what will it take?

[HopeForHumanity]

I'm not advocating violence, but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones, and then history goes on repeating itself. So what will it be? Some people are well intentioned, others are no so well intentioned. But in the end, both seem to have a "virtual" mindset that tells itself peace or "playing it smart" will get them their goals. Sure, it does once and while in the short run, but in the long run, people are simply big hypocrites. Even during the enlightenment, it took ruthless behavior to change anything. I'm not stating ruthlessness or compromise are some how better than each other, that is anyone's opinion. Everyone on this forum cares about pushing goals, but I doubt anyone actually knows where the finish line is. I just read a thread where everyone literally disagreed on where the finish line is. Is it rand paul? Taking over the republican party? Getting ron paul in as president? Because at some point, you want everyone to either be ruthless or voting for a compromise. Unless everyone agrees, lets face it, movements fail.

Take your time to agree with each other on something, not disagree, thats all I ask.

[ganderif]

but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones

I stopped reading here.

[TrishW]

violence.. NO Ron Paul.. Yes. Taking over the Republican Party... Yes. Rand Paul... probably

But our goal is actually a Constitutional government. We all agree on that.

[affa]

I'm not advocating violence, but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones, and then history goes on repeating itself.

You're either reading the wrong history, or your using the incorrect definition of 'decisive'.

[Akus]

I'm not advocating violence, but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones, and then history goes on repeating itself. So what will it be? Some people are well intentioned, others are no so well intentioned. But in the end, both seem to have a "virtual" mindset that tells itself peace or "playing it smart" will get them their goals. Sure, it does once and while in the short run, but in the long run, people are simply big hypocrites. Even during the enlightenment, it took ruthless behavior to change anything. I'm not stating ruthlessness or compromise are some how better than each other, that is anyone's opinion. Everyone on this forum cares about pushing goals, but I doubt anyone actually knows where the finish line is. I just read a thread where everyone literally disagreed on where the finish line is. Is it rand paul? Taking over the republican party? Getting ron paul in as president? Because at some point, you want everyone to either be ruthless or voting for a compromise. Unless everyone agrees, lets face it, movements fail.

Take your time to agree with each other on something, not disagree, thats all I ask.
Personally, I can't speak for others, I will just try to get my own life in order. No money owed. No consumerism. Try to be as healthy as I can. This is how you'd REALLY protest "the system", whatever that word means. No money lender will make any $ off of me, nor pharma gangsters, nor other corporations that want me to buy their shit product.

And, of course, voting. I vote Libertarian, with possible exception this time around, obviously.

Remember, HFH, Campaign for Liberty is not about destruction and overthrow. Liberty starts with you, inside you. Check to see if all the government traits you loathe so badly are not in you first. Start there.

[Travlyr]

I'm not advocating violence, but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones, and then history goes on repeating itself. So what will it be? Some people are well intentioned, others are no so well intentioned. But in the end, both seem to have a "virtual" mindset that tells itself peace or "playing it smart" will get them their goals. Sure, it does once and while in the short run, but in the long run, people are simply big hypocrites. Even during the enlightenment, it took ruthless behavior to change anything. I'm not stating ruthlessness or compromise are some how better than each other, that is anyone's opinion. Everyone on this forum cares about pushing goals, but I doubt anyone actually knows where the finish line is. I just read a thread where everyone literally disagreed on where the finish line is. Is it rand paul? Taking over the republican party? Getting ron paul in as president? Because at some point, you want everyone to either be ruthless or voting for a compromise. Unless everyone agrees, lets face it, movements fail.

Take your time to agree with each other on something, not disagree, thats all I ask.
Ron Paul talks about the finish line in almost all of his literature, debates, and speeches. Sound Money and a Foreign Policy of Freedom. Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship.

[GopBlackList]

I'm not advocating violence, but if you ever read history, the only decisive moments are the violent ones, and then history goes on repeating itself. So what will it be? Some people are well intentioned, others are no so well intentioned. But in the end, both seem to have a "virtual" mindset that tells itself peace or "playing it smart" will get them their goals. Sure, it does once and while in the short run, but in the long run, people are simply big hypocrites. Even during the enlightenment, it took ruthless behavior to change anything. I'm not stating ruthlessness or compromise are some how better than each other, that is anyone's opinion. Everyone on this forum cares about pushing goals, but I doubt anyone actually knows where the finish line is. I just read a thread where everyone literally disagreed on where the finish line is. Is it rand paul? Taking over the republican party? Getting ron paul in as president? Because at some point, you want everyone to either be ruthless or voting for a compromise. Unless everyone agrees, lets face it, movements fail.

Take your time to agree with each other on something, not disagree, thats all I ask.

I have to the realization that money is power. If you want to take over the Republican party take a look at Romney, a millionaire that is able to pull some strings with the Republican party with his financial coffers and lawyers. The reality is that people have grown sophisticated against protests and movements that they can derail any attempts to take over. Grassroots is not going to cut it.

[HopeForHumanity]

You're either reading the wrong history, or your using the incorrect definition of 'decisive'. Its actually really simple. Cultures become decisive when all forms of opposition are eliminated. The enlightenment is when most of OUR ideas (freedom, sound money, limited government, science) got put into effect. Was it peaceful? Hardly. The absolutists? Violence. Religious reformations? Violence. The renaissance era? compromise. Guess what? The renaissance era was hardly decisive. Thats the point i'm trying to make. So read the whole post and think for a second.

[HopeForHumanity]

I stopped reading here.

Sometimes people cant handle those kinds of truths. I'm sorry to say, but decisive moments are violent. Not all violent moments are decisive.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The threat of government-administered violence is the only thing motivating most people to pay taxes.