Tab Content
  • Todd's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:50 AM
    You know some people never open their eyes at all. Not all of us "got it" from the very start.
    17 replies | 148 view(s)
  • Todd's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:37 AM
    gosh......we've set the bar so high with someone like Ron that it's very difficult to gain a consensus. Think about how hard it was to rally around Rand. I wouldn't go ape crap if this forum were to rally around Gary Johnson or McAfee. At this time my choices are NOTA. It's not because I don't think some of the third party guys wouldn't be infinitely better than the two douchebags we have, it's that the key time period to gain traction has passed and I just don't care enough about the faux process that culminates in November to take time out of my life to go play the bullshit freedom game.
    49 replies | 620 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:20 AM
    Perhaps it is, and good points.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:19 AM
    I agree, but conversely a strong and timely analysis can help in this process. That won't be an issue:
    49 replies | 620 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:15 AM
    Thanks for the thread and idea. I'm certainly not opposed to it, some thoughts... - This would certainly be an open system, not just for one party. - People can already promote any candidate that receives a positive evaluation within our formal system, this wouldn't preclude promotions to just one person. - The goal won't be to try to focus acceptance / conformity, but highlight what is seen as excellence. A key issue would be the process used. A few thoughts on that... - Anything done should build off of our candidate evaluation system. Maybe start there as a baseline and do point-vs-point comparisons being as objective as possible. This would have a side benefit of improving out evaluation methodology. - At some level, there has to be a subjective judgement call, the question is, who makes that call? While the site staff doesn't have interest in being control freaks, there has to be some combination of membership involvement and final staff sign-off, which could largely be token but necessary to prevent going off-course. For membership voting, I would suggest that voting be limited to members that actively contribute to the data gathering and evaluation process.
    49 replies | 620 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:13 AM
    Thanks for the note. There is no intent to provide anyone with a free pass to degrade other members but I understand there can be issues. As mentioned, the desire is to have a focus on intellectual exchange; the biggest issue that I can see right now is that the site has always allowed for name calling of other candidates and their supporters, something I've never been a fan of, which now presents a problem due to Trump. We do not allow for someone to directly apply a label to an individual member ("You're a ....") however. In general I suggest the following approach: - Stick to addressing facts and logic. - Avoid making commentary about other members (be careful of using the word "you") - Use the "Report Post" feature when someone attacks (snark puke, etc). It's the triangle "!" under each post in the Full View themes. There is no intent to disallow such discussion, but do see some best practices when bring critical of things / people we generally support, which includes: - Focus on bring value to the movement - Be specific about the issue, vs. making vague generalities
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Todd's Avatar
    05-04-2016, 11:02 AM
    Whatever all are witness to history. There has never been a bigger more entertaining Circus about to unfold in this great nation's history than what is going to be the 2016 Presidential race......After all.... this country is nothing but bread and circuses and this is about as epic as you can get. I don't know if I should cry, or enjoy and savor every single bit of it.
    49 replies | 524 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-04-2016, 08:28 AM
    acp is correct, you should post this in the feedback forum. What you are doing here looks to be passive aggressive. Otherwise, I'll report the issue, it's nothing I will personal fix. Thanks.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-04-2016, 08:26 AM
    Please focus on the issues vs passing judgement against other members- which is against the guidelines. Thanks.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-04-2016, 07:49 AM
    Yes, please do. Correct, which can be summed up as do not promote hate based positions (racism, sexism, etc), and do not promote candidates we do not support based on our open and community driven campaign evaluations. Free speech is huge but it if was left wide open the discussion would devolve into complete trash talk, it wouldn't be functional. So while opinions are nearly wide open, degrading other site members is not.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Todd's Avatar
    05-03-2016, 11:01 AM
    why not? I've found it to be a simple and useful argument that works against the neo cons and stupid Israel and "Ally" firsters
    58 replies | 911 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 08:43 PM
    Please stay on topic, and away from personal attacks. Thanks.
    19 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 05:16 PM
    Interesting. I'm thinking McAfee is going to do the best going the distance, he will continue to rise as more people learn about his campaign.
    26 replies | 497 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 05:13 PM
    The only opinions that we'll censor are ones based on group hate-- (ex: racism, sexism, etc). We can debate these with non-supporting people who sign up here, but as a base, these it not acceptable within our camp, per the guidelines. We also do not allow people to promote candidates we do not support. Consider if a Bernie supporter came here and started a "Donate to Bernie" thread and similar, it would technically be off-topic to derail that thread but it would lower the value of the site to allow it, it goes against our Mission to help raise money for Bernie. We of course have no reason to back down on a fair debate of Bernie's policies. That said, there does have to be some balance within the thread volume of what is going on as others have suggested. Being a new member has no bearing on you providing value or not, so this isn't an issue. Logic and good ideas are what is taken well which can come from anyone. Thanks for contributing.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 04:43 PM
    No, this would certainly not be the case. Regardless of whoever wins the president, we would want to: - Discuss all policy matters that are getting attention, work out what is the best course of action. - Push for the best course of action. - Hold the president accountable for their campaign promises that we liked. - Work to stop potential agenda items that we don't like. None of this has anything to do with supporting or not supporting a candidate, and we'd still have done with any pro-liberty candidate. If anything, we would want to hold our own to an even higher standard so they do not harm our message. I hope this helps clear things up.
    282 replies | 5703 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 04:30 PM
    This thread is a good example of what not to do. Don't make matters personal to other members, no one cares about the bickering. Stick to facts and logic in the future-- and you'll do to the site discourse a positive service to avoid the use of ad hominem against groups. Are a rule of thumb, using the word "you" in a debate is generally not constructive and often lowers the discourse. Thanks.
    23 replies | 420 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 11:12 AM
    Or perhaps even, the guiding point. These are absolutely some things that we want to achieve, and more. The key is to have the right level of site discourse, which we're improving, have the right site structures, which we're working on, and to have the right people. The entire interactive effort is something that I certainly can't do by myself, and we need people to step up in small ways, but in ways that they can provide value. To do this, there needs to have a good win-win framework in place, which is the goal of our Mission Advancement Framework.
    100 replies | 1983 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 11:01 AM
    ... and for those who aren't aware yet, this is what we hope to do with the Foundational Knowledgebase project. It's also something that we can completely control, we don't need anyone's permission, anyone's votes or the like. See this thread for the project kick-off:!
    100 replies | 1983 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    05-02-2016, 10:56 AM
    There is some balance here. For one, I don't know of anyone that is saying to hold your breath, no one is saying "hope" beyond a campaign slogan, and no one is saying to waste your time on fruitless efforts. I do agree that we should be smart in how we spend our time and use our assets, I agreed all of this recently in the this thread here on the new site vision: I see Rand's campaign as a bit of a turning point showing we need a better plan, and it's not a good idea to wait to 2020 or 2024 to try some slightly different version of what has already been done. Ultimately however, your path is a personal choice and the best path will depend upon may factors that are unique to you. Sure, maybe the machine won't let us change the machine from working form within the machine but we can still leverage the machine to build our numbers. That's what I've said is one of the main benefits of the campaigns, and our campaign evaluation system factors this in. Consider we would not be here if it was not for Ron Paul leveraging the machine to get his message out. It works. Consider that people like Massie and Amash got into Congress and are working to push our message from within. They have an opportunity, took it, and it's working for them. So I say to find your balance and come to peace with it, explain why you have that view but there is no reason to beat up others for doing something different. Again, read my post (at leas the "State of the Movement; Where do we go from here?" section) in which I address these points. In short, I say that for now, we should focus on things that we can control.
    100 replies | 1983 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 03:03 PM
    There are a lot of people hot on this issue.. the 2016 race... on both sides. I don't see him as bashing all liberty supporters, just fighting on his point of view. While the site does not support Trump, and for well established reasons, I also see it as a failure to have the site be an echo chamber of bashing on the lowest common denomination. It doesn't help anyone intellectually. We need our positions to be solid against criticism. Without this, if you develop your talking points from an echo chamber you'll get destroyed once you leave the walls of the echo chamber. So discussion on the issues is valid, even if that means defending wrong information for someone we don't support. Also consider, different people have different MOs for why they support a candidate, for most here there is some strategy. Some will agree with that and some not.
    107 replies | 1167 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 02:47 PM
    Well, I certainly disagree with that, which part of this is irrelevant? (Link to Mission Statement) Thanks.
    107 replies | 1167 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 02:38 PM
    Bossobass has been a strong liberty fighter for a long time. We obviously disagree on the Trump issue but we can still be amicable on matters. So long as people stick with the guidelines they are welcome here. The guidelines include not promoting non-supportive candidates but we can still rationally breakdown issues and the news cycle for everyone to get a better focus on current events. (Not just addressing erowe1). Thanks.
    107 replies | 1167 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 02:31 PM
    Let's please keep this civil. I think Bossobass first post here was sarcasm to spin some common talking points. Things work best by sticking to a logical discussions of the issues but at least, stick with the guidelines, see my sig. Thanks.
    107 replies | 1167 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    04-29-2016, 01:09 AM
    Pointing out reality isn't a downer. All IMO... for some people, you can't complete. Most others aren't going to turn on a dime, it can nominally take around six months or more for someone to go from getting a seed of liberty and turning it into a new world outlook. Within that six months there is a lot of person reflection, withdraw from past ties, leaning new things and then starting to articulate new views. One key is to recognize when you are just planning seeds that you need to accept that you are doing just that, don't expect the quick change. Otherwise, there are a lot of do's and don'ts to this; another major topic. These things are doable for most people, and it's the people that are important, the vessel comes after that. While working towards it, I understand the scope of the problem, so it's in mind. The key however, is that it has to be planned for, and it's why we need better plans. The Liberty Blueprint is just the first layer of plans.
    100 replies | 3245 view(s)
More Activity

9 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    hey you what did you think about my pm
  2. View Conversation
    Where are you??? The grassroots needs your talent!
  3. View Conversation
    Hey Man, I have an idea for a Money Bomb for the fifth, are you up to making a video?
  4. View Conversation
    You're banned? Is this a joke?
  5. View Conversation
    yo man! we're trying to save BJ Lawson's campaign! we need your help! please make a video or two!
  6. View Conversation
    Gonna upgrade to a full EVE account soon because I need it for Caldari Industrial and Badger II.
  7. View Conversation
    This is a Chicago Libertarian putting together the April 15th Tea Party Protests.

    # Need someone good with video editing to help work on a #teaparty video. Anyone available today?13 minutes ago from TweetDeck
  8. View Conversation
    that is the coolest gif i've ever seen... with big foot
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 9 of 9
About aravoth

Basic Information

Date of Birth
April 1
Political Campaign Skills
Graphic Artist, Graphic Designer, Web Designer / Developer
Video and Audio:
Videographer, Video Producer
Online Marketer


This Page
Instant Messaging

Send an Instant Message to aravoth Using...


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
10-20-2011 12:07 AM
General Information
Last Activity
01-15-2016 10:17 PM
Join Date
Home Page

8 Friends

  1. american.swan american.swan is offline


  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline


  3. Bryan Bryan is offline


  4. Chester Copperpot
  5. nayjevin nayjevin is offline

    Site Staff - Moderator

  6. orenbus orenbus is offline


  7. Todd Todd is offline


  8. VegasPatriot VegasPatriot is offline


Showing Friends 1 to 8 of 8
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...