In Peril

[ll74]

That was a definitive non sequitur.

Everything I've written was my work product. I do not plagiarize.

Perhaps you were given to projection.

Bulllshit. You copy pasted from a website.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

I mean, if you follow this guy's logic, then a system of governance which has been in place since the end of the last Civil War (thus far preventing a Second Civil War?) is in mortal danger because of the reckless actions of a single individual. If he's allowed to go on living, then there's a chance that he'll rally his supporters, seize state power regardless of whether or not he "wins" the election, and plunge America into either anarchy or totalitarianism.*

If any controlling force actually exists behind the ruling system, if a person exists outside of that force, and if that persons threatens to do to the system what this person is apparently intent on doing, then it is no reason whatsoever for why he should be allowed to go on living. America routinely kills brown people on the other side of the planet for less, and American libs cheer when it happens.

*Never mind that he did precisely none of that on Jan 6th, when he had the fucking chance. He literally had his own private army ready and willing to cross the Rubicon on his behalf and appoint him unquestioned. He could have been the American Ceasar, or the American Napolean. Even being the American Mussolini would have been... something... right up until someone like me shot him of course.
View attachment 2347164
Was he willing to march into emperorship before them? No, he ran off and asked Ivanka for a pity-fuck, and now his biggest campaign promise is that he'll drag us into more Zionist wars because her side-piece wants him to.

Your entire rejoinder was non sequitur opinion that was devoid of facts.

If you did agree that Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression did result in a new form of government, then you have tacitly admitted that Lincoln's war was in fact a coup d'état which in fact it was. Lincoln should have been hanged for treason.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Your entire rejoinder was non sequitur opinion that was devoid of facts.

If you did agree that Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression did result in a new form of government, then you have tacitly admitted that Lincoln's war was in fact a coup d'état which in fact it was. Lincoln should have been hanged for treason.

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

Marxist Chris Cuomo admitted in an interview that J6 was not an insurrection. For the first time in his life, he was right. J6 was a Pelosi orchestrated riot with federal agent provocateurs in the crown aiding and abetting a riot.

Weaponizing law against political opponents is a Third World banana republic cesspool tactic. It is antithetical to a First World constitutional republic. Those supporting weaponized law will regret in when those they favor turn it on them. Historical record is replete with rabble ground in to grist after revolutions.

 

[ll74]

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

For example, you quoted this little piece right here without any source.

But I'm sure these are your thoughts

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Marxist Chris Cuomo admitted in an interview that J6 was not an insurrection. For the first time in his life, he was right. J6 was a Pelosi orchestrated riot with federal agent provocateurs in the crown aiding and abetting a riot.

Weaponizing law against political opponents is a Third World banana republic cesspool tactic. It is antithetical to a First World constitutional republic. Those supporting weaponized law will regret in when those they favor turn it on them. Historical record is replete with rabble ground in to grist after revolutions.

You know what? You're right. You people didn't do an insurrection.


But you should have.

For your cowardice, you are now getting precisely what you deserve.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

You're naive. Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression was to enforce the Morrill Tariff. Lincoln's primary source documents prove that he declared war on his country to exact Southern money to industrialize the North. You would gain knowledge by reading the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, and his correspondence to his benefactors. Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment that would have made slavery constitutional. He supported black codes that prevented black from moving into Northern states. He devised three plans to repatriate freed slaves. He promised his railroad benefactors that he'd exterminate the Plains Indians and he finished murdering Southern women and children.

You're emblematic of our dumbed down education system. It's what you think you know that isn;t true that destroys your credibility.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

Ah, yes, but of course you’re referring to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Talk in English please.

Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was a fraud. It did not free a single slave, not even slaves in states controlled by his army.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

For example, you quoted this little piece right here without any source.

But I'm sure these are your thoughts

It's... Marx.

It's Karl Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln upon his reelection near the end of the American Civil War.

How can anyone educated in an advanced, modern, English-speaking society possibly read the words of Karl Marx and not recognize it?

If I quoted Shakespeare, would that confuse you too? How about the Bible?

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

How can anyone educated in an advanced, modern, English-speaking society possibly read the words of Karl Marx and not recognize it?

...I of all people should know the answer to that one. I am, after all, an American high school history teacher.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

trump LOST every election fraud court case. End of fucking story.

You should read the Constitution of the United States of America. You'll learn how contested elections are resolved.

US courts are commissioned to legitimize tyranny, not mete out justice.

What you think you know that isn't true will lead you astray every time

 

[ll74]

It's... Marx.

It's Karl Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln upon his reelection near the end of the American Civil War.

How can anyone educated in an advanced, modern, English-speaking society possibly read the words of Karl Marx and not recognize it?

If I quoted Shakespeare, would that confuse you too? How about the Bible?

Yes, which you retrieved from a URL on the internet, sometimes referred to as a source.

You're literally on the site.....copy the URL so that everyone else has access .....some people call that a cite.

But please, continue with the "do your own research" mantra. The fucking lazy asshole mantra.

There's no confusion involved here. If you want others to participate in what you say, then show them why you say it. Give them the source material

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

This forum is dominated by franchise deniers.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Yes, which you retrieved from a URL on the internet, sometimes referred to as a source.

You're literally on the site.....copy the URL so that everyone else has access .....some people call that a cite.

But please, continue with the "do your own research" mantra. The fucking lazy asshole mantra.

If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

 

[ll74]

If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Yes, long drawn out way of saying that you're a lazy fuck

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

It's... Marx.

It's Karl Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln upon his reelection near the end of the American Civil War.

How can anyone educated in an advanced, modern, English-speaking society possibly read the words of Karl Marx and not recognize it?

If I quoted Shakespeare, would that confuse you too? How about the Bible?

Introducing Karl Marx into this debate was logical fallacy that implicated your inability to intellectually refute facts. Karl Marx had nothing to do with Lincoln's War of Northern aggression or election integrity.

History has proven Karl Marx to have been an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

I’m going to assume that Oral-Ecstasy and Jay-Secrets are the same long-winded person.

PS: what the fuck is a “franchise denier”? Someone who says you can’t buy a McDonalds?

You're obviously a product of America's dumbed down educational system.

 

[Bn2f]

No. You stopped reading because you were unable to intellectually refute anything contained within my post.

You wrote that Lincoln was fraudulently elected. I've never written that.

Perhaps a comprehension course would benefit you.

“Lincoln routinely rigged elections…”

You’re right. I blame myself for not reading further.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

...I of all people should know the answer to that one. I am, after all, an American high school history teacher.

Then you should know that Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with exacting money from the South to industrialize the North. Further, you should know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave. You should know about Lincoln's racist mentor. Finally, you should know about America's storied history of rigged elections.

Can you tell me who our country's first black First Lady was?

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Introducing Karl Marx into this debate was logical fallacy that implicated your inability to intellectually refute facts. Karl Marx had nothing to do with Lincoln's War of Northern aggression or election integrity.

History has proven Karl Marx to have been an intellectual lightweight.

Possibly the most influential economist in all of human history. In some countries, they recite sections of his writings in the same way that we (used to) recite the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, or like how English kids used to recite Herodotus at the Bridge.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

“Lincoln routinely rigged elections…”

You’re right. I blame myself for not reading further.

Do you get your knowledge from "Pulp Fiction"?

A third grader would have no difficulty finding primary source documents proving that Lincoln routinely rigged elections.

 

[Bn2f]

Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was a fraud. It did not free a single slave, not even slaves in states controlled by his army.

This member posted something nonsensical. You trying to explain his thoughts aren’t helping. Stay out of the way of a mother berating her son.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Then you should know that Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with exacting money from the South to industrialize the North. Further, you should know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave. You should know about Lincoln's racist mentor. Finally, you should know about America's storied history of rigged elections.

I'm a Marx-Leninist. As far as I'm concerned, all elections not occurring under a dictatorship of the workers and peasants are illegitimate.

Can you tell me who our country's first black First Lady was?

Sally Hemmings.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This forum is dominated by franchise deniers.

I like how you think this phrase means something.

It's like saying that I'm a "minimalist maximizer."

and then refusing to elaborate on its supposed meaning or your contextual usage gives it some sort of mystery of an unlearned level of being erudite.

hey, this isn't a knock. I get it, man.

Language manipulation is fun. 'specially on the internets.

 

[Oral_Ecstasy]

Possibly the most influential economist in all of human history. In some countries, they recite sections of his writings in the same way that we (used to) recite the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, or like how English kids used to recite Herodotus at the Bridge.

Dude, you are definitely suffering from knowledge deficiency. Did you really attempt to elevate Karl Marx above Adam Smith? Karl Marx expressed his intellectually defective political ideology in flawed economic terminology. Karl Marx was not an economist.