CG, what is the purpose of meeting people at a Clinton event? How will it make a difference - and what difference will it make? I'm unclear on the last bit - you know people who have worked with her in the past, so there's a chance of....what?

CG, how would you characterize them, if you mostly don't agree with Rich?

So the only way in your mind to be non-contradictory is to support third-party candidates who at least so far usually don't win? By working with them, you're indirectly helping the Republicans, who have a worse record on liberty. In exchange for that, though, you support someone who does not win. IMHO there is a direct conflict between your support for liberty and working to undermine it.

I don't really mean that, though, because maybe those candidates are raising the issues. And maybe if enough people do what you do, they'll reach critical mass.

Please stop the nonsense that if I'm not doing your program I'm undermining liberty.

IMHO, if the money goes away they are forced to change and that is the best shot at changing our government and for this nation to survive.

Agreed. Money is oxygen to the political parties.

"it sounds like CG is looking to develop a group of political cronies... so he might feather his own nest. Sounds like the power of pull..."
You're not the only one, so sorry to direct this to you, but why do you carry on saying this kind of shit? You've never met me and have no idea. If I really were sucking up to decion-makers to get a handout, I probably would have slick narrative to the contrary. I could parrot the bullshit talking heads yell at one another, and you'd somehow think I'm righteous. This point is moot b/c AS is not about me but the ideas.

Instead of just making a rude offhand comment like this, you could at very least contact me and tell me about the stuff you're doing. Maybe I would be able to help.

It's not about you alone, but it's really unfortunate that I found AS a few years ago and then found a group dedicated to it, and people like you act like complete dicks to someone you've never even met. For all you know I could be doing great things promoting liberty in my little corner of the world.

I like AS and the notion of a board dedicated to it, but this is tiresome. If you want to make this about me personally, why not laud me as a hero for reaching contacting the ATF and President Obama's staff in opposition to the ammunition ban? (That fight's not over, BTW.) But seriously, if this is a contest for personal righteousness, which I think is anethetical to AS, why not say, "Gee, I wouldn't do it that way, but maybe you're getting real results"? Why the dickishness?

Glenn Beck just quit giving them money. I quit 30 years ago. That does not mean he won't vote for a republican. The best thing people can do right now is stop giving money to them. This is the only way they will get the message. A third party is very difficult because it will elect another progressive. But electing a Jeb Bush by giving money to the republican party is still electing a progressive. The money enables them to pick their candidate. Don't waste your money.

Well stated Freedom!

Based upon your statement:
"Maybe change will happen from people like me operating within the mainstream system."
and your action: voting for Obama twice,
and Obama's constant actions to reduce liberty and increase the power of the state,
I logically concluded that you were stating that your act of supporting Obamas policies (that reduce liberty and increase state power) was the change that you favored.
Since you have also frequently claimed to be against more state power (in spite of the actions you have taken in voting for more state power) I projected that the only way to achieve your stated goal of less state power was through an eventual revolution caused as a result of increasing state power. Thus my statement:
"Eventually changes that repress individual liberty and encourage dictatorship will lead to revolution and possibly to freedom."

Your stated goals are in direct conflict with your actions of voting.

One more example,
Statement: "I want incremental increase in liberty."
Action: you vote for Obama twice

Well said OA. +1.

Where's our contradiction button?

Excellent question Rich. +1

How would you characterize them?

If you're suggesting I go after gov't contracts or grant-funded companies, that's completely wrong.

I go to more non-political events. And I haven't been going to them much recently b/c I've been travelling, but now I'm not and proably will go again.. The last one I recall going to was a bycicle federation event. Before that we went to a fundraiser related to cows, LOL, that I cannot even recall the details of. I am not looking for a specific type of client. My wife tends to have a lot of gov't-worker clients, but 70% of Dane County has at least one person working for some type of gov't. Most of my clients got started with one person taking a risk while his life partner worked a state gov't job to pay the bills. Anyway, I have never yet used gov't connections to win business. I tried once to help a client win part of the job when the city was putting in Internet service downtown, and they didn't win any of it. So if I'm seeing gov't largess, which I'm not, it's not working.

"Eventually changes that repress individual liberty and encourage dictatorship will lead to revolution and possibly to freedom. "
I meant positive change, more liberty, not changes that repress liberty.

Revolution could lead possibly to more liberty, as you say, or possibly less. I do not want a revolution. I want incremental increase in liberty.

I do not agree with those characterizations except for the libertarians.

I had a similar thought about Gail Wynand, who opposes those people who don't him "you don't run things" and then ends up on a Toohey-like mission to suck the individual tallent and character out of everyone. Toohey is out-and-out evil, acting like a wise advisor, advising people to be careful and not follow their dreams. When Wynand does the same thing, he's not pretending to be a trusted a counselor. He's doing it b/c he's scared by people who didn't compromise their values, people like Roark who don't care if being out of political favor means he has to take a "menial" job.

Dominique seemed to see out relationships she didn't want: Toohey, Peter, Wynand.

This makes me want to read the whole huge book again.

In our world today, do you say support people who want strict adherence to the Constitution, at first to raise the issues and then maybe later to win?

Eventually changes that repress individual liberty and encourage dictatorship will lead to revolution and possibly to freedom. They will also be extremely unproductive and wasteful of natural resources and human life.

"Actions have consequences."
Indeed they do. Maybe boycotting the process will lead to change. Maybe change will happen from people like me operating within the mainstream system.

Neither approach is guaranttee to work or fail. It's possible I've done more to influence legislation and executive actions than someone who contributed only to libertarians who mostly did not win.

Far from mindless, as it is a critical opinion based upon observing your stated goals, and your admitted continued support for politicians whose actions are in direct opposition to those goals. Actions have consequences.

Reference: Your first sentence... Gee... the way you describe it, it sounds like CG is looking to develop a group of political cronies... so he might feather his own nest. Sounds like the power of pull...

You enjoy networking for business at specifically well known, powerful, democratic candidates for president fundraising events. Looking for business opportunities from a pool of people who mostly believe in a nanny state and forced participation in social programs. In Atlas Shrugged, James Taggart liked to do that. In fact he spent a fair amount of time looking for business and favors at such events. Dagny avoided them at all costs. Hank irrationally hired someone to do it for his steel company. Wyatt actively sought out like-minded people with which to do business.

my own political strategy is to try and find candidates that represent a platform that is closest to a proper government, capitalism and economic freedom. A strict US Constitutional adherence is the closest any society has come to those things. The farther a candidate is away from these important constructs, the less change I see being able to effect. I have no idea what your point is about being a jerk. Dominique actively worked against her understanding of the world choosing to support people like Toohey as an active expression of her cynical view of the world. As a reader, it was tough watching her make irrational decisions throughout most of the book.

Gary Johnson=Libertarian
Ron Paul=Libertarian
Hillary Clinton=Fascist
Barak Obama=Socialist
These politicians are extremely far apart on the political spectrum and you have said things in the past supporting each of them. It's hard to understand. If Obama does something right I recognize that but I still would not support or vote for him.

True, like saying nothing in lots of words.