 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 19:26:15 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
Oh, I MUST have one immediately.
I like the first design. I'll get two. Will wear often. In my political blogging days, my trademark was rude hostility, having grown up a fundamentalist Christian. Yea...baggage. |
|
| Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 9:15:25 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Frank W.
E-mail: reardenmettle(at)yahoo.com
Something I thought of doing (but have not acted on, yet) is to have a T-shirt that says on the front:
To Each According To His Needs,
From Each According To OBAMA!(with a slash of red to underline "OBAMA")
On the back, it would have the following:
"...Spread the wealth around..."
-President Barack Obama
Trouble is, some might think I advocate the idea. I guess it needs some tweaking. If anyone wants to take it and run with it, you're welcome to it.
|
|
| Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 9:49:04 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/
One that I've already suggested to Greg, but will mention here in the hopes that other people will also want one:
"John Galt went on strike and all I could produce on my own was this lousy T-shirt." |
|
| Friday, November 14, 2008 at 13:58:31 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: SarahG
E-mail: sarah.gelberg(at)att.net
Kyle--I like that a lot, but I have a feeling it would be somewhat obscure to most people.
There was a t-shirt that I saw years ago but have never seen since and I really want one: it looks like the Intel logo, but instead of "Intel inside," it says "Atheist inside". It would also work if it said "Capitalist inside". |
|
| Friday, November 14, 2008 at 16:54:08 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/
One of the things I like about my idea is that people who don't get the reference would tend to react by asking "Who is John Galt?" If you put the URL for the Atlas Shrugged website on the shirt too, you could just point at it and say "Look it up." It's a conversation-starter -- in some ways it works better if people *don't* get the reference. |
|
| Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 8:01:56 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Brad
E-mail: hoser900(at)yahoo.com
I thought of one the other day...
Front: "Looks like Democrats are the new conservatives."
Back: "Because they 'tax-and-spend', but Republicans just 'spend-and-spend'." |
|
| Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 8:45:03 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brad,
I'm afraid that's the sad truth. I'm not in favor of big government. Ultimately I hope to see government operating without compulsory taxation. Until then, I prefer a small government with few functions and low taxes. But if we are going to have a big government with lots of functions, I think it's better that it be paid for through visible taxation than that it be paid for through irresponsible fiscal policies that give rise to inflation. And that's the effective choice between Democrats and Republicans.
In the first place, when we pay the costs of government through inflation, there's a natural distracting mechanism: working people complain about greedy businesses charging high prices, businesses complain about greedy labor demanding high wages, and they spend time fighting each other instead of seeing that both rising prices and rising wages come about because government is draining away productive output and debasing the currency. In the second place, the illusion that they aren't paying for government programs seems to encourage voters to support more government programs. The expansionist government of the past eight years was solidly Republican.
And in the third place, governmental fiscal irresponsibility has encouraged a culture of personal financial irresponsibility: people buying houses on mortgages they couldn't afford or sustain, people spending the money they "saved" through tax cuts without recognizing that in the long run they would be paying the costs of big government, even government sending out substantial amounts of money as taxpayer rebates to encourage more consumer spending. Republicans have stopped being the party of saving and investing, and turned into a party of Keynesian consumer stimulus. And in the meantime it's the Democrats who are talking about investment and infrastructure. They're wrong, of course, in thinking that government is the best or even a workable way to accomplish investment in infrastructure, but at least they've got one thing right: investment is the real path to wealth. |
|
| Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 7:13:29 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
William Stoddard: "The expansionist government of the past eight years was solidly Republican."
Yet again I point out to someone who should know better: Congress has been Democrat for the last two years. And before that the Republicans' control was rather tenuous with the Dems wielding the filibuster in the Senate. (Certainly the fiscally conservative Republicans (all half dozen of them) were *never* in control; but that's your whole point.)
This is not to say that the Republicans haven't been thoroughly awful; the prescription drug benefit is only the most prominent example of such and that was back in 2005 if I recall correctly--right after they gave up any pretense of trying to fix Social Security. In point of fact enough increases happened before the Dems took Congress to make arguments for "gridlock" being better, if not compelling, at least reasonable.
I believe the fiscally conservative part of the Republican party was more powerful--within the party--before 1994. (Back when I still liked the GOP, somewhat.) Once the Republican party took control of Congress, however, there was the necessity of compromise with the big-spending "RINOs" (I'll comment on that acroynym shortly) and with "moderate" Dems who jumped to the Republican party to stay in power, such as Ben Nighthorse Campbell--and just incidentally became more "RINOs".
RINO, by the way, is ironic. It stands for "Republican In Name Only" and is a derisive label applied to moderate, big spending Republicans by the more fiscally conservative types (and also now used against *social* moderates by the Religious Right). The fact of the matter, however, is that "RINOs" constitute the majority of the Republican politicians.
"And in the meantime it's the Democrats who are talking about investment and infrastructure. They're wrong, of course, in thinking that government is the best or even a workable way to accomplish investment in infrastructure, but at least they've got one thing right: investment is the real path to wealth."
What you see here is the Democrats recognizing that many Americans believe this--and hijacking the word "investment." I don't believe that they themselves truly understand the fact, or they wouldn't have the nerve to use the word "investment" here. |
|
| Friday, November 21, 2008 at 20:46:47 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: TheArrogantAtheist
URL: http://www.TheArrogantAtheist.com
Hi! Like the shirt and some of the other ideas that you all have so far. Glad to see we aren't the only ones out there trying to spread atheist/objectivist ideals. Keep it up! :P
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Greg Perkins
Comments
