BreakTheMatrix.com <-- Take back the media!

[SwordOfShannarah]

http://www.breakthematrix.com



Digg here (http://digg.com/politics/Break_The_Matrix)




from the website...

To All Ron Paul Supporters And Our Friends In The Grassroots

This is the beginning, ladies and gentlemen. The beginning of the end for the stranglehold of the mainstream media. The beginning of the end for the masters in high places. The beginning of the end for the media blackout of the values and philosophies expressed by Ron Paul and other political candidates that share his views. The beginning of the time when we take our country back.

It starts right here, at BreakTheMatrix.com. We are forming a grassroots organization and movement that will carry the words and values of freedom off the Internet and out to those millions of Americans who only receive their news and entertainment from mainstream radio and television. As Dr. Paul himself said so well on February 9, 2008: “The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.” Indeed. The tired, empty mantras of “right and left,” of “conservative and liberal,” of “Democrat and Republican,” will no longer stand unchallenged in our mainstream media outlets. Freedom, prosperity, peace, hope—the great ideas are coming to America.

Here’s How

We’re starting our own grassroots media company. Basic Media, Inc. (in formation) will create, build and connect Internet based radio and television outlets for freedom voices and faces around the United States and worldwide. The newly forming company will develop a wide ranging array of interesting and entertaining content on the web, and transmit our shows to mainstream “off the Internet” people through a variety of communications technologies and strategies. We’re talking right now to syndicators, producers, advertising specialists, and our many grassroots friends about how this goal can best be achieved. These are friends with ideas; with skills; and with vision. Friends who understand how to develop and utilize top of the line content and the technologies needed for creation and transmittal of entertaining and informative radio and television shows to a “non Internet” mainstream audience. Very simply, we’re creating a new media network. And we’re inviting you to be part of it.

The Internet prototypes are already in existence. We in the grassroots have watched them take root over the course of the Ron Paul presidential campaign—and what tremendous work the early media pioneers have been doing! Two online radio stations have been up and running for months at ronpaulradio.com and rprradio.com. These volunteer radio outlets have provided a platform for dozens of outstanding radio hosts who spread the news of our Ron Paul movement 24/7 across the worldwide web. And the growth of online video capability has been even more impressive. The spontaneous creation of Youtube content about Ron Paul and his message is a grand story in its own right. Myspace.com has provided some powerful tools. And Justintv.com has broken new ground every day with video streams broadcasting in real time from events in the Ron Paul campaign. The core technologies are already in place for high quality content creation and delivery on the web, and Basic Media, Inc. will take this process to the next higher level with syndication and delivery platform strategies that carry our message to the radios and television sets of every household in America. Break the monopoly of the establishment media! Break the wall of silence that stifles voices of truth in our nation! Break the matrix. With Basic Media, Inc.

While “off Internet” content delivery is our first and most readily achievable goal, there is a second core aspect to what we’ll be doing in the new company. This whole process is all about organization, and communication, and the implementation of social networking tools that will bring people together as a positive force for change in America. There are many of us now. We are all across the country. So we need to find each other; to do business together; to share stories and strategies; and to build this grand freedom movement on a going forward basis that will flourish and thrive long after the 2008 presidential campaign is over. The inspiring work of grassroots organizers at ronpaulforums.com; at dailypaul.com; at meetup groups; and at other locations all across the Internet has shown us the great power of networking tools that are already in existence. The early organizers have started a process, and there is much to build upon. But the movement for change is barely beginning, and there’s so much more that we can do to bring people together. Building a nationwide/worldwide community—the second key goal of Basic Media, Inc.

Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman are the initial organizers and executive officers of the new entity in formation. For over 34 years, Mr. Williams has been a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles, California. He is a graduate of UCLA School of Law (JD 1973), where he served on the Board of Editors of the UCLA Law Review. Mr. Williams was a business administration major at Washington State University (BA 1969), and he worked in the finance and accounting group at Shell Oil Company before entering law school. Mr. Williams is an avid student of the Austrian school of economics, and he hosted radio shows throughout the Ron Paul presidential campaign talking about the Federal Reserve system and the practices of our bankers. Trevor Lyman became widely known as a grassroots fundraiser for the November 5 moneybomb, the Teaparty moneybomb, and RonPaul Blimp.com. Mr. Lyman has been the subject of numerous media profiles and interviews as a result of his efforts, and he is perhaps the most recognizable name and face in the grassroots movement. You’ve seen what Trevor Lyman has done, and you know the results that he achieved for the Ron Paul campaign. Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman have been two of the activists, but we’re not here to speak of the past. The future is what matters. So this is what we’re planning to do.

Here Are the Specifics

Basic Media, Inc., the new corporation in formation, will be structured to create and transmit top quality radio and television shows using Internet technology platforms. We hope to draw from the enormous pool of talent that already exists in the freedom movement, and capture the very best content for packaging and distribution to mainstream radio and television outlets off the web and across the United States. Our “off Internet” distribution opportunities are wide ranging and diverse—everything from nationwide/worldwide satellite delivery to locally owned radio and television stations. We’ll pick and choose. We’ll select and utilize the most valuable and efficient delivery strategies that are available for our content.

How about cash flow? Like any other media outlet, our revenues will derive primarily from the sale of advertising time. Basic Media, Inc. will be operating as a “for profit” business, and isn’t that what it’s all about? Our goal and objective is to create and deliver high quality content, spread the values and philosophies that we believe in, and make a profit in the process. There are no guarantees of profitability, of course, and we all must recognize that media advertising is a highly competitive market. The effort to achieve profitability will be challenging, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that high paying advertisers will magically appear on our doorstep. But advertisers are constantly looking for emerging markets and new ways to get their messages out to the community. And for the most part, existing media entities don’t own their advertisers. If we capture a mainstream audience, we believe the advertisers will follow. This is how the matrix can be broken.

Basic Media, Inc. is not a political entity, and we will not affiliate with existing or future campaigns of Ron Paul or any other candidate for elective office. We will fully and cheerfully comply with all “equal time” requirements of the Federal Election Commission and other election authorities. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to compare (and contrast) our values and philosophies of freedom, prosperity, peace and hope with those of candidates seeking election under the banner of any political party. We can sponsor debates; host candidate forums; and provide analysis of candidate positions. Our content delivery platform can be used to shed the light of truth on any serious candidate for office, and we will work to replace the existing closed media system with a free marketplace of political ideas. Picture, for example, a debate session organized by Basic Media, Inc. where Ron Paul, John McCain and Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama all receive “equal time.” An intriguing thought, isn’t it? Nothing more need be said on the subject of political activism.

This document is an initial “solicitation of interest” issued pursuant to section 254 of Part 230--General Rules and Regulations, Securities Act of 1933. We are preparing a Regulation A initial public offering of stock over the Internet through the medium of electronic delivery of securities information. Basic Media, Inc. (the newly forming company) will offer a total of 500,000 shares of common stock to the public at a price of $10 per share, with a minimum purchase requirement of 10 shares per individual purchaser. If the offering is fully subscribed and sold, the public shareholders of Basic Media, Inc. will own a total of 41.67% of the outstanding common stock of the company as of the closing date. You may indicate your interest in participation in the stock offering by visiting the website, entering your email address and pressing pledge at the top of the page. Thereafter, you might wish to visit this website at BreakTheMatrix.com for information as to when the Offering Circular will be ready for review, and when binding stock subscription documents will be available for delivery. To the extent needed, we will also provide email updates regarding our progress.

Basic Media, Inc. is organizing as a grassroots response to the deficiencies that are so glaringly obvious in our existing mainstream media structure. The company founders are confident and hopeful about our prospects for success, but none of us should underestimate the scope of the challenge that lies ahead. It’s a big task, and our success depends on your help, your talents, your energy, and your commitment to the goal of bringing real change to America. So tell us your ideas for the new venture. Write to either of us at the email addresses on this page. Share with us your talents, and let us know your views about how the new entity might best fulfill its mission. This document is the first step in a lengthy securities offering process, and please take careful note of the following rules and requirements issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission:


(1) No money or other consideration is being solicited at this time, and if sent in response, will not be accepted;

(2) No sale of the securities will be made or commitment to purchase accepted until delivery of an offering circular that includes complete information about the issuer and the offering;

(3) Any indication of interest made by a prospective investor involves no obligation or commitment of any kind.

We’re looking forward to hearing from you, and we close this letter with a few simple words that Ron Paul has spoken often on the presidential campaign trail. Dr. Paul says: “Let’s have fun!”

Very truly yours,

Basic Media, Inc. (in formation)

Rick Williams
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
rdw2008@gmail.com

Trevor Lyman
Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer
lyman.trevor@gmail.com



We are not associated or affiliated with Ron Paul or his campaigns for President and Congress.




-

[SwordOfShannarah]

yeah.. it's a long post! :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

:D - I am so liking this...

Perhaps initial advertising could be done with signbombs, thats' what got RP grassroots off the ground.

You are being LIED to!!!
www.breakthematrix.com (http://www.breakthematrix.com)

Do you REALLY trust the media?
www.breakthematrix.com (http://www.breakthematrix.com)

wanna see a better world?
www.breakthematrix.com (http://www.breakthematrix.com)

etc/etc

:)

[Sey.Naci]

Trevor, I did - really did - try to read all the fine print, but nowhere could I find anything about whether new shareholders had to be American. That is, will the offering be available to non-Americans?

[Nyte]

weee... I'm #9

[AJ Antimony]

Just make sure measures are in place so that as the decades pass and new people take over, they won't change it into another FOX/CNN evil network.

[phoenixzorn]

Looks like an IPO, Initial Public Offering, and while I'm not sure, I believe that means "public" as in world wide offering. So yeah... and welcome. =)

[Wyurm]

I'm just curious. What will you do if Murdoch signs up to indicate interest in purchasing shares?

[CurtisLow]

You recently requested an email subscription to Break The Matrix

Stop the Matrix!

[Bruno]

Bump

[Rick Williams]

(1) To ronpaulhawaii-- excellent ideas for spreading the word about the offering, and thanks. (2) Re foreign national participation in the offering-- must be a resident of one of the 50 states at time of your subscription, but need not be an American citizen.

[Sey.Naci]

Signed up! Hope Canadians are permitted to participate in this!

[Erazmus]

Mark me down for 100 shares, seriously.

[bcreps85]

I pledged to buy shares. What kind of professional expertises will you be needing to start this venture? I'm sure you could find many professionals on these forums who truly believe in the cause, rather than schmoes just looking to pay the bills.

[Ralph O'Brien]

There are roughly 60 per of other shares go to insiders. At what cost?

[cyrax]

Pledged
bump

[mtmedlin]

Id be interested in what is happening with the other 60% of the stock. WHo gets it and what are they investing. Really, I havent seen too many companies hold back a full controling share.

[AFM]

Awesome

[pacelli]

I'm just curious. What will you do if Murdoch signs up to indicate interest in purchasing shares?

If some MSM-type buys over 51% of the shares, there is nothing that can be done about it. That is the reason why it is important that folks who agree with the business plan sign on.

[tpreitzel]

Basically, the concept is good, but I'll wait for more information on protecting this corporation from being adversely influenced or acquired by hostile forces.

[me3]

I was wondering where Rick Williams went...

[axiomata]

Subscribed to be read later...

[rpfp2008]

Does the fact that over 51% of the shares are being held back mean that the company cannot be controlled by a hostile "Murdoch-type" who would purchase a majority of the company and take control?

[MRoCkEd]

Does the fact that over 51% of the shares are being held back mean that the company cannot be controlled by a hostile "Murdoch-type" who would purchase a majority of the company and take control?
It seems so.
I pledged to buy shares
amazing, simply amazing

[SolusSLX]

Awesome! :D Great idea on the signs, ronpaulhawaii!


Just make sure measures are in place so that as the decades pass and new people take over, they won't change it into another FOX/CNN evil network.

+1

[Phenom24]

Darn it Trevor - working where I do I'm not allowed to purchase IPO's until after 6 months of trading...

Boo hoo

Am interested nonetheless

[ItsTime]

do you only come around when you have another idea that could make you money? No way in hell will I ever jump on board with this after how poorly something as simple as the blimp was run.

[luvthedoc08]

awesome, i signed up

[rpfp2008]

do you only come around when you have another idea that could make you money? No way in hell will I ever jump on board with this after how poorly something as simple as the blimp was run.

and it was a tremendous success. It will go down in history. And this new media is a tremendous idea. It's the beginning of something huge.

[ItsTime]

LMAO... success at what? I predicted the exact path that trevor would take with the blimp. Fool people into thinking it was a good idea.. line up the sheep and ask for more money on something else that too will fail. Sorry just calling like I see it.

Blimp = biggest failure in grassroots history. Raising 600k and not doing a damn thing with it.


and it was a tremendous success. It will go down in history. And this new media is a tremendous idea. It's the beginning of something huge.

[ams5995]

w00t!

[me3]

I hope RPR is planning to dump Mike Knarr and Chris Cowan. They are constantly crapping on the campaign, and I'm sick of listening to Chris rant and scream over his callers.

Rick Williams had the best show. Intelligent and dignified.

These other two guys don't even know how the delegate system works, but want to call the campaign over. Alex Jones wannabees.

[crusader]

So, let me get this straight, Trevor is selling 500,000 shares at $10 which is 49% of the company?

is he planning to put up 5 million of his own money for the other 51%? or are we going to just make him and rick millionares overnight for free?

All it takes is for him to sell his 500,000 shares at $6 a share (which some people would think is a great deal!) and then when the company goes belly up, you're stuck with $0. thats right, nothing.

Or he could put in stock options for the owner to purchase stock at $0.10

I mean, correct me if i'm wrong, but this is a big big BIG BIG risky No no.

If he is legit, have him get a loan from the bank :P

[tpreitzel]

We have no real measure to gauge the blimp's success or failure. Was winning the SC or Florida primaries the sole measure of success? How many people vacationing in Florida were exposed to Ron Paul's candidacy through it? No gauge really exists to measure it if the baseline is exposure of Paul's name to the masses from its limited time and distribution of service . Back to this latest venture. As already stated, more information is needed before I'll roll the dice and spend $100. This idea is really needed on a vast scale to extend syndicated programs, e.g. Radio Liberty, into the grazing lands of the sheeple. On a smaller scale, this concept is already in progress, but getting the sheeple to actually listen to the information is another matter entirely. In the past, I've thought of buying a rundown theater and using it as a basis for reprogramming. Audiences will pay for traditional brainwashing fare from Hollywood at a reasonable price. Why not expand the concept with high technology to allow viewers to critique the movies interactively or show patriot films, e.g. documentaries, in an adjacent room at a fraction of the price of Hollywood's fare? Maybe, a short 15 minute patriot film could be shown preceding the main feature? The possibilities are great for reprogramming the masses, but I'm unsure about creating another corporation (institution) that likely will become as corrupt in the future as its competitors are now.

[Wyurm]

LMAO... success at what? I predicted the exact path that trevor would take with the blimp. Fool people into thinking it was a good idea.. line up the sheep and ask for more money on something else that too will fail. Sorry just calling like I see it.

Blimp = biggest failure in grassroots history. Raising 600k and not doing a damn thing with it.

This isn't a blimp. You're welcome to say what you feel, but I often find that when people use the above emphasised phrase, it really means they are trying to start something. I don't see the point unless you don't want a freedom oriented broadcast network. There is always risk with an IPO, but this has a definite market, and it does have a great marketer with it. If your concerns are genuine, then I apologize, if you are really just trying to start something or personally dislike Trevor, why not start your own thread in Hot Topics? This is a good idea that many of us have been discussing the need for for a while now.

[Cholo]

the 51% retained would keep the corp from being controlled by any Murdoch-type. But it would have to be kept that way. Just because bad things could happen though, doesn't mean that they have to or will.

If people who are honestly concerned with making this a positive power in this country, then that's the way this will go. If not, everyone abandons it and that's it. The potential and idea is really great though. The only other real alternative is having some ultra-rich RP supporter to start this up on his/her own. But then all the same questions would be raised.

It's just like the country - the power is ultimately in the masses. And imagine if this really flowers.

[tpreitzel]

Just because bad things could happen though, doesn't mean that they have to or will.


I disagree. In my life, I have NEVER seen an institution escape corruption over time. Yes, these institutions can be rescued. Actually, the GOP is a good example. Extreme measures need to be enacted so this corporation can be swiftly rescued in some manner and likely with a minority stake. I'm not sure what those measures need to be for a media corporation. However, I do agree that some mechanism needs to implemented rather quickly to bypass the programming of the masses.

[MRoCkEd]

this needs to be passed around more

[ItsTime]

I concerns have always been genuine.

I thought Trevor was not taking credit for the 5th.. or at least that is what he said.

Now, how much money is Trevor going to put into this project? Or is he expecting the grassroots to do all the work for him again?

Nov 5th and the Tea Party where not his ideas yet now he is a "grassroots fundraiser"?

Way to go Trevor you are going to con people out of more of their hard earned money.



Trevor Lyman became widely known as a grassroots fundraiser for the November 5 moneybomb, the Teaparty moneybomb, and RonPaul Blimp.com. Mr. Lyman has been the subject of numerous media profiles and interviews as a result of his efforts, and he is perhaps the most recognizable name and face in the grassroots movement. You’ve seen what Trevor Lyman has done, and you know the results that he achieved for the Ron Paul campaign. Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman have been two of the activists, but we’re not here to speak of the past. The future is what matters. So this is what we’re planning to do.




This isn't a blimp. You're welcome to say what you feel, but I often find that when people use the above emphasised phrase, it really means they are trying to start something. I don't see the point unless you don't want a freedom oriented broadcast network. There is always risk with an IPO, but this has a definite market, and it does have a great marketer with it. If your concerns are genuine, then I apologize, if you are really just trying to start something or personally dislike Trevor, why not start your own thread in Hot Topics? This is a good idea that many of us have been discussing the need for for a while now.

[Wyurm]

I concerns have always been genuine.

I thought Trevor was not taking credit for the 5th.. or at least that is what he said.

Now, how much money is Trevor going to put into this project? Or is he expecting the grassroots to do all the work for him again?

Nov 5th and the Tea Party where not his ideas yet now he is a "grassroots fundraiser"?

Way to go Trevor you are going to con people out of more of their hard earned money.

If it's an IPO then it isn't a con-job. It's an investment. As for taking credit, dude, this isn't about ego either yours or his. this is about looking like a good investment to gain investors. Let me take a moment to simplify it for you. If you are looking for a non-business venture method to spread the message of freedom, then why not leave this type of thread alone and help out the PACs and other volunteer organizations. Or if you are more for just individual activism, then why not do that? This movement requires a multi-faceted approach esp. since it is so late in comming.

My concern with you is that you appear to have a personal distaste toward Trevor and while you are entitled to that, I don't see why you have to post negative speculation in his threads. I agree with what he and Rick are doing here and feel that it's become a very necessary component of the freedom movement. We need this and I'm sorry if you don't like those who are behind it, but you always have the option of starting up your own corporate network. The more the better. As for the blimp, it was my understanding that Trevor worked on that project more as a marketer than the leader. That is what he is good at, marketing.

[mavtek]

Doh! The Admins will tell you, this was my idea!

:) Cool glad to see it's happening get out there and pledge!

[mavtek]

Oh and I'm down for $10,000 in shares when this is go time!

[lastnymleft]

I don't know where people are getting the 49% public : 51% private bit from. It clearly says 41.67% for 500,000 shares at $10/share is on offer. That means $5,000,000 for 41.67% of the company, which equates to $12,000,000 for 100%. That puts their (presumably just Williams, and Lyman) initial holding of 58.33% supposedly worth a nominal book value of $7,000,000.

POST-money it is currently proposed that there would be: (1) an entity whose business plan seems to be to ask others for ideas on what the business should do in the media industry, and possibly the content sector within that industy, to support the r3V0Lution, (2) $5M in the bank (less IPO costs, of perhaps a few hundred thousand.)

Separating the POST-money situation from what is brought to the table by the public means that, PRE-money, what would apparently exist would be the idea to ask others for ideas on what a business should do in the media industry, and possibly the content sector within that industry, to support the r3V0Lution.

Whether that particular idea is worth $7M is what the market must decide, in determining whether to invest.

Is there more to the PRE-money equation than the idea? It's possible, but nothing specific has been mentioned, as yet. Further documentation should reveal such. You would have to consider that there is an element of "goodwill", which definitely has some value, as seen by the generally positive initial response to the mooted offering. Plus, you have to factor in "Management", as an intangible. Whether there is anything tangible, is to be determined.

If the market were to consider the idea (and the goodwill) *not* worth $7M, then there is a risk that this entity nominally valued at $12M would be re-rated by the market to a valuation based more on its Net Tangible Assets (NTA) (the money in the bank). So a nominally $12M valuation could pretty quickly find itself marked down considerably, perhaps to as little as $5M (giving some valuation for the runs on the board in getting an IPO up, to offset the costs of having done so). That means that shares initially worth $10/share could be re-rated to as little as it's NTA of $4.17/share. That said, the market may consider the intangible assets (ie the idea to ask for ideas on what to do in the media inustry, possibly within the content sector, to help the r3V0Lution, plus the goodwill) to be worth more. You never know. Well, that's not exactly true, you will know - when the market determines what the price will be, on opening day.


Those worried about Murdoch sweeping in and taking majority control to corrupt the organization's intent, need to get a grip. Such fears are highly irrational. Assuming that he would even ever be interested in doing so, if the founders only had (say) 10% control, and 90% was public, Murdoch would still have to go through the same steps as any other company during a takeover. Once he had a certain amount, he would have to make a formal offer, and a majority of shareholders (ie r3V0Lutionaries like YOU) would have to make the decision to sell your shares to him. The question is whether you trust your fellow shareholders/r3V0Lutionaries to resist the offer. Insisting that founders need to have 51% is the equivalent of saying that you don't trust yourself, or your fellow shareholders, to make that decision correctly. If that is the case, you are probably more suited to a benevolent dictatorship, than a republic! If anything, having a LOT of small shareholders makes a company more resistant to hostile takeover. It's much harder to deal with thousands of shareholders, through (generally public) communications, than to pull one or two aside over lunch, and convince them. Also, making the assumption that majority shareholders would not at some time sell down their offering to be below 51% is pretty naiive. They do have a right to sell such (though with the exception of any possible escrow period), and I would expect them to do so at some point.


Afterthought: Is the mailing list an asset of the proposed entity? It's an asset of Trevor's, so he has the *potential* to roll it in, but the question would be whether those on the list have any rights or say associated with such. I don't know the answer to that. I suppose the option is to always drop out. So long as the company doesn't sell/rent its list elsewhere in the mean time. Regardless, a mailing list is certainly an asset, as well, and needs to be considered in any comment on valuation, above.)

There's clearly more questions that have arisen, than answers proposed, thus far. I await further details in the formal offering documents.

[mavtek]

I have not formed a PAC, but with a PAC all of your ads and what revenue you might have been able to get off of the site will have to be stripped. A PAC is fine if you intend for it to deliver a message and sponsor candidates and be solely involved in political campaigns and actions. All money for PAC's must come in the form of donations or events from my understanding. Incorporation will allow you to do much like Townhall or DailyKos. You can get revenue from ads, of course donations would be a no no, but you can get around that with low priced banner ads, or individual shares.

It is my hope that you guys will incorporate and eventually go public. Just think of the support you can generate if just active members of this forum alone were to each buy $250 on average in shares. You'd easily have $2 million in the coffers to buy AM/FM broadcast stations, Rural Newspapers in the area of your stations. There's so much talent in our midst, we could easily syndicate RPradio, hire many of the journalist that freelance now in blogs or many of the students who are liberty minded. To run these media outlets. We are only going to be effective if we can educate the masses, we support liberty minded candidates.

To me the best way to start this Revolution is by forming our own Media. A lot of people don't want to hear this, they don't like hearing that we have to start small, take over one area, educate the masses, it's going to take years. Everyone wants everything to change now, they want to take over congress, take over local politics. Good intentions don't get you elected.

That's my thoughts on this whole thing, if I've learned anything from this experience and I think we can all agree it's not the people who elect the candidates it's the media. To really take back the country we will need media, candidates, and PAC's.

This might sound daunting, but remember you have thousands of professionals behind this movement who you can clearly see are willing to help in whatever direction you decide. My wife and my services would be free to you if you'd like to incorporate. My wife is a CPA and I own my own business fixing computers (basically). http://www.xedice.com

Oh and btw $2mill is obviously an underestimate considering the Paul campaign raised in excess of $30 mill from people knowing they wouldn't get a return on their money. Think about it at least, Liberty Forest could be the next big media conglomerate in 10 years. I honestly think if you consider the amount that was spent in grassroots along with what the campaign raised $100million is not out of the question. That is real money, that's a lot of media. This is assuming we can get everyone to agree this is the direction we need to be going.

Thanks for reading!

This was my take on it, when I was discussing it via PM with the owners of RP forums. If this were the direction we were to head I'd have no issue throwing my money and time behind it.

[muh_roads]

People who are pledging and visiting should be Digging the site also.

[hawkeyenick]

bump

this is what will keep the movement alive, this is more important than even voting for paul

[Rick Williams]

Hawkeyenick-- I've heard that view expressed by a number of people since we started putting this project together.

[torchbearer]

pledged.

[Dutchie]

i think we all agree with the idea of a fair and balanced media source.
but in business, i would let the two initiators start it, get it running, show
that it is viable and profitable, and then after we know it is successful,
and needs a boost to the next level, then you offer shares and people buy
into it. If you invest in something, which is currently no more valuable than
an idea, you take an unwanted and stupid risk. Let the two initiators start
this small like it is going to be, and we as supporters, will be an initial fan
base, a base most new companies dream of having, and then after they
prove their worth, we will all jump in and invest and make it the best damn
media company out there.

Investing money in something that has no tangible qualites, and no real
worth is not smart. what is the budget, what is this money for, why did
they pick the value of the stock at 10 dollars, what is the business plan????

these are all simple questions that any investor needs to know before investing.
if you feel that you can throw 100 dollars away, go for it. if they are already
investing 5 million, i would see where that money takes them first.

just my opinion.

[justatrey]

I'm in for 10. Never bought shares of anything but this is a good way to start.

[MRoCkEd]

i'm interested to see what comes out of this
when will he hear updates

[BarryDonegan]

are you seriously going to try and beat the media of the big money families in america by a PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATION???

if you get ANY power at all, they will BUY you and undermine everything you are doing.

[Rick Williams]

We appreciate the comments. Our breakthematrix.com website has been up for only two days, and Trevor and I are well aware of the challenges involved, the questions raised, and the need for follow up information. We'll be writing a second email letter to all subscribers and friends this weekend which will set forth our plans and concepts in further detail. For a project of this scope, it's one small step at a time. Patience, please.

[kathy88]

I have advertising sales background. I'd be willing to do some legwork free of charge for y'all. (or some shares. lol)

[Rick Williams]

Kathy-- Pls send me an email with your info/background at breakthematrix.com.

[BarryDonegan]

corporations are not evil because they are ruled by a wicked man who hates America, corporations are evil because its a corruptable system that exists in the public sector.

be mindful of supporting any corporate structure, no matter how well-intended as it is, because they are corruptable. their finances can be manipulated by anyone who games the system.

[The Proservative]

"snip"




Basic Media, Inc. will be operating as a “for profit” business, and isn’t that what it’s all about?

-

Actually, I thought that this Revolution was exactly NOT about the money, the profit. It's great you are throwing your hat in the ring, and had success with "organizing" money bombs (if collecting email addresses is organizing), but this is how all great Revolutions, movements fall apart.

To the rest, beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. There is going to be a lot of people trying to cash in on our Revolution, eventually turning us bitter toward ANY project, "just another Ron Paul sellout".

Stay loyal to the message, and to each other. Money is a non-issue when you are doing the right thing and people know it.

[BarryDonegan]

Theres nothing wrong with profiting as a private business, and that is definately something the revolution IS all about, the ability to keep the fruits of your labor. capital is found in savings, not loans. This is not a plan for a private business created with real capital(savings), this is a plan for a publicly traded LLC.

Another corporate media giant is not something we need right now, regardless of the mission statement.

Private business is what is safe, a business, of real liability to the owner, this is uncorruptable and based in real capital.

Don't have the savings to start a media conglomerate? Then the time is not right.

Live within your means.

[The Proservative]

So business is uncorruptable is what you're saying? Especially public-traded companies, no corruptability there?

I do agree that the last thing we need is another "media company". All I am saying is that it's in bad taste to take email addresses harvested from people pledging to donate money for Ron Paul, a noble and valient cause, and be subjected to an advertisement for a "for-profit" venture.

I'm all for business, entrepreneurial endeavors, but not when you ride in on the coattails of non-profit, altruistic expression of honest love and support.

[voytechs]

I've been being swamped with emails about the Matrix thing, I just have 1 question. Which 11 year old in this forum came up with the name. You're making the revolution look bad!!

[ItsTime]

and that is just the tip of the iceberg.


I've been being swamped with emails about the Matrix thing, I just have 1 question. Which 11 year old in this forum came up with the name. You're making the revolution look bad!!

[The Proservative]

I agree, obviously :) Over here in LA, we have Time-Warner Cable pushing some new program called EnterTheMeatrix , I keep relating it to that.

If there is anyone truly interested in firing up something the media department, hit me up on any and all Instant Messengers above. I've got a basic idea (already have the company, not-for-profit :) ) and I wanted a few people to bounce it off of, maybe help out with. It involves Flash, and taking the videos on You Tube (dont know why people think they are NOT "main-stream") and making them more "people" accessible.

[Wyurm]

So business is uncorruptable is what you're saying? Especially public-traded companies, no corruptability there?

I do agree that the last thing we need is another "media company". All I am saying is that it's in bad taste to take email addresses harvested from people pledging to donate money for Ron Paul, a noble and valient cause, and be subjected to an advertisement for a "for-profit" venture.

I'm all for business, entrepreneurial endeavors, but not when you ride in on the coattails of non-profit, altruistic expression of honest love and support.

The problem is that we have too few media companies and thus they are kept in tight, monopolistic control. Secondly, I'm a little tired of all the people saying that making money off the revolution is wrong. Wake your arse up, geeze. First, they aren't making money off the revolution by profiting from the revolution. The only money they are asking for is an investment which if successful would generate money FOR the Revolution. As for what is right and wrong about what Trevor does, he's a marketer what the heck do you expect? I wasn't stupid about it and gave him the email address designed for giving to companies and such.

Please quit with the high and mighty, holier-than-thou nonsense. Why don't you quit complaining about how other supporters are doing things and if you don't like what they are doing, do something constructive rather than negative. I just see no point in the small group of people that don't offer genuine concerns, but rather, just poo-poo every idea that anyone comes up with. It stinks of jealosy and I find it absolutely disgusting.

[ronpaulhawaii]

The problem is that we have too few media companies and thus they are kept in tight, monopolistic control. Secondly, I'm a little tired of all the people saying that making money off the revolution is wrong. Wake your arse up, geeze. First, they aren't making money off the revolution by profiting from the revolution. The only money they are asking for is an investment which if successful would generate money FOR the Revolution. As for what is right and wrong about what Trevor does, he's a marketer what the heck do you expect? I wasn't stupid about it and gave him the email address designed for giving to companies and such.

Please quit with the high and mighty, holier-than-thou nonsense. Why don't you quit complaining about how other supporters are doing things and if you don't like what they are doing, do something constructive rather than negative. I just see no point in the small group of people that don't offer genuine concerns, but rather, just poo-poo every idea that anyone comes up with. It stinks of jealosy and I find it absolutely disgusting.

+1

[BarryDonegan]

The problem is that we have too few media companies and thus they are kept in tight, monopolistic control.

why do you think this happens? because every person who ever created a radio station or newspaper is a part of a secret conspiracy to silence ron paul?

or because they allowed them to be publicly traded, and the shares were bought by a small group of people who have a political goal which runs contrary to the Ron Paul Revolution.

This is not poo pooing someones idea to benefit the revolution. The statement distances itself from ron paul and politics many times. this is a non-sequiter to the revolution which unfortunately may be mistaken to be a part of it.

trevor lyman did some excellent work on the money bomb stuff, creating sites and otherwise helping to organize it, and i support him in that, however the very nature of the illustration of this smells of profiteering off the attention his name received. A corporate structure can not be safeguarded from the money masters, they will either crash your company or buy it, or both if the idea gets off the ground.

NOTE: if someone started a private business which was liable to the owner with the same mission statement, or a non-profit organization with these types of goals, i would gladly support it.

[disruptorfund]

LMAO... success at what? I predicted the exact path that trevor would take with the blimp. Fool people into thinking it was a good idea.. line up the sheep and ask for more money on something else that too will fail. Sorry just calling like I see it.

Blimp = biggest failure in grassroots history. Raising 600k and not doing a damn thing with it.

up this point and he wont get back.

Is this about ego similar to the tea party domaign?

We need more logical thinkers to tell it like it is.

[The Proservative]

Not jealous at all, just warning your average joe...basically all of us. You said you knew Trevor was a marketer...Did everyone know that when they submitted their email address? Full disclosure should be mandatory...please, disclose.

I don't see how this is negative, as no one can dispute Trevor's contribution to Ron Paul money bombs. My positive contribution: http://www.proservative.us

I'm stepping into the breach, let's all collaborate and make this thing work. We need your support, even you wyurm.

Barry, please contact me if running under the complete Ron Paul / Proservative platform. I'm finding that many candidates now say they run under the "Ron Paul" guise, only to find out that they for pro-abortion, etc.

[mavtek]

Barry, the company can not be bought out as they intend to only sell 42% ownership of the company. They can also relegate shares into a non voting share holder so essentially the holders would have no say in the company. Although I don't think that's the right way to go- either.

The problem is that single entity proprieties will not have the capital needed to do what this plan entails. If you are worried about the direction of the company I see no reason why shareholders wouldn't be able to elect the board members. That will run the country.

The only other way this could be viable is to incorporate and provide franchise opportunities for media outlets. This would be truly out of the box thinking and would be an interesting way to get more media outlets. The drawback is there would certainly be a loss of control at the various branches.

I personally see this as our only outlet to fight the fire that the corporations have become. The corporations have become almost "all powerful" in order to defeat them we must become them.

[BarryDonegan]

Just because they can't buy a majority of shares right at the outset and get voting stock in a company on day one does not mean the big money guys can't game your company.

it means they can't game your company in that way.

[BarryDonegan]

B
The problem is that single entity proprieties will not have the capital needed to do what this plan entails. If you are worried about the direction of the company I see no reason why shareholders wouldn't be able to elect the board members. That will run the country.



exactly. you can't spend outside your means to stop people from spending outside their means.

honestly, if you want a single entity proprietary to create a new media system to topple the current media monopoly, you are asking for a single entity to overcome the entire market and control it(i.e. the government)

the competitive media that we need in order to defeat the media monopoly is the one you are using right now.

this is not a necessary action on our behalf, technology will speed this up as time progresses. as soon as internet speeds reach fast enough to stream things at better quality than your tv or ipod can produce, you will no longer have the other forms of media.

this is a fly ball that the market already called, we don't need the center fielder, 3rd baseman, and first baseman to chase it down.

[Wyurm]

Just because they can't buy a majority of shares right at the outset and get voting stock in a company on day one does not mean the big money guys can't game your company.

it means they can't game your company in that way.

So, what do you suggest? You say don't go public, they don't have the money, we need a voice for the freedom movement that can compete with the loud voice of the orwellian media. So, exactly what would you do?

[BarryDonegan]

exactly what everyone is doing right now, use the internet, create internet radio, tv, etc.

then when WIMAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX) becomes industry standard and higher quality media can be quickly acquired over the air, people will be getting all their media from things similar to ZUNE players and the TV itself will be replaced with internet style on-demand media.

this is the near future of media... creating another old-style corporate media company is just food for the corporate machine who will eat your company and give you a healthy sum to shut up and go away.

in fact, how many people do you know watch primarily ON-DEMAND on their cable?

if you had a TV that allowed you ON DEMAND access to literally anything you wanted to watch, would you still get your media from broadcast stations?

[The Proservative]

Non-profit is the only way to go...if you don't deliver on your promises, your funding drys up. Operating on a donations only basis REQUIRES company results FIRST, before any monies are exchanged. If a company, organization is truly operating on an alturistic basis, they should have no problem waiting until they deliver results before receiving any funding, stand behind your word/work.

I am not, though, against for-profit ventures in any way. This discussion is the equivalent of Free Software/Open Source vs Proprietary .

It's time for an "open-source" company. If you have a solid message, and offer solid service for the people, there should be no worry about whether funding will be forth coming in the form of donations.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Just because they can't buy a majority of shares right at the outset and get voting stock in a company on day one does not mean the big money guys can't game your company.

it means they can't game your company in that way.

Any human endeavor can be corrupted, gamed, etc. What I get from your posts is a feeling that you would have advised Dr. Paul to never run for office because he may get corrupted by DC.


...
the competitive media that we need in order to defeat the media monopoly is the one you are using right now.
...


Funny, that is the plan they suggested. And they are even planning on tapping into the existing structure while we wait for WIMAX to reach every small town and city, every TV and Radio Station, etc.



...

in fact, how many people do you know watch primarily ON-DEMAND on their cable?

if you had a TV that allowed you ON DEMAND access to literally anything you wanted to watch, would you still get your media from broadcast stations?

I don't know anyone who uses ON DEMAND. Any usage would depend on the pricing structure, ease of use, etc. Many people prefer to do, and spend, as little as possible. What is the target audience?


Non-profit is the only way to go...if you don't deliver on your promises, your funding drys up. Operating on a donations only basis REQUIRES company results FIRST, before any monies are exchanged. If a company, organization is truly operating on an alturistic basis, they should have no problem waiting until they deliver results before receiving any funding, stand behind your word/work.

I am not, though, against for-profit ventures in any way. This discussion is the equivalent of Free Software/Open Source vs Proprietary .

It's time for an "open-source" company. If you have a solid message, and offer solid service for the people, there should be no worry about whether funding will be forth coming in the form of donations.

I'll look forward to seeing you start your own thread about this idea of yours and seeing how well it takes off.

[The Proservative]

I thought I needed you guys to start a main thread for me. I noticed an area for Ron Paul Projects, but nowhere to actually create a project.

Let me know, available on all of the instant messagers listed above.

[BarryDonegan]

the ON DEMAND service I'm referring to may be specific to the cable companies in my area, but around Nashville, TN they offer quite a few shows ON DEMAND which are free with your subscription, and they are very popular, simply because they are available whenever.

what they have suggested is not what im talking about, what they've suggested is taking currently existing media formats and incorporating them into one entity, and are soliciting for investment from people in the ron paul revolution in order to fund the genesis of this corporation.

there is a difference between conceivably corruptable and easily corruptable. Ron Paul ran for office to vote to limit the power of government, which is the purpose of being a legislator.

corporations who run for profit(a bastard son of the "personhood of the corporation" in the 14th ammendment) are a government authorized entity severing the personal ties between a business and the individuals running it. it is a corrupted practice, not a potentially corruptable one.

there is a huge difference.

let me reiterate that I don't oppose this to be a negative nancy to anything that destroys the current media monopoly on how the masses get information, but remember that CORPORATISM, which is the Tyrrany of the industry against the market and consumer is in and of itself a failed practice. They will lose very soon, as the entire purpose of these monopolies is to prevent competition; preventing competition is not productive and the market will kill them off in SHORT time.

a real solution, rather than asking your friends to support a new intended monopoly of media services, is to teach your friends and neighbors to only trust in a VARIETY of UNRELATED media sources.

send some donations to struggling media outlets that provide viewpoints independant of establishment monopoly.

the market needs 1000 small providers to be healthy, not one big giant one.

[madRazor]

I seriously hope everyone who donates seed money to this twinkle-in-the-eye sees at least a business plan first.

Think of it this way: Why are they asking the grassroots for money? There are venture capital firms, (!!) government organizations and (!!) banks out there that do this kind of thing. If there's a truly viable business plan, why circumvent the normal means of acquiring seed capital? The way banks and the government virtually give away money, you'd think it would be easy, especially with such an intrepid business plan! They're valuing this enterprise at what, around $10 million? A great idea, with a real plan to implement could easily get that from any number of sources.

Well maybe it's just to "be nice" to the grassroots? To give us all a chance to get in on the ground floor? Believe that and you're fooling yourselves. This is the only way they do not have to pay anyone back. They get your money, you get the stock, they owe you nothing!

FYI, companies do not issue "IPOs" to start their business. They offer shares (out of thin air) for seed capital. Right now, there is nothing of value behind these shares, and if they can get enough pledges, the same will be true at the time of the offering. Plain and simple, this is seed money for the majority owners to become instant millionaires without doing anything that resembles starting a news agency.

Buyer beware.

[disruptorfund]

I seriously hope everyone who donates seed money to this twinkle-in-the-eye sees at least a business plan first.

Think of it this way: Why are they asking the grassroots for money? There are venture capital firms, (!!) government organizations and (!!) banks out there that do this kind of thing. If there's a truly viable business plan, why circumvent the normal means of acquiring seed capital? The way banks and the government virtually give away money, you'd think it would be easy, especially with such an intrepid business plan! They're valuing this enterprise at what, around $10 million? A great idea, with a real plan to implement could easily get that from any number of sources.

Well maybe it's just to "be nice" to the grassroots? To give us all a chance to get in on the ground floor? Believe that and you're fooling yourselves. This is the only way they do not have to pay anyone back. They get your money, you get the stock, they owe you nothing!

FYI, companies do not issue "IPOs" to start their business. They offer shares (out of thin air) for seed capital. Right now, there is nothing of value behind these shares, and if they can get enough pledges, the same will be true at the time of the offering. Plain and simple, this is seed money for the majority owners to become instant millionaires without doing anything that resembles starting a news agency.

Buyer beware.

call others sheep. Easy to spot indicator of ego and greed are the titles. VP & ceo

" mean don't follow titles they follow courage" and original ideas

[The Proservative]

Exactly. If we're all in this together, why would we not tell each other "Buyer Beware". Get ready RP Revolutionaries, there are going to be a lot of new vulture...I mean ventures...meaning to capitalize on our amazing movement. Words to watch out for right now: "for-profit"

To keep this movement going, we need to come together, unify somewhere, with something. I'm attempting to do this at proservative.us , keep the family together. If there is anything we've learned, action speak lounder than words...stay tuned.

[RP4Pres2008]

I would be interested...but it would have to be a professional thing, not some long shot good intention. I mean wanting 5 million dollars to start a company from just a bunch of random people.

The blimp wasn't a failure, but it wasn't that great and everything. This would have to have all the t's crossed and i's dotted.

[RP4Pres2008]

Exactly. If we're all in this together, why would we not tell each other "Buyer Beware". Get ready RP Revolutionaries, there are going to be a lot of new vulture...I mean ventures...meaning to capitalize on our amazing movement. Words to watch out for right now: "for-profit"

To keep this movement going, we need to come together, unify somewhere, with something. I'm attempting to do this at proservative.us , keep the family together. If there is anything we've learned, action speak lounder than words...stay tuned.

I'm a little skeptical only because of the for-profit, followed by for-profit, followed by for-profit...etc.

EDIT: I'm not really THAT skeptical, I think its a great idea!

[BarryDonegan]

IMO as this is not related to any elections, maybe it is better suited to a subforum like projects.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I thought I needed you guys to start a main thread for me. I noticed an area for Ron Paul Projects, but nowhere to actually create a project.

Let me know, available on all of the instant messagers listed above.

Just start a thread like you did for the city march thing (which I liked), and then try to sell it to this herd of cats:). It works with varying degrees of success.


the ON DEMAND service I'm referring to may be specific to the cable companies in my area, but around Nashville, TN they offer quite a few shows ON DEMAND which are free with your subscription, and they are very popular, simply because they are available whenever.

what they have suggested is not what im talking about, what they've suggested is taking currently existing media formats and incorporating them into one entity, and are soliciting for investment from people in the ron paul revolution in order to fund the genesis of this corporation.

And what is the problem with that? Its' a dirty job, but someone has to do it! And I see no reason to wait. This is r3volution is growing NOW. Liberty minded people are here NOW. The avg. Joe is more aware of MSM BS because of the current election NOW, (look at how many people are here becasue they saw the anti-paul bias.)

There is no better time than NOW to challenge the traitors from all sides. The MSM is one of the main hide-outs of these criminals and I support any idea which makes my enemy waste time and resources. These guys have come up with a project and announced it here. If you don't like it, move on.


there is a difference between conceivably corruptable and easily corruptable. Ron Paul ran for office to vote to limit the power of government, which is the purpose of being a legislator.

You appear to be saying two unrelated things here and not addrssing my point. Oh well.

First off, you seem to have a very narrow definition of legislator. IMO, some legislators believe we should have minimum gov't services, while others believe we should have maximum. Nature of the beast...

Secondly, are you saying congress is concievably corrupt and corps are easily corrupt? LOL, NSSherlock. More to the point, are you saying we will not be strong enough to resist corruption and should just give up? And would that act of giving up be a form of corruption in itself?


corporations who run for profit(a bastard son of the "personhood of the corporation" in the 14th ammendment) are a government authorized entity severing the personal ties between a business and the individuals running it. it is a corrupted practice, not a potentially corruptable one.

there is a huge difference.

Gov't, by nature, is a corrupted practice as well. (That is why us conservatives attempt to limit it. :p). Should we give up on gov't because it is so easily corrupted? The Federal Reserve is most assuradly a corrupt practice, how do you get by without using FRNs?



let me reiterate that I don't oppose this to be a negative nancy to anything that destroys the current media monopoly on how the masses get information, but remember that CORPORATISM, which is the Tyrrany of the industry against the market and consumer is in and of itself a failed practice. They will lose very soon, as the entire purpose of these monopolies is to prevent competition; preventing competition is not productive and the market will kill them off in SHORT time.

a real solution, rather than asking your friends to support a new intended monopoly of media services, is to teach your friends and neighbors to only trust in a VARIETY of UNRELATED media sources.

send some donations to struggling media outlets that provide viewpoints independant of establishment monopoly.

the market needs 1000 small providers to be healthy, not one big giant one.

monopoly, huh :rolleyes: - lol. If it is that successful the investors will stoked and even if it does become corrupted, how many people will swallow the redpill before it does? I see no reason to wait.

I, also, figure you should head up that effort you suggest above. In this thread people are discussing a different project. So, unless you can come up with a better way of raising funds QUICKLY for this project, don't you have anything better to do...

[BarryDonegan]

no particular individual needs to fundraise for this, the market will take care of it.

limited government is not a "preference" of certain legislators, it is the DESIGN of the government. the leglislators who don't limit government in their actions are betraying their oath of office.

The OP's business idea is not going to "stick it to" the MSM. at best, it will be make him personally rich, at worse, it will fail.

The internet is sticking it to the "MSM" as we speak, making some corporation which profits off of existing media sources will not in any way change the rate at which this happens.

this is not resistance of personal corruption we are talking about, we are talking about putting a nice big fat juicy steak outside of a bears cave.

the bears cave is the bankers, and the juicy steak is any corporation which can be publicly traded.

[Cowlesy]

I imagine there'd be about a 1-year lock-up (share sale restriction) on founder's shares, and probably 3-6 months on those issued in the IPO, though not sure. Unless you're looking to get up above 10% and go for a board seat, anti-dilution mechanisms aren't at the top of my agenda.

Good for Trevor and this Rick guy, I hope they can make something of this!!!!!

Subscribing.

[Mark]

I don't know where people are getting the 49% public : 51% private bit from.

It clearly says 41.67% for 500,000 shares at $10/share is on offer. That means $5,000,000 for 41.67% of the company, which equates to $12,000,000 for 100%. That puts their (presumably just Williams, and Lyman) initial holding of 58.33% supposedly worth a nominal book value of $7,000,000.

POST-money it is currently proposed that there would be: (1) an entity whose business plan seems to be to ask others for ideas on what the business should do in the media industry, and possibly the content sector within that industy, to support the r3V0Lution, (2) $5M in the bank (less IPO costs, of perhaps a few hundred thousand.)

Separating the POST-money situation from what is brought to the table by the public means that, PRE-money, what would apparently exist would be the idea to ask others for ideas on what a business should do in the media industry, and possibly the content sector within that industry, to support the r3V0Lution.

Whether that particular idea is worth $7M is what the market must decide, in determining whether to invest.

Is there more to the PRE-money equation than the idea? It's possible, but nothing specific has been mentioned, as yet. Further documentation should reveal such. You would have to consider that there is an element of "goodwill", which definitely has some value, as seen by the generally positive initial response to the mooted offering. Plus, you have to factor in "Management", as an intangible. Whether there is anything tangible, is to be determined.

If the market were to consider the idea (and the goodwill) *not* worth $7M, then there is a risk that this entity nominally valued at $12M would be re-rated by the market to a valuation based more on its Net Tangible Assets (NTA) (the money in the bank). So a nominally $12M valuation could pretty quickly find itself marked down considerably, perhaps to as little as $5M (giving some valuation for the runs on the board in getting an IPO up, to offset the costs of having done so). That means that shares initially worth $10/share could be re-rated to as little as it's NTA of $4.17/share. That said, the market may consider the intangible assets (ie the idea to ask for ideas on what to do in the media inustry, possibly within the content sector, to help the r3V0Lution, plus the goodwill) to be worth more. You never know. Well, that's not exactly true, you will know - when the market determines what the price will be, on opening day.


Those worried about Murdoch sweeping in and taking majority control to corrupt the organization's intent, need to get a grip. Such fears are highly irrational. Assuming that he would even ever be interested in doing so, if the founders only had (say) 10% control, and 90% was public, Murdoch would still have to go through the same steps as any other company during a takeover. Once he had a certain amount, he would have to make a formal offer, and a majority of shareholders (ie r3V0Lutionaries like YOU) would have to make the decision to sell your shares to him. The question is whether you trust your fellow shareholders/r3V0Lutionaries to resist the offer. Insisting that founders need to have 51% is the equivalent of saying that you don't trust yourself, or your fellow shareholders, to make that decision correctly. If that is the case, you are probably more suited to a benevolent dictatorship, than a republic! If anything, having a LOT of small shareholders makes a company more resistant to hostile takeover. It's much harder to deal with thousands of shareholders, through (generally public) communications, than to pull one or two aside over lunch, and convince them. Also, making the assumption that majority shareholders would not at some time sell down their offering to be below 51% is pretty naiive. They do have a right to sell such (though with the exception of any possible escrow period), and I would expect them to do so at some point.


Afterthought: Is the mailing list an asset of the proposed entity? It's an asset of Trevor's, so he has the *potential* to roll it in, but the question would be whether those on the list have any rights or say associated with such. I don't know the answer to that. I suppose the option is to always drop out. So long as the company doesn't sell/rent its list elsewhere in the mean time. Regardless, a mailing list is certainly an asset, as well, and needs to be considered in any comment on valuation, above.)

There's clearly more questions that have arisen, than answers proposed, thus far. I await further details in the formal offering documents.

QFT - This needs to be addressed - there's no need for them to control all of those shares.

It should be 100% of the shares - not 41.67% - unless you think they deserve to be made instant Millionaires.

[ronpaulhawaii]

no particular individual needs to fundraise for this, the market will take care of it.

So why do seem to be taking care of it by dissuading people from it?



limited government is not a "preference" of certain legislators, it is the DESIGN of the government. the leglislators who don't limit government in their actions are betraying their oath of office.


BS - In the US, the debate is over the depth of the limits



The OP's business idea is not going to "stick it to" the MSM. at best, it will be make him personally rich, at worse, it will fail.


How do you know they won't attract the type of talent that will "stick it to the MSM"? What are you using Tarot Cards? I don't belive in that crap.

IMO, at best it will be the vehicle that convinces the final straw, that one person who will be the tipping point. At best it will become a really entertaining and informative source of news and opinion. At best it will employ thousands in a job they can be proud of. At best it will make the investors fabulously wealthy and they will become philantropists who help lead us into a new era compassionate conservatism. At best it will defy odds and remain unspoilt from the sins of the world - LOL

And failure is not trying.



The internet is sticking it to the "MSM" as we speak, making some corporation which profits off of existing media sources will not in any way change the rate at which this happens.


Maybe not, but it will put our messege at the forefront of the nextgen.



this is not resistance of personal corruption we are talking about, we are talking about putting a nice big fat juicy steak outside of a bears cave.

the bears cave is the bankers, and the juicy steak is any corporation which can be publicly traded.


If thems bears get my steak, it'll be over my mauled body. ;)

Anyway, I'm still looking for answers to these questions:

... are you saying we will not be strong enough to resist corruption and should just give up? And would that act of giving up be a form of corruption in itself?

...Should we give up on gov't because it is so easily corrupted? The Federal Reserve is most assuradly a corrupt practice, how do you get by without using FRNs?

[BarryDonegan]

So why do seem to be taking care of it by dissuading people from it?


I'm dissuading people from a bad business venture. Supporting a limited liability corporation with a goal of consolidating media groups is not the type of thing that idealogically is consistent with our platform as a group. we're supposed to support competition, which succeeds or fails based on merit, not pooling all resources into one giant monster and trying to force our way in the game without a plan, giving full executive control to a lawyer and a guy who made a site about moneybombs.




BS - In the US, the debate is over the depth of the limits



How do you know they won't attract the type of talent that will "stick it to the MSM"? What are you using Tarot Cards? I don't belive in that crap.

because the only plan here is to take 12 million dollars and "overthrow the MSM". Do you realize how much money these corporations have? A competitive form of media with a shoestring budget is unlikely. It's more on the tarot card side of things to think this will result in any major change in the way average americans consume media faster than, say, a new technological device making it out by next Christmas is pretty out there.



Maybe not, but it will put our messege at the forefront of the nextgen.

How does incorporating those two guys with a few million dollars ensure that?





... are you saying we will not be strong enough to resist corruption and should just give up? And would that act of giving up be a form of corruption in itself?

I answered this before, it doesn't matter how strong your personal convictions are... when you offer up a company for sale to the public, you have just thrown your ability to have personal convictions out the window, your company can be bought, at a price, and people who are richer than you can chose to buy you at any time.



...Should we give up on gov't because it is so easily corrupted? The Federal Reserve is most assuradly a corrupt practice, how do you get by without using FRNs?

No, we should elect officials who will limit it and return it to a republic. You are hellbent on assuming that because I find this idea to be either a. a well-intentioned mistake at best or b. an attempt to profiteer on the willingness of people in the grassroots to donate money that it means that I am a permanent skeptic of everything and am against everything.

I'm simply offering a caveat emptor to supporting publicly traded corporations. I feel that idealogically we should all be spending our money on small businesses and asking our politicians to legislate against corporate welfare, and one day have the hope of removing the 14th ammendment protections to limited liability corporations and make it to where the constitution only protects individual rights like what was originally intended.

In this sense the right to constitutional protections would only mean individuals and their property rights, not the property rights of non-human entities whose are conceptually owned, allowing them to draw a net worth without any risk of lawsuits or losing their personal assets.

I'm on the same team here! I just think this could have some pretty severe unintended consequences.

[ItsTime]

people are not thinking, they are just following right now. I am against this just like I was against the blimp. Many questions, little answers, wing it as they go... stuck in FL and SC for months... how did Ron Paul do in those states again?

Do you trust the marketing skills of someone who thinks 600k on a blimp in the middle of the winter is a good idea?


QFT - This needs to be addressed - there's no need for them to control all of those shares.

It should be 100% of the shares - not 41.67% - unless you think they deserve to be made instant Millionaires.

[BarryDonegan]

QFT - This needs to be addressed - there's no need for them to control all of those shares.

It should be 100% of the shares - not 41.67% - unless you think they deserve to be made instant Millionaires.

I agree with the question of the motive of that, but i disagree with turning over 100% of the shares to the public. IMO these guys should start a private company(in their own name), take a personal loan or save personal capital from other methods of capital generation, start a media outlet, and ask us to consume the outlet.

that would be awesome, ethically solid, and supportable.

If you say thats not fast or powerful enough, that we need to pool all of our resources and destroy the current guard, the only way we can do that is by stopping consuming it, stopping consuming their advertisers and convince others to do the same, then start consuming a better outlet. creating the outlet from scratch by pooling an outrageous amount of cash is going to either create a new company to swallow or just out right accomplish nothing. if we had the numbers to do that in the first place, FOXNEWS would already be out of business.

[disruptorfund]

people are not thinking, they are just following right now. I am against this just like I was against the blimp. Many questions, little answers, wing it as they go... stuck in FL and SC for months... how did Ron Paul do in those states again?

Do you trust the marketing skills of someone who thinks 600k on a blimp in the middle of the winter is a good idea?


question politics but the financial viability and more important motive are off limits.
This issue and the candidates should be judged clearly on

PAST CREDIBILITY
again

[magicmike]

I am the coordinator for the National newspaper project and can not endorse this yet until I see the real business plan. Trevor is a excellent marketer and fund-raiser, though I still need to see him battle tested in a long term business.
My endorsement right now is to a small project from the businesswoman that managed the blimp. http://www.RonPaulAmbassadors.com , this is a MoveOn.org type of organization and is slowly being built to have sustainability.

[rebelforacause]

I am the coordinator for the National newspaper project and can not endorse this yet until I see the real business plan. Trevor is a excellent marketer and fund-raiser, though I still need to see him battle tested in a long term business.
My endorsement right now is to a small project from the businesswoman that managed the blimp. http://www.RonPaulAmbassadors.com , this is a MoveOn.org type of organization and is slowly being built to have sustainability.

Genuine, credible

[BarryDonegan]

relevant, more than anything else. The ambassadors piece is clearly dedicated to Ron Paul and the liberty movement that grows from him.

[nayjevin]

a. rick and trevor are evil car salesman with a brilliant scam
b. rick and trevor are genuine, and have a good idea
c. rick and trevor are genuine, but have an unworkable idea

i think maybe some posters sound like they believe (a) when they really believe (c)

i have a very positive impression of trevor from meeting him personally, and an excellent character reference of rick being a stand up guy (and it's a reference from the man i trust most on this earth, dear ol' dad)

i do not know enough about LLC / nonprofit / corp shares etc to determine whether (b) or (c) above, but I simply cannot believe it's (a).

i have made mistakes during this campaign, some that, in hindsight, didn't meet the WWRPD test (not in tune with liberty, IOW.) however, I am not an evil underling. i think it's easy to look black or white -- let's not fall into the trap that people are either a ron paul angel from whom only pure liberty flows, or a neo-con troll hellbent on our demise. even if there are better ways to go about doing this project, and even if the current proposals have kinks that can be clearly shown to be not 100% liberty aligned, let's not forget that these are humans who have a track record in the movement.

i do appreciate those posters who logically point out the kinks, without simultaneously spouting venom. if i choose to invest, (which i probably will, at least a little bit) i will consider it a risk that I will never see a dime back. my donations to the official campaign were made in the same way. to me, buying the stocks will, at worst, help make 2 guys rich that i'm pretty damn sure are good guys. at best, well, america will wake up to some degree, and i will hold something of value to show that i stood up and helped it happen.

that said, much communication from the organizations structure will be necessary to convince me the planning is sound. seems to me that detailed information is in the works.

on a different note, i think the name 'breakthematrix' is kind of like the 'V' money bomb. it will work for alot of people, and will leave a bad taste for others. i suspect it will be considered a good name by the younger generation that this project must consider it's main audience.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I'm dissuading people from a bad business venture. Supporting a limited liability corporation with a goal of consolidating media groups is not the type of thing that idealogically is consistent with our platform as a group. we're supposed to support competition, which succeeds or fails based on merit, not pooling all resources into one giant monster and trying to force our way in the game without a plan, giving full executive control to a lawyer and a guy who made a site about moneybombs.

"our platform as a group"??? What platform? What group?

"not pooling all resources into one giant monster"??? What kind of rhetoric is that? Monster, huh...:rolleyes:.

Has anyone suggested that we should all stop what we are doing and give everything to this effort? That is what your words above suggest. I call BS. What irks me is your inability to come right out and say what is on your mind. All of your posts in this thread suggest you do not trust the organizers yet you dance around that fact with rhetoric, GMAB!



because the only plan here is to take 12 million dollars and "overthrow the MSM". Do you realize how much money these corporations have? A competitive form of media with a shoestring budget is unlikely. It's more on the tarot card side of things to think this will result in any major change in the way average americans consume media faster than, say, a new technological device making it out by next Christmas is pretty out there.


Where on the website does it use the term "overthrow", "monopolize", etc.? ISTM- This is more BS rhetoric designed to dissuade potential supporters. Breaking a monopoly is NOT creating one.

You seem to be using the "unelectable" tactic here by repeatedly naysaying with opinions and distortions rather than facts. Furthermore, you continue to mention this upcoming technology like that is something we should wait for. I call BS




How does incorporating those two guys with a few million dollars ensure that?


Funny, I always thought a corp was a group of investors capitalizing on a product. This "two guys" line is just more rhetorical BS



I answered this before, it doesn't matter how strong your personal convictions are... when you offer up a company for sale to the public, you have just thrown your ability to have personal convictions out the window, your company can be bought, at a price, and people who are richer than you can chose to buy you at any time.


No, you didn't. You keep dancing around my qustions, but not answering them. The fact remains that the investors have to choose to sell. A hostile take-over still requires the agreement of a majority of voting shares.



No, we should elect officials who will limit it and return it to a republic. You are hellbent on assuming that because I find this idea to be either a. a well-intentioned mistake at best or b. an attempt to profiteer on the willingness of people in the grassroots to donate money that it means that I am a permanent skeptic of everything and am against everything.


Hellbent on assuming??? I am not assuming anything, I am questioning your logic and motivation and you keep avoiding my questions/points



I'm simply offering a caveat emptor to supporting publicly traded corporations. I feel that idealogically we should all be spending our money on small businesses and asking our politicians to legislate against corporate welfare, and one day have the hope of removing the 14th ammendment protections to limited liability corporations and make it to where the constitution only protects individual rights like what was originally intended.


BS- How many words does it take to simply offer a caveat emptor? Hell, you did that in your first post. Why are you still here? Do you not think we are smart enough to make decisions on our own? And why are you using rhetorical BS?

If you think you have a better idea, START YOUR OWN THREAD!!! ISTM that public corps are your pet-peeve. I agree with you that the 14th is screwed and needs changing, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC!!! This goes back to those questions you refuse to answer, here I'll repeat one:

...The Federal Reserve is most assuradly a corrupt practice, how do you get by without using FRNs?



...
I'm on the same team here! I just think this could have some pretty severe unintended consequences.


severe huh...:rolleyes:? Please list.

[TVMH]

I agree with the question of the motive of that, but i disagree with turning over 100% of the shares to the public. IMO these guys should start a private company(in their own name), take a personal loan or save personal capital from other methods of capital generation, start a media outlet, and ask us to consume the outlet.

that would be awesome, ethically solid, and supportable.

If you say thats not fast or powerful enough, that we need to pool all of our resources and destroy the current guard, the only way we can do that is by stopping consuming it, stopping consuming their advertisers and convince others to do the same, then start consuming a better outlet. creating the outlet from scratch by pooling an outrageous amount of cash is going to either create a new company to swallow or just out right accomplish nothing. if we had the numbers to do that in the first place, FOXNEWS would already be out of business.

a little birdie told me something like this might be in the works...;)

[Jamsie 567]

Nice job Trevor if you need any videos to help promote the idea you know where to find me.

We still gotta have that beer we been talking about, keep in touch.

Peace,

James

[BarryDonegan]

"our platform as a group"??? What platform? What group?

I don't think you'll find that the majority of us here beleive that corporatism is the way to solve problems. People who believe in Austrian Economics and Free Market want to see small businesses competing for your dollar, and believe truly that the market will allow the most productive to survive.


"not pooling all resources into one giant monster"??? What kind of rhetoric is that? Monster, huh...:rolleyes:.

Don't take every single word so seriously, this is an internet forum. I am answering questions quickly using the words that come to mind. To me, i feel that corporations are the tyranny of the industry against the consumer, it is pooling resources that a single person cannot possibly get in order to make financial moves a private business cannot do. This is bad for the market in general. I refer to it with the negative connotation "monster" because i feel it is a negative thing, that does only harm and zero good. When you have the majority of money in an industry set to one company which has noones name liable to it, you have just created a entity which can snuff out competition that does not have to own up for what it does.


Has anyone suggested that we should all stop what we are doing and give everything to this effort? That is what your words above suggest. I call BS. What irks me is your inability to come right out and say what is on your mind. All of your posts in this thread suggest you do not trust the organizers yet you dance around that fact with rhetoric, GMAB!

I do not use empty rhetoric, i am explaining why a limited liability corporation is not an successful way of doing this, it doesn't matter who is starting the corporation, because over time the people who start corporations don't own it. That's how publicly traded corporations work, they do not require success in their industry to be profitable to their financiers.




Where on the website does it use the term "overthrow", "monopolize", etc.? ISTM- This is more BS rhetoric designed to dissuade potential supporters. Breaking a monopoly is NOT creating one.

There is no media monopoly right now. There is a corporate group who has tied together all the news channels which are on broadcast television, but this is not a media monopoly. The whole idea that there is an unstoppable matrix which cannot be breached without creating a counter-corporation is in and of itself rhetoric. The reason we have the problem with broadcast news channels that we have today is BECAUSE the original creators created them in L.L.C format, and the money masters were able to purchase them over time. There is nothing to protect this particular project from turning into the same thing, that's my whole point.


You seem to be using the "unelectable" tactic here by repeatedly naysaying with opinions and distortions rather than facts. Furthermore, you continue to mention this upcoming technology like that is something we should wait for. I call BS

i have presented a clear argument that there is no foolproof way to protect an L.L.C. built in the way they described from eventually being bought out by the wrong people. You have never attempted to debate that. IMO you are arguing an emotional feeling about something totally unrelated to this. I have stated that the usage of a public corporation to solve this problem is going to be a mistake. I did not do this by way of a distortion. There are a handful of ways in which a publicly traded corporation, with available stocks, especially one that threatens the ability of the Old Media to limit certain news pieces from hitting the airwaves, can be gamed to the point of destruction or absorption. a fistfull of ways, from shorting stock, smearing the value of the stock in the media, offering way more money for the shares than they are worth (once one person sells at that price, try and stop everyone else from selling), doing a leverage buyout by artificially inflating the stock, or the good old fashioned offer the company 10x what its worth to make it go away. This is like building a house without doors or windows and storing gold inside. BTW, the previous sentence is a metaphor, not rhetoric.





Funny, I always thought a corp was a group of investors capitalizing on a product. This "two guys" line is just more rhetorical BS

not when they are buying non-voting stock and can't buy a majority of shares. When the stock being offered is valueless at the time of sale, you are simply making the two guys instant millionaires.




No, you didn't. You keep dancing around my qustions, but not answering them. The fact remains that the investors have to choose to sell. A hostile take-over still requires the agreement of a majority of voting shares.

i have not "danced around" anything, you just aren't reading the totality of what I'm saying. A hostile takeover is not the only way you can lose your company. Just simply buying a large amount of your shares and devaluing them, or having someone trash it on cnbc while you short it and tell all your friends in the big money game to short it, is one of the 100 ways these guys can game your company. your shares are up for anyone to buy, how do they know the people buying the shares a. will not sell b. are not the wrong people to begin with.

you can't, its a public company, you don't have the ability to ensure that. In fact, the most common way a company gets absorbed into the corporate industrial complexes is simply exhaustion by the people who started it. They run the company for a good while, get a lot of success, and as other aspects of their life become more interesting or important, they sell. If the market is such that, at the time they sell, they can't police the future intentions of everyone they sell to, it eventually will fall in the hands of the people who want to buy it to limit competition. It's just how things work. Why do you think a small number of people own almost all of the wealth? Because they are skillful at slowly absorbing everything that is for sale. Is there going to be a lie detector test or some method of personality screening given to every single person who buys stock forever to make sure they will never sell to people who don't also pass this rigorous screening? no. anyone can buy the stock. even right now!




Hellbent on assuming??? I am not assuming anything, I am questioning your logic and motivation and you keep avoiding my questions/points

my motivation is that a corporation is not a sensable way to accomplish this goal, and i wan't to express that. That is my only possible motivation here.




BS- How many words does it take to simply offer a caveat emptor? Hell, you did that in your first post. Why are you still here? Do you not think we are smart enough to make decisions on our own? And why are you using rhetorical BS?

you have referred to what i've said as BS like 50 times. I don't see what about this is BS. You also refer to what im saying as "rhetorical BS" without explaining what you mean by rhetorical. obviously it means something more to you than it does to the dictionary. every argument made about any subject is rhetorical, thats what rhetoric means. If you feel that an argument is EMPTY rhetoric, you need to make that distinction, and explain what about it is empty. EMPTY rhetoric is for example, when Obama says he wants to end the Iraq war, yet votes to fund it. In the context of this discussion, I am only explaining my feelings as to how this is a really bad idea and will result in more harm than good.(making it not empty rhetoric) Noone has said anything in response that encourages to the opposite... there has been no explanation of how the corporate structure of the idea is actually totally safe from intervention.(despite being open to sale to anyone)


If you think you have a better idea, START YOUR OWN THREAD!!! ISTM that public corps are your pet-peeve. I agree with you that the 14th is screwed and needs changing, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC!!! This goes back to those questions you refuse to answer, here I'll repeat one:

I am not starting a new company to create media. I am not good at creating news shows, I am not a journalist, I do not make TV shows. I will not create a thread to do this, because I am not able to do that. However, this is a grass roots forum, and all the ideas here that are being carried out are done in a public forum to get the feedback of the others. This is how things work here. In this situation I feel that this has the possibility of being a huge waste of a lot of peoples money, and may make them feel like things are hopeless in the event that it fails.


...The Federal Reserve is most assuradly a corrupt practice, how do you get by without using FRNs?

I didn't dance around this, I just didn't respond to it because its wildly off topic. It is illegal to trade gold, so the only way that you can safeguard your finances legally to date is to invest in funds, other currencies, precious metals, etc with your savings. You cannot legally trade other currencies, so there is no way within the law to avoid the usage of FRN. Therefor, your responsibility is to either a. disobey the law and suffer the consequences or b. elect representatives which will change the law.

However this is a red herring, because it is LEGAL to start a private business rather than a public corporation. So if there is a corrupt practice which you can chose to take part in, or a legal non-corruptable alternative, it would make the best sense to use the non-corruptable legal alternative.

we'd do much better to be a million little ron pauls than to try to be a million little david rockefellers to accomplish our goals. spend within your means, speak your voice, and consume(vote with your dollars) only products which fit a business model which is good for the consumer. buy from private companies, small businesses when possible. get out of corporate excess wherever you possibly can. doing stuff like not consuming foxnews, msnbc, abc, cnbc and instead promoting to your friends to consume internet resources which are better, if we have the power that we are suggesting, that will hurt them enormously. theres no gun to your head forcing you to watch the television. you'll be surprised how few people even watch the news channels.




severe huh...:rolleyes:? Please list.

taking a lot of money from people who wind up being disappointed with the results will hurt a lot of the power of the grass roots. thats just one big one.

[BarryDonegan]

a. rick and trevor are evil car salesman with a brilliant scam
b. rick and trevor are genuine, and have a good idea
c. rick and trevor are genuine, but have an unworkable idea


I agree with you here. as it stands, i find this to be a case of C.

I think that the corporate structure of this is a mistake.

I think that the same thing could be accomplished by making a really great liberty-oriented social networking site, which allowed users to present their own content. social networking sites are the new media. if the company starting the social networking site began to profit, and wanted to use their profits to spend money on broadcast tv to promote the service, or wanted to solicit content which is presented on the site to be viewed on local television stations, this would accomplish the same goal, while being a business model that the owners had control over, liability to, and the consumers could drive traffic to right away. This would give advertising value, which would make the company money, which would give trevor and rick some denaro to play with to make plays onto broadcast media or print media as well.

[Peace&Freedom]

Are there any workable alternatives? Well, here's a proposal by a NY TV Producer for a smaller scale 'break the matrix' media concept (based on lease-access), that he presented at the last NYC Ron Paul meetup. Please contact him if you want to participate:

If we are to encounter the bias media, we must start our own TV outlets.

Hello my name is Arthur Gabriele

I'm a producer of TV shows.
I'm also an independent agent for Ion Media

I have available 11 countrywide low budget locations that can be utilized for the Ron Paul Revolution TV show. My aim is to begin at the Albany, NY area [reaches 422,000 households] and expand out to all 11 locations. Here's how it works. We will need startup donations. At this time about $7,800 to secure 52 weekly spots. At this point the show can begin the production phase. Then we need to attract all businesses who support Ron Paul to advertise on the show. When all the advertising spots are filled, we can then use the advertising money to buy up time in another location.

•Albany, NY. Ch 55, WYPX•
•Buffalo, NY, Ch 51, WPXJ•
•Syracuse, NY, Ch 56, WSPX•
•Cedar Rapids, IA, Ch 48, KPXR•
•Charleston, WV, Ch 29, WLPX•
•Des Moines, IA, Ch 39, KFPX•
•Honolulu, HI, Ch 66, KPXO•
•Knoxville, TN, Ch 54, WPXK•
•Roanoke, VA, Ch 38 Analog or Ch 36 digital UHF, WPXR•
•Salt Lake City, UT, Ch 16, KUPX•
•Spokane, WA, Ch 34, KGPX•
•Tulsa, OK, Ch 44, KTPX•

Of course the more donations that come in the faster this process will go.
When all of these locations are filled the next phase kicks in. We can now afford bigger packages like the Tri-State area [NY, NJ, CT] which reaches 6 million households. At that point we need to attract larger businesses to buy up those spots which go for 510 per minute. Ultimately I hope to be able to reach the point where it will afford the big one at 93 million households countrywide. When people will be able to hear the Ron Paul version of the truth.

Together We Stand. Divided We Fall.
Come Together Right Now Over Me

a.gabriele@verizon.net

http://rprtvproject.chipin.com/

[sharpsteve2003]

Sounds good to me!

[ronpaulhawaii]

I don't think you'll find that the majority of us here beleive that corporatism is the way to solve problems. People who believe in Austrian Economics and Free Market want to see small businesses competing for your dollar, and believe truly that the market will allow the most productive to survive.

As do I. Unfortunately, we need to work in the world, as it is, to mold it as we would like it to be.



Don't take every single word so seriously, this is an internet forum. I am answering questions quickly using the words that come to mind. To me, i feel that corporations are the tyranny of the industry against the consumer, it is pooling resources that a single person cannot possibly get in order to make financial moves a private business cannot do. This is bad for the market in general. I refer to it with the negative connotation "monster" because i feel it is a negative thing, that does only harm and zero good. When you have the majority of money in an industry set to one company which has noones name liable to it, you have just created a entity which can snuff out competition that does not have to own up for what it does.


I consider working on a presidential campaign to be serious business, regardless of the venue. I have no choice but to take a man at his word and if he is careless because, "this is an internet forum", then he must not take this seriously and loses credibility, IMO.

I do find the above bit interesting, "...it is pooling resources that a single person cannot possibly get in order to make financial moves a private business cannot do.", because you have been suggesting these guys use a business model which you now clearly state as doomed to failure. ???.



I do not use empty rhetoric, i am explaining why a limited liability corporation is not an successful way of doing this, it doesn't matter who is starting the corporation, because over time the people who start corporations don't own it. That's how publicly traded corporations work, they do not require success in their industry to be profitable to their financiers.


No, you use rhetoric based on speculation and predjudice. While it is not empty, it is, also, not true. Hence, my reference to Tarot Cards...



There is no media monopoly right now. There is a corporate group who has tied together all the news channels which are on broadcast television, but this is not a media monopoly. The whole idea that there is an unstoppable matrix which cannot be breached without creating a counter-corporation is in and of itself rhetoric. The reason we have the problem with broadcast news channels that we have today is BECAUSE the original creators created them in L.L.C format, and the money masters were able to purchase them over time. There is nothing to protect this particular project from turning into the same thing, that's my whole point.


Rhetoric is not an idea, it is a form of communication. The above segmant, "...an unstoppable matrix which cannot be breached..." uses a rhetorical device called Hyperbole. And unfortunately, your whole point is an inductive fallacy based on speculation. We simply do not know what tactics these guys will present to mitigate this imagined threat.



i have presented a clear argument that there is no foolproof way to protect an L.L.C. built in the way they described from eventually being bought out by the wrong people. You have never attempted to debate that. IMO you are arguing an emotional feeling about something totally unrelated to this. I have stated that the usage of a public corporation to solve this problem is going to be a mistake. I did not do this by way of a distortion. There are a handful of ways in which a publicly traded corporation, with available stocks, especially one that threatens the ability of the Old Media to limit certain news pieces from hitting the airwaves, can be gamed to the point of destruction or absorption. a fistfull of ways, from shorting stock, smearing the value of the stock in the media, offering way more money for the shares than they are worth (once one person sells at that price, try and stop everyone else from selling), doing a leverage buyout by artificially inflating the stock, or the good old fashioned offer the company 10x what its worth to make it go away. This is like building a house without doors or windows and storing gold inside. BTW, the previous sentence is a metaphor, not rhetoric.


I didn't address that point because there is nothing to argue. I don't know of anything in life that is foolproof, so what. Victory comes to the bold and the brave. All of your failure scenarios are based on speculation and pessimism. They depend upon human weakness and discount the greatness which arises in men during times of trial. And BTW, a metaphor is a rhetorical device called a trope:p




not when they are buying non-voting stock and can't buy a majority of shares. When the stock being offered is valueless at the time of sale, you are simply making the two guys instant millionaires.


Is there a prospectus I have not seen, or is this more speculation?



i have not "danced around" anything, you just aren't reading the totality of what I'm saying. A hostile takeover is not the only way you can lose your company. Just simply buying a large amount of your shares and devaluing them, or having someone trash it on cnbc while you short it and tell all your friends in the big money game to short it, is one of the 100 ways these guys can game your company. your shares are up for anyone to buy, how do they know the people buying the shares a. will not sell b. are not the wrong people to begin with.

you can't, its a public company, you don't have the ability to ensure that. In fact, the most common way a company gets absorbed into the corporate industrial complexes is simply exhaustion by the people who started it. They run the company for a good while, get a lot of success, and as other aspects of their life become more interesting or important, they sell. If the market is such that, at the time they sell, they can't police the future intentions of everyone they sell to, it eventually will fall in the hands of the people who want to buy it to limit competition. It's just how things work. Why do you think a small number of people own almost all of the wealth? Because they are skillful at slowly absorbing everything that is for sale. Is there going to be a lie detector test or some method of personality screening given to every single person who buys stock forever to make sure they will never sell to people who don't also pass this rigorous screening? no. anyone can buy the stock. even right now!


How do you know I am not understanding the totality of what you are saying, and simply disagreeing. And unless you can show me where I can buy stock in this theoretical corp, "right now", I'm calling BS (for the 7th time in this thread)




my motivation is that a corporation is not a sensable way to accomplish this goal, and i wan't to express that. That is my only possible motivation here.


While it is obvious that you feel this way about LLCs, I must wonder about additional motivation; especially in light of such statements as:

"...this smells of profiteering off the attention his name received."

"The OP's business idea is not going to "stick it to" the MSM. at best, it will be make him personally rich, at worse, it will fail."

If you simply wanted to suggest a safer way of funding you would not have definitively predicted failure, nor would you have made it personal. This is the 8th time I am calling BS


you have referred to what i've said as BS like 50 times. I don't see what about this is BS. You also refer to what im saying as "rhetorical BS" without explaining what you mean by rhetorical. obviously it means something more to you than it does to the dictionary. every argument made about any subject is rhetorical, thats what rhetoric means. If you feel that an argument is EMPTY rhetoric, you need to make that distinction, and explain what about it is empty. EMPTY rhetoric is for example, when Obama says he wants to end the Iraq war, yet votes to fund it. In the context of this discussion, I am only explaining my feelings as to how this is a really bad idea and will result in more harm than good.(making it not empty rhetoric) Noone has said anything in response that encourages to the opposite... there has been no explanation of how the corporate structure of the idea is actually totally safe from intervention.(despite being open to sale to anyone)

50 times huh?. BS - ;) (#9 ) What I mean by rhetorical BS is an argument not grounded in reality. ISTM, your whole argument is based on speculation and prejudice. I agree there has been no explanation as to how they will attempt to safegaurd this corp from the... monsters, and that is precisely why I am calling you out for your unproductive negativity.



I am not starting a new company to create media. I am not good at creating news shows, I am not a journalist, I do not make TV shows. I will not create a thread to do this, because I am not able to do that. However, this is a grass roots forum, and all the ideas here that are being carried out are done in a public forum to get the feedback of the others. This is how things work here. In this situation I feel that this has the possibility of being a huge waste of a lot of peoples money, and may make them feel like things are hopeless in the event that it fails.


The first rhetorical device above is called anaphora, this time it is based on fact though, cool. What you seem to fail to understand is the difference between constructive, and destructive, criticism/feedback. Your second device falls short though in that it is based on speculation, and I am sorry to say, hints at arrogance. Who are you to think you know where I should spend my money better than me? And what makes you think I would lose hope if this venture fails?



I didn't dance around this, I just didn't respond to it because its wildly off topic. It is illegal to trade gold, so the only way that you can safeguard your finances legally to date is to invest in funds, other currencies, precious metals, etc with your savings. You cannot legally trade other currencies, so there is no way within the law to avoid the usage of FRN. Therefor, your responsibility is to either a. disobey the law and suffer the consequences or b. elect representatives which will change the law.


You danced around it because, as you say, you consider it wildly off topic. I, OTOH, consider it very apt. The reason I used this is because it highlights the hypocrisy of your argument. The old, whats' good for the goose, is good for the gander. You sit here railing about someone using evil corporations to further their agenda, meanwhile you use a corporation to further your own. Then you further compound your mistake by citing fallacy as fact. Bartering is legal. Using FRNs is merely easier, as is using the corporate model, in this day and age, to compete with other corps.



However this is a red herring, because it is LEGAL to start a private business rather than a public corporation. So if there is a corrupt practice which you can chose to take part in, or a legal non-corruptable alternative, it would make the best sense to use the non-corruptable legal alternative.


The fish here are not mine. A non-corruptable legal alternative huh? Right...:rolleyes:



we'd do much better to be a million little ron pauls than to try to be a million little david rockefellers to accomplish our goals. spend within your means, speak your voice, and consume(vote with your dollars) only products which fit a business model which is good for the consumer. buy from private companies, small businesses when possible. get out of corporate excess wherever you possibly can. doing stuff like not consuming foxnews, msnbc, abc, cnbc and instead promoting to your friends to consume internet resources which are better, if we have the power that we are suggesting, that will hurt them enormously. theres no gun to your head forcing you to watch the television. you'll be surprised how few people even watch the news channels.


Speaking of fish...

Maybe you should be a preacher...



taking a lot of money from people who wind up being disappointed with the results will hurt a lot of the power of the grass roots. thats just one big one.

But I guess you will just ignore that you used the plural cause this is just an internet forum

Seriously though, I do wish you luck in your candidacy. Might I be so bold as to suggest you try to base your rhetoric in facts and logic rather that speculation and... feelings. If a HS drop-out like myself can plainly see and rebut your argument, I shudder to think of what a professional could do. In this situation I wonder that this has the possibility of being a huge waste of a lot of peoples time and money, and may make them feel like things are hopeless in the event that it fails.

Touche

m

[BarryDonegan]

I consider working on a presidential campaign to be serious business, regardless of the venue. I have no choice but to take a man at his word and if he is careless because, "this is an internet forum", then he must not take this seriously and loses credibility, IMO.

i was not careless, i just used casual language and metaphors because it is the proper vernacular when having a casual discussion. I do not write things here to be dissected for proper debate style. The fact that you compare statements made to the defecation coming from a bull automatically disqualifies you from having any right to claim that formal speech is necessary in this type of discussion.


I do find the above bit interesting, "...it is pooling resources that a single person cannot possibly get in order to make financial moves a private business cannot do.", because you have been suggesting these guys use a business model which you now clearly state as doomed to failure. ???.

This is one of many examples of you adding information to what i said which was not stated. I do not think that private businesses are doomed to failure, just because a business does not have the capital necessary to destroy any ability for anyone to compete with them, does not make it a failed business. I don't think it is a success when any group of people games the system to destroy the ability for others to compete... i consider that to be a failure because it is unethical.




No, you use rhetoric based on speculation and predjudice. While it is not empty, it is, also, not true. Hence, my reference to Tarot Cards...

no i don't, i am making comments based on what has been stated, and based on the qualities of the things chosen. it is not speculation to say that the ethical and practical ramifications of doing this in the form of an LLC are more corruptable than doing it in a private business. That is a rational assertion based on fact.




Rhetoric is not an idea, it is a form of communication. The above segmant, "...an unstoppable matrix which cannot be breached..." uses a rhetorical device called Hyperbole. And unfortunately, your whole point is an inductive fallacy based on speculation. We simply do not know what tactics these guys will present to mitigate this imagined threat.

the hyperbole you are referring to was used by the OP. I simply quoted it. They are referring to the current popularity of CFR member news organizations as a "matrix" which needs to be "broken". That we need to "take back" the media (did we at some time own it?). The media is not a public good. It is a consumable private enterprise. Some people choose to consume Foxnews. That's lame. That's not an inductive fallacy based on speculation. That's a proper explanation as to what is happening. There is no "matrix" of media communication. There is no gun to your head forcing you to consume FOXNEWS. All that is required to "break" the "matrix" is to turn off FOXNEWS, CNN, MSNBC, and turn on the internet. There is no speculation or inductive fallacy there, that is just pure factual reality.




I didn't address that point because there is nothing to argue. I don't know of anything in life that is foolproof, so what. Victory comes to the bold and the brave. All of your failure scenarios are based on speculation and pessimism. They depend upon human weakness and discount the greatness which arises in men during times of trial. And BTW, a metaphor is a rhetorical device called a trope:p

The same argument could be made of running into an armed military conflict against a group of Tanks with your bare fists. There are qualitative value differences between different plans. It is smarter to use more foolproof, better plans than to use half-cocked ones that have clear, visible flaws before you begin. You can call any event that has happened yet speculation. For example, if someone pulls a gun on me and tells me he will shoot me if I do a particular thing, you can say it is speculation to assume that he will shoot me if I do that action. However, it is speculation based on a pretty reasonable amount of data that makes the risk of being shot very real, and something that you have to take into consideration. You can write off all planning as speculation, and write off all warning against a foreseeable problem as pessimism. especially when there is very little qualitative defense of the problems discussed. However, one would have a really difficult time negotiating those situations if any sort of planning for the future based on possible outcomes is automatically (gross?) "speculation" and any qualitative value judgements which are unfavorable are automatically "pessimism". If this was a method of making arguments invalid, then how do you plan anything? Is it "pessimism" and "speculation" to tell someone not to eat a food which has been labelled poisonous because the only information you have is that other people have died from eating it? The person you are advising hasn't died from it before, so how do you know it will poison them? Because others have died of it, it is a reasonable risk. Your classification of "speculation" and "pessimism" would not allow you to negotiate this problem.







How do you know I am not understanding the totality of what you are saying, and simply disagreeing. And unless you can show me where I can buy stock in this theoretical corp, "right now", I'm calling BS (for the 7th time in this thread)


refer to their page. it currently is soliciting a "stock offering" for Basic Media, INC. This allows you to begin the process of purchasing stock in the company. It does not ask you to verify that you are not a member of any organization which might have a conflicting interest. Technically, because they are not accepting the money yet, you can argue that you are not able to finalize the sale yet, but thats semantics. de facto the shares are available, at a price, now.




While it is obvious that you feel this way about LLCs, I must wonder about additional motivation; especially in light of such statements as:

"...this smells of profiteering off the attention his name received."

"The OP's business idea is not going to "stick it to" the MSM. at best, it will be make him personally rich, at worse, it will fail."

If you simply wanted to suggest a safer way of funding you would not have definitively predicted failure, nor would you have made it personal. This is the 8th time I am calling BS

It is not BS. The OP used language that obviously capitalizes off of the "name awareness" of the "celebrity status" of Trevor Lyman for working on the money bomb. I didn't say that it was 100% guaranteed that he was profiteering, "smells of" is idiomatic for "demonstrates a possibility". If you can't read the grain of salt that's in the language there, then yeah... that is hardly a personal attack. It is a question about the motivation, not based on random personal info, but based on the way the marketing for the shares is being done.




50 times huh?. BS - ;) (#9 ) What I mean by rhetorical BS is an argument not grounded in reality. ISTM, your whole argument is based on speculation and prejudice. I agree there has been no explanation as to how they will attempt to safegaurd this corp from the... monsters, and that is precisely why I am calling you out for your unproductive negativity.

I made a suggestion that using a publicly traded L.L.C. to do this is a bad idea. That maybe a different method of financing would make more sense. Noone representing the business model has responded and stated that their current plan satisfies the concerns I have. the only response has been you, arguing that i shouldn't make suggestions. The unproductive negativity is on your behalf. You don't know what they are doing, if you are interested in their program, sign up for it. I have made an assertion, and I stand by it. I think people need to watch for details from these guys about how they plan to deal with those problems.



The first rhetorical device above is called anaphora, this time it is based on fact though, cool. What you seem to fail to understand is the difference between constructive, and destructive, criticism/feedback. Your second device falls short though in that it is based on speculation, and I am sorry to say, hints at arrogance. Who are you to think you know where I should spend my money better than me? And what makes you think I would lose hope if this venture fails?

you can't possibly say that if a large number of people invest in a cause which they believe will result in good, and it fails, that it won't make them question doing it again? That's not arrogant, that's just understanding people.




You danced around it because, as you say, you consider it wildly off topic. I, OTOH, consider it very apt. The reason I used this is because it highlights the hypocrisy of your argument. The old, whats' good for the goose, is good for the gander. You sit here railing about someone using evil corporations to further their agenda, meanwhile you use a corporation to further your own. Then you further compound your mistake by citing fallacy as fact. Bartering is legal. Using FRNs is merely easier, as is using the corporate model, in this day and age, to compete with other corps.

bartering is legal, however going to work at a job and receiving goods and such rather than FRN is NOT. so you are not able to work a job, pay taxes, etc, currently without FRN. I'd love to see you try and barter with the IRS and trade a carton of eggs or whatever to settle up your debt. It is even difficult to grow your own food for your own use without being taxed on it, which must be paid in FRN. There is no legal alternative to completely divorce yourself from the use of FRN ever at any time. you pay taxes in USD, and you will pay capital gains taxes on any wealth you have in any other format. This is not a hypocracy, this is reality. I would suggest however not holding your savings in FRN, as they are not the best investment right now ;) This does not change the fact that a private business is a totally legally, practically reasonable way to invest your capital in the industry of your choice.




Seriously though, I do wish you luck in your candidacy. Might I be so bold as to suggest you try to base your rhetoric in facts and logic rather that speculation and... feelings. If a HS drop-out like myself can plainly see and rebut your argument, I shudder to think of what a professional could do. In this situation I wonder that this has the possibility of being a huge waste of a lot of peoples time and money, and may make them feel like things are hopeless in the event that it fails.

just because you say that i base my rhetoric in things which are not facts and logic, doesn't mean that's what I'm doing ;)

please specifically show me where I am making assertions that have no factual basis. And if so, it is probably because I assumed you knew something you obviously don't, at which point I will introduce the facts as they pertain to the point.

I hope you don't take this discussion too personally, I definately have an ethical reasoning behind what I am saying about their choice of an LLC, but I established that long ago. The purpose of this at this point is just some fun debate gymnastics with you. We haven't been on topic with this debate at any point... I just find it fun.

[MRoCkEd]

so whens the next update coming about this? :-)

[New York For Paul]

With the way the blimp was run, I am not so sure about this.

[rexorooter]

I would like to urge that we all contact, via e-mail or snail mail every individual that we know who is serving in the military, and inform them of the existence of great patriots in the upper echelons of the military complex that will upon a crisis, stand and defend, via a coup, the constitution of the United States of America. The evil power brokers know this is true and are scared to death, and that when the average enlisted man is informed, their dreams of a one world order will be defeated. Our individual arming is one thing and the military armament is another. Our boys and girls who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, and done so seriously, only need to be enlightened to act accordingly. We are on the march and they are on the run. Contact all currently serving and pass this message to all citizens so they may do the same.

[Mark]

With the way the blimp was run, I am not so sure about this.

Trevor had the Blimp planned from at least June 14th, 2007.

And everyone knows they're very expensive to rent.

Then he took over other people's ideas that he found, built an email list of over 18,000 donors,

and then began his blimp company using the emails he had collected to solicit money.

And he never fulfilled his promise to be transparent with the money he took in.

Now he wants people to give him five million dollars.
.

[DFF]

Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention -- and if we have learned anything during this past year, it's that we need a viable alternative to the MSM.

So I wholeheartedly support BreakTheMatrix (http://www.breakthematrix.com/) and will purchase stock once the company goes public. I encourage every other person here to do the same. :)

[Cowlesy]

I'm starting to think these guys are better off doing a private placement than trying to go public imo.

[MRoCkEd]

i just hope this thing works out well
when will the stock offerings be?

[ItsTime]

Agreed. Unless the grassroots wants to take most the risk while making these guys millionaires.


I'm starting to think these guys are better off doing a private placement than trying to go public imo.

[OptionsTrader]

Pimping a pinksheet stock offering.

I was wondering how long it would take until someone tried something despicable like this.

Pinksheets (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pinksheets+&btnG=Search)companies have one intent: to make the management rich.

Be warned.

[ItsTime]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Sheets




Pimping a pinksheet stock offering.

I was wondering how long it would take until someone tried something despicable like this.

Pinksheets (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pinksheets+&btnG=Search)companies have one intent: to make the management rich.

Be warned.

[Charles Wilson]

The days of the talking heads on the Never Ending News, along with the Loud Mouth Radio Jocks are numbered. The way we get our news is changing. I urge everyone that supports the Constitution to get on board with this.

I love the idea. My wife and I made a pledge to support this awhile back. Win, lose, or draw, we are in! I am not getting into this only to make money, I am supporting this primarily to help develop an alternative news outlet to the Main Stream Media. To all the nay sayers I say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[MRoCkEd]

update 4 is up
http://breakthematrix.com/

[BarryDonegan]

I'm starting to think these guys are better off doing a private placement than trying to go public imo.


This was my argument all along.

[Athan]

HELP ME TREVOR!

I'm a recovering news junkie! There is no media I trust anymore outside of Ron Paul supporters!

[MRoCkEd]

next update is up
www.Breakthematrix.com Update No. 6: Lisa Kelly Joins Us!!

[ItsTime]

qft


With the way the blimp was run, I am not so sure about this.


Trevor had the Blimp planned from at least June 14th, 2007.

And everyone knows they're very expensive to rent.

Then he took over other people's ideas that he found, built an email list of over 18,000 donors,

and then began his blimp company using the emails he had collected to solicit money.

And he never fulfilled his promise to be transparent with the money he took in.

Now he wants people to give him five million dollars.
.


I'm starting to think these guys are better off doing a private placement than trying to go public imo.


Agreed. Unless the grassroots wants to take most the risk while making these guys millionaires.


Pimping a pinksheet stock offering.

I was wondering how long it would take until someone tried something despicable like this.

Pinksheets (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pinksheets+&btnG=Search)companies have one intent: to make the management rich.

Be warned.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Sheets

[MRoCkEd]

It's starting...:
http://www.breakthematrix.com/

[ItsTime]

wow thats horrible


It's starting...:
http://www.breakthematrix.com/

[MRoCkEd]

yeah i dont like the design

[constituent]

featured columnist:

"Why the Federal Reserve is as important as the Pentegon and Area 51"