for upkeep of the nations infrastructure.
but I'm sure you know that when you give one inch they will ask for another and how would a party based on libertarian principles justify forcing a tax?

I don't think it would be profitable to offer education to those of low income.

Its not profitable to only produce a product for the top .99% of society. I.E. the rich.

I am positive that there is some wealth redistribution going on in the public school system, as the much of the low income population does not pay taxes, yet their children go to school.

Oh, they go to school alright. Just undefunded prisons whose only purpose is to give them somewhere to spend the day so they aren't stealing cars, dealing drugs, or whoring themselves.


So I don't see private businesses even trying to offer low income schooling.

Quit looking at this in the sense of today, with public schools. In the society that my party would provide there would be no public school, so naturally companies would want to tap the market of low income households wishing to educate their children.

Heres a good analogy. All major automobile manufacturers produce a "economy" line of cars for the sole purpose of tapping the market of poor people who want transportation. If there is a market, a company will undoubtably exploit it.

And everyone must have access to some basic education, otherwise they are very unvaluable on the labor market.

Yes, you keep saying that but I can't help but bring up the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants (unskilled labour) come to the U.S. (and Europe, but I dont know to what extent) to work. If there were no jobs that required unskilled labour there would be no immigration problem. Thus, even if you are unskilled you can still be of use to the job market. You just wont be working in an office.

but I'm sure you know that when you give one inch they will ask for another and how would a party based on libertarian principles justify forcing a tax?

Its simple. A government needs money. We will just require less of it than other governments.

yes I'm sure there well on there way to find a boldness drug to sell to the rich

If you're only going to contribute mindless rants to this discussion then I would ask you to kindly leave.

how would a party based on libertarian principles justify forcing a tax?

In addtion to my other response to this post

I'm not suggesting Anarchy here, its just that all governments need money and you certainly aren't going to get it from donations.

Its not profitable to only produce a product for the top .99% of society. I.E. the rich.

its also not profitable to have labour that can't drive a car when the greatest industry is taxi driving

Oh, they go to school alright. Just undefunded prisons whose only purpose is to give them somewhere to spend the day so they aren't stealing cars, dealing drugs, or whoring themselves.

you certainly have a bad view of the working class considering that there are allot of them who aren’t getting into the papers

Quit looking at this in the sense of today, with public schools. In the society that my party would provide there would be no public school, so naturally companies would want to tap the market of low income households wishing to educate their children.

but why would a low income family be able to lose a source of income?

Heres a good analogy. All major automobile manufacturers produce a "economy" line of cars for the sole purpose of tapping the market of poor people who want transportation. If there is a market, a company will undoubtably exploit it.

unless the poor can't afford a car that is

Yes, you keep saying that but I can't help but bring up the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants (unskilled labour) come to the U.S. (and Europe, but I dont know to what extent) to work. If there were no jobs that required unskilled labour there would be no immigration problem. Thus, even if you are unskilled you can still be of use to the job market. You just wont be working in an office.

immigrants are just exploited as cheap labour in the states (in the U.K we have minimum wage so the work isn't as easy to find) and that market is already taken largely by illegal immigrants so when the poor start asking why they have no jobs we end up with people saying its the "damm foreigners" and thus nazism becomes allot more popular (enter new Hitler)

Its not profitable to only produce a product for the top .99% of society. I.E. the rich.

I am obviously not saying that only the rich will receive schooling, I am saying that the very poor will not receive schooling, that interruptions in employment will jeopardize a child's education.

Oh, they go to school alright. Just undefunded prisons whose only purpose is to give them somewhere to spend the day so they aren't stealing cars, dealing drugs, or whoring themselves.

Schools provide a different purpose than this, and not all poor children would rather be out stealing cars, dealing drugs, or whoring themselves, in fact the age set I defined for public education would just barely be reaching an age where crime would be any problem at all.

Also, school should be optional, so if they would rather be stealing cars, then they will be out stealing cars.

Quit looking at this in the sense of today, with public schools. In the society that my party would provide there would be no public school, so naturally companies would want to tap the market of low income households wishing to educate their children.

Trust me, you don't have to give me any lessons on the free market and profit motives. I am not questioning the private business's ability to provide low income education, I am questioning the market's ability because of an inability of businesses to profit from it.

To provide low income education, I would expect costs to be as low as $1,000 per child (and even that cuts out a portion), and I think you would be hard pressed to find any business who can offer a service at that level.

Yes, you keep saying that but I can't help but bring up the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants (unskilled labour) come to the U.S. (and Europe, but I dont know to what extent) to work. If there were no jobs that required unskilled labour there would be no immigration problem. Thus, even if you are unskilled you can still be of use to the job market. You just wont be working in an office.

I hate to penalize a child entering the workforce for the ineffectiveness of the parent.

And many of those jobs are available because there is no tax, no minimum wage, and no regulations applied to the workers. The workers work tax free for three or four dollars an hour untaxed.

In addtion to my other response to this post

I'm not suggesting Anarchy here, its just that all governments need money and you certainly aren't going to get it from donations.

so you would lose allot of the libertarian supporters and another party who promises even less taxes will win

Remember people are stupid

its also not profitable to have labour that can't drive a car when the greatest industry is taxi driving

Taking a taxi is alot more expenisve than owning your own car....

you certainly have a bad view of the working class considering that there are allot of them who aren’t getting into the papers

Are we talking about people who work, or people who are poor?

but why would a low income family be able to lose a source of income?

So you're saying they don't care about their children? They'd be willing to ship them off to the textile mills or mines? Seems like you certainly have a bad view of "the working class." Oh gee, where have I heard that before?

unless the poor can't afford a car that is

Like I said, there is a market for cars like that or auto manufacturers would not produce them.

immigrants are just exploited as cheap labour in the states (in the U.K we have minimum wage so the work isn't as easy to find) and that market is already taken largely by illegal immigrants so when the poor start asking why they have no jobs we end up with people saying its the "damm foreigners" and thus nazism becomes allot more popular (enter new Hitler)

Maybe the solution would be to control immigration then.

And didn't I ask you to leave?

------------------------------------------------

As a side note,

This thread has degenerated into an abortion that I did not intend it to become. I simply wanted to see if anyone was interested and answer some questions about world view and such. This was not supposed to be a debate thread.

I'll be asking the moderators to lock this since it has gone way off topic.

I LOVE your party, I thought of the excact same this matter of fact. :)

isn't the idea of a political debate to get support by making good points? and didn’t you ask us to give question?

Anyway anyone who sees what I’m saying I advise you look at European socialist party’s

FIN

isn't the idea of a political debate to get support by making good points? and didn’t you ask us to give question?


I did ask for questions. But when the whole thread degenerates into a debate (which it was not meant to be) is when I deemed it "off-topic" and put in the lock request.

I'll probably make a new thread for the Liberty Party in the future but I would kindly ask anyone opposed to it to save the arguing for an official debate.

isn't the idea of a political debate to get support by making good points?

Yes, BUT THIS WAS NOT A DEBATE!

Yes, BUT THIS WAS NOT A DEBATE!

then stop debating :p (got you there)

then stop debating :p (got you there)

Then why did you start? ;)

Screw Liberalism everyone, come enroll and support the NBIP!

Wow... thats um.... inapropriate. Thanks for spamming! :rolleyes:

Screw Liberalism everyone, come enroll and support the NBIP!

*bangs head* sad thing is your party's doing well in the election but still I must ask liberalism?

*bangs head* sad thing is your party's doing well in the election but still I must ask liberalism?

Sad thing indeed my dear fellow, a return to imperial glory, majesty, triumph and quintissentially British dominance, I fail to percieve a feasible objection. Tally Ho!

All of you; quit it with the giant bold colour text, please. It doesn't exactly make you look good.

Now, the topics of threads do change over time. I understand that the current topic has diverged from what the thread starter wished it to be. However, in General threads are not automatically locked upon the starter's request, and if this thread can recover from the recent spate of off-the-rails-ness that has overcome it, it will stay open.

(If I spot anyone trying purposefully to derail it, things will not be so pleasant).

Y'all have a real good day now, y'hear?

~ Tsar the Mod.