Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] New poll for RLC-Action

Expand Messages
  • Adam J Bernay
    I would point out that my Liberty Bell logo also looks good in grayscale; it was designed to do so. Adam Yes, I do have questions.  I get to ask them BECAUSE
    Message 1 of 51 , Aug 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I would point out that my Liberty Bell logo also looks good in grayscale; it
      was designed to do so.


      Adam

      "Yes, I do have questions.  I get to ask them BECAUSE I'M FREE!"
         -- "Bumper of My SUV," Chely Wright
      ________________________________________
      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of DGHarrison
      Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:05 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] New poll for RLC-Action

      I agree with your one- or two-color printing concept, and I think
      Westmiller's Elephant Torch looks good in gray tones, but I can't seem to
      find your "late" entry. What link do I need to use to get there?

      Doug Harrison
      Minnesota

      Chuck Seberg wrote:

      Mine is the one labeled 'late", but I guess that's because I modified a logo
      that wasn't previously blessed by the NatComm.  If you haven't seen it,
      check it out.  I filled the blank space in Dave Briggman's logo with a blue
      "blanket" and white stars. My thought was that it would look fine with
      either 2 color or 4 color processes.  Which is a consideration as you might
      also consider what a logo would look like when reduced to 1 color. 
      Requiring 4 colors all the time might not be practical.
       
      Chuck
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: DGHarrison
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] New poll for RLC-Action

      The original call for a logo was for a graphic design without any words
      incorporated into it. I'm guessing that the idea was to get a logo that
      stood alone, and any words would be added as needed, depending upon the
      application (although that was never explained in so many words).  Several
      designs were submitted with words, several without. In this regard, all
      designs should be considered for their merit without the words.

      And, just to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment, what I don't quite
      find attractive about the Elephant Flag is that the single star in the
      middle of its forehead makes it look like a circus elephant, which might
      prompt critics of the RLC to make statements like, "There's that RLC circus
      elephant; there must be some RLC clowns around here somewhere." Even the
      "RLC" could be abused by someone turning the "C" into "Clowns." The star
      also looks like a bull's eye. Elephants are hard to bring down, but didn't
      the safari hunter aim right between the eyes to bring a big bull elephant to
      its knees?

      I believe in "negative analysis." You can look at something and find a lot
      of things you like about it, and you can look at something to find what you
      don't like about it. If the negatives outweigh the positives, the decision
      is greatly simplified.

      Doug Harrison
      Minnesota

      Tim Condon wrote:

                Everyone, let me argue for the Elephant Flag logo. The reason I
      like it is that it has our entire name spelled out---Republican Liberty
      Caucus---AND it's got our web site of www.rlc.org on it. Plus it
      incorporates elements of the American flag and the GOP Elephant. An extra
      benefit, to my mind, is that the elephant looks like an enraged rat...but
      that just might only be me.
      Tim Condon, Tampa, FL --- Come live with us in liberty:
      WWW.FREESTATEPROJECT.ORG
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "When people are free to go about their own business, they put their
      ingenuity and creativity in the service of all. They search for ways to
      satisfy the needs, desires, and wants of others. The true utopia lies not in
      some state-sponsored tyranny, but in the free market of goods, ides, and
      services, whose operating principle is that success depends on satisfying
      others."  ---from "Why Freedom?" by R.J. Rummel



      RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
      RLC-Action group:

      RLC members are invited to indicate their preferences for an
      official RLC logo. The entries may be found at:
      www.republicanliberty.org/news/rlc_logos.htm
      Results from the convention and all RLC membership eGroups
      will be reviewed by the Board for final determination.
      Indicate your preference:

      o Elephant Torch [Westmiller-Finalist]
      o Liberty Bell [Bernay-Finalist]
      o Lady Bell [Hancock-Finalist]
      o Bell Emblem [Reed-RunnerUp]
      o Elephant Flag [Oldroyd-RunnerUp]
      o Gadsen Flag [Holtorf]
      o Elephant Line [Briggman]
      o Eagle Emblem [Turner]
      o RLC Flag [McWilliams]
      o Liberty 'B' [Reed]
      o Eagle Flag [Westmiller]
      o Blanket Line [Seberg-Late]
      o None of the Above


      To vote, please visit the following web page:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/surveys?id=1934181

      Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
      not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
      web site listed above.

      Thanks!











      Yahoo! Groups Links












      ________________________________________
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      •  Visit your group "RLC-Action" on the web.
       
      •  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
      •  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      ________________________________________
    • Jeff Palmer
      ... before), so it would probably be a good idea to do a little background research on them before relying on their information. I can vouch for Citizens
      Message 51 of 51 , Sep 17 10:29 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Message
        >I don't really know anything about this group (though I've heard of them before), so it would probably be a good idea to do a little background research on them before relying on their information.
         
        I can vouch for Citizens Against Government Waste (I've been a member for years), and their "Pig Book" would be an excellent resource.

        Jeff Palmer - jap@...
        ***
        Quote of the Week:  “It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak, and another to hear.” — Henry David Thoreau, 1849

        -----Original Message-----
        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Keith Harmon
        Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:28 AM
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Blogging to Cut Government Spending? <SNIPPED> 

        I just took a quick look on the web and ran across Citizens Against Government Waste (http://www.cagw.org/), a nonpartisan organization that  tracks pork projects.  They have a monthly e-newsletter and send out e-mail alerts (presumably on pork projects in the works).  More importantly, they maintain a database of current and past pork legislation--the Pig Book.  The 2005 Pig Book can be viewed at http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005 .

        I don't really know anything about this group (though I've heard of them before), so it would probably be a good idea to do a little background research on them before relying on their information.  Still, the Pig Book and CAGW's other resources look like good places to start.

        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.