Sunday, January 09, 2005

Triumph!

Where is Champaign to bottom it up!

The miserable bunch of American fascist neo-conservatives with Cracker as their chain-leader has been defeated by one person and that’s me – “little Quizzer”. Lol.

You can go to his blog (uncivilrights.blogspot.com) and see for yourselves how disgracefully they’ve been bashed, so that poor Cracker had to delete all my comments and ban me from his blog. You know the reason: he could not stand my democratic logic.

Tonight his keyboard was jumping on his lap, because he lost his nerves completely with my comments popping in each second after they’d been deleted by him. Then he had to permit only comments from team members – American fascist web gangsters.

Anyway I gave him some more opportunity to get stunned with few more comments from my end.

Look at one of his postings:

“Europeans believe each individual is a part of the State, and the State grants these individuals rights. Without the State, the individual is nothing. These two philosophies pit a true capitalistic republic society against a socialistic/communistic society. It is this basic difference why Europeans do not, nor cannot consider private donations as part of America’s overall generosity”.

My comment followed as below:

“I know how bitter it should be to be defeated, especially when that occurs in your own blog. Then you start deleting logical comments and leaving only stupid confirmations of your meaningless ideas left by your soldiers and poodles.

Nevertheless, I want to repeat for pinheads like you, Cracker, that there are 2 sectors in each society: state and private ones. Therefore, in all cases we should point out what belongs to the state and what is private. Europeans, as the true founders of democracy in the world, do not believe that each individual is a part of the State. They are not like some Americans who can sell their own selves to the State and got confused between 2 notions of Patriotism and poodleness.

And still when we look at the list of state donations, the richest nation (America) is not the first and it stands behind Japan. According to the list of private donations German Michael Schumacher is the most generous donor with his $ 10 m donation, not the richest person of the planet (American Bill Gates) with his £ 3 m.

That sounds quite logical. By deleting these comments you are revealing your dictator coward face, Cracker.

Cheers,
Q”

Another essay of stupidity by Cracker:

“Hillary Clinton had the gonads to say that we had much to learn from the election in Ukraine...let me repeat that...Senator CLinton said we had much to learn from the election in Ukraine. Is she implying someone should have spiked Kerry's brie with poison or something, or is she saying our election process is corrupt?”

It has been bashed by the next comment of mine:

“Cracker and the gang,

Let me tell you that Senator Clinton was absolutely right. Maybe your system is not as corrupt as in some other countries, however, your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic and you really have to dream of a similar electoral system as in Ukraine.

Ukrainian nation showed to you all that they have learnt the lessons of democracy much quicker and better than you, while you’ve been preparing to teach them how to live democratically. How can the votes of just one state define the results of the whole election in the entire country? You have to grow up to understand what democracy really means.

Cheers,
Q”

And his conclusion about democracy reveals his true self:

“I believe the Europeans use the term "democracy" in the proper context because that is what they believe. Americans, on the other hand, are confused by term and use it in the wrong context while disgarding the term "republic." Whatever the case, we must never succumb to a democracy and fight for our republic”.

I commented his stance as follows:

“The antonym for “democracy” is “dictatorship”, not “republicanism”. Finally you are hinting, dude, that this blog belongs to a bunch of miserable dictators”.

At the end of our long battle commenced by his disgraceful “Call to Arms” ridiculed by Americans themselves, I said:


“Dear readers,

Now you are witnessing the disgraceful defeat and the end of the thread of baseless childish ideas of Cracker. He could not imagine how he would be bashed and broken by the same “little Quizzer” in his own blog, that his “great” gang would ran away as a bunch of coward dogs frightened by the strength of Quizzer’s logic and the weakness of their void “teachings”.

It must be quite obvious to everybody why the comments have been deleted. No braveness and no logic in crackers. That’s the only logical conclusion of this battle.

But it is too far away from the end of story.

Cracker and the gang! Keep on deleting my comments and reading them again and again on a daily basis. You want a grilling? You will get it!

Cheers,
Q”

All of them have been cowardly deleted by Uncivil Cracker (uncivilrights.blogspot.com) and thus, he has silently admitted his defaming defeat.

I am sorry to reveal your real features to everybody, including your cronies, Cracker!

Hmmmmm, I’m loving it!
No, I don’t mean McDonalds, of course. I mean this pleasant feeling of a wonderful triumph over pinheads!

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Republic vs. Democracy Part II
Here are some comments from a liberal-socialist regarding my previous post “Republic vs. Democracy”.

“Let me tell you that Senator Clinton was absolutely right. Maybe your system is not as corrupt as in some other countries, however, your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic and you really have to dream of a similar electoral system as in Ukraine.”

Now this thought (in bold) tells me either he never read the post or did not understand the post. The article CLEARLY STATES, “…the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.” The framers foresaw potentially few populated areas ruling the country, so they avoided this situation. Most people fail to understand that the President is not selected by popular vote. In fact, when one votes for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for the Electoral College vote for that candidate. One does not “vote for the president” of the U.S, it is a balance of power between the states.

The liberal was actually correct to say, “…your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic…” Why did the framers avoid the “democratic process” in the election of a president? As the article states, “In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.” So how is this different from a republican form of government? “John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.”

I understand this is difficult to grasp for those minds lacking analytical skills and a logical thought process. This failure to understand the difference seeps into the misunderstandings and misperceptions Europeans have with American society and politics.


”Ukrainian nation showed to you all that they have learnt the lessons of democracy much quicker and better than you, while you’ve been preparing to teach them how to live democratically. How can the votes of just one state define the results of the whole election in the entire country? You have to grow up to understand what democracy really means.”

Again, one must think the commenter had no understanding of the article. The article clearly states, “They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.” The framers were battling a tyrant in the King of England and did not want the newly formed government to mimic that much hated form of government they were fighting. In fact, “The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.” “John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.”

The founders were very wary of “mob rules”, their fear can be expressed form the following passage: This is from Neal Boorts at www.boortz.com
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

I guess, according to the commenter, we need to grow up to understand democracy and the fact it will fail. I believe the framers also knew a pure democracy would not succeed and therefore deliberately set up the republic to avoid that failure.


“The antonym for “democracy” is “dictatorship”, not “republicanism”. Finally you are hinting, dude, that this blog belongs to a bunch of miserable dictators.”

This comment clearly exemplifies the liberal-socialist mentality. This person thinks that if it is not a democracy then it must be a dictatorship, an uneducated thought. From Britannica Online, a republic is, “Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.” America does not have a direct democracy regarding our presidential elections, herein defines the difference.

It is this lack of knowledge and intellect that dominates the liberal-socialist agenda and philosophy. Perhaps the liberal-socialists and Europeans should read and learn some American history before illuminating their lack of intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Dear readers,

Now you are witnessing the disgraceful defeat and the end of the thread of baseless childish ideas of Quizzer. He could not imagine how he would be bashed and broken by the same “little Quizzer” in his own blog, that his “great” gang would ran away as a bunch of coward dogs frightened by the strength of Quizzer’s logic and the weakness of their void “teachings”.

It must be quite obvious to everybody why the comments have been deleted. No braveness and no logic in quizzer’s. That’s the only logical conclusion of this battle.

But it is too far away from the end of story.

Quizzer and the gang! Keep on deleting my comments and reading them again and again on a daily basis. You want a grilling? You will get it!

Cheers,

Darius said...

Poor coward Cracker... He's lost his ability to write in his own words even. He has published my own messages to him while pissing in his pants from fear to be recognized and punished again by Quizzer. He's just replaced his own infamous Cracker name with Quizzer and republished my biting messages.

Hahahahah! That could have never been funnier. This demonstration of extreme weakness of an American fascist idiot.

Cheers,

Darius said...

Thanks to American Thom Hartmann for recognizing neo-fascisto-conservatives in his country much earlier than me.

I will publish his thoughts about you - crackers (uncivilrights.blogspot.com) in several pasrts, so that you could have some time to digest the material in your slow brains to understand where your enmity with democracy comes from:

The Real War - On American Democracy
by Thom Hartmann

In the midst of news of foreign wars, Americans are beginning to wake up to the real war being waged here at home. It is, however, a confused awakening.

For example, Americans wonder why the Bush administration seems so intent on crippling local, state, and federal governments by starving them of funds and creating huge federal debt that our children will have to repay.

Many think it's just to fund tax cuts and subsidies for the rich, that the multimillionaire CEOs who've taken over virtually all senior posts in the Bush administration are just pigs at the trough, and this is a spectacular but ordinary form of self-serving corruption. It all seems so plausible, and there's even a grain of truth to it.

But juicy deals for Bush administration insiders are just a by-product of the real and deeper war against democracy. The neoconservatives are perfectly happy for us to think they're just opportunists skirting the edges of legality and morality, but this is far more dangerous than simple government corruption.

Indeed, the neo-conservatives claim to be anti-government. As a leading spokesman for the neo-con agenda, Grover Norquist, told National Public Radio's Mara Liasson in a May 25, 2001 Morning Edition interview, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Without a larger view, the issues of domestic spending, oil, neo-conservative power plays in both major parties, the loss of liberties, anti-government rhetoric, and war in the Middle East all seem like separate and unconnected events. They're not.

The "new conservatives" who've seized the Republican Party and, through the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) are nipping at the heels of the Democratic Party, are not our parents' conservatives. Historic conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower would be appalled. Although their philosophical roots go back to Alexander Hamilton, who openly argued during the Constitutional Convention that royalty was the best form of government, the neocons have always been kept to the fringe, nipping at the heels of democracy.

In past times those promoting what is now called the neo-conservative agenda went by different names.

The Founders of America knew that for 6000 years "civilized" humans had always been ruled by one of three groups: kings, theocrats, or feudal lords. Kings held power by threat of violence and continual warfare; theocrats and popes held power by the people's fear of a god or gods; and feudal lords held power by wealth and the power that comes from throwing average people into poverty.

The "new" idea of our Founders in 1776 was to throw off all three of these historic tyrannies and replace them with a fourth way - people being ruled by themselves. A government that derived its legitimacy and continuing existence solely from the approval of its citizens. Government of, by, and for "We, The People." They called it a republican democracy.

What we are seeing now in the neoconservative agenda is nothing less than an attempt to overthrow republican democracy and replace it with a worldwide feudal state.

The last time this happened, the feudalists took over a monarchy and then North America. In December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I chartered the East India company, ultimately leading to a corporate takeover of the Americas that the colonists ended with the Boston Tea Party and, three years later, the American Revolution. This corporate-state partnership went on to conquer India, but eventually faded out as the British Empire faded, and the British government, along with most of Western Europe, embraced Jeffersonian forms of democracy.

But it raised its head again in the 20th Century, revived by Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini. The Italian dictator even used the word "corporatism" to describe it, and then later renamed it as "fascism" - a word that was defined in American dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company) in 1983 as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."


Can you recognize Cracker in those stupid neo-conservative theories and his beloved Alexander Hamilton?

Await the second part...

Darius said...

Part two, dudes!

Since the "Reagan Revolution," two centuries after we rose up and rebelled against King George III's support of corporate feudalism in Boston Harbor, this ancient enemy of democracy is again trying to seize America. Reagan ignored the Sherman Act and other restraints on corporations, and sold at fire-sale prices the airwaves once held in common by We, The People. The result was predictable: a merger and acquisitions frenzy, and the takeover of American media by a handful of mega-corporations. Bill Clinton then helped export corporatism to the industrialized world when he pushed GATT/WTO through Congress.

Thus, the war on Iraq was just one front in the larger feudal war against democracy itself. (And a particularly useful one - it gave the corporate feudal lords access to oil wealth, and was so effective at distracting the populace from Bush's outrageous domestic agenda that we can expect to see another war, somewhere, in November of 2004.)

In 1936 - years before America turned its attention to fighting fascism in Germany - Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about the rise of a corporate feudalism here in the United States. In a speech in Philadelphia on June 27th, he said: "Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service."

Roosevelt suggested that human nature may play a part in it all, but that didn't make it tolerable. "It was natural and perhaps human," he said, "that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself."

It was a control the Democratic Party of 1936 found intolerable. "As a result," Roosevelt said, "the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man."

To be continued

Darius said...

And finally Crackers' plans revealed!

Republicans of the day lashed out in the press and on radio, charging that Roosevelt was anti-American, even communist. Without a moment's hesitation, he threw it back in their faces.

"These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America," Roosevelt thundered in that 1936 speech. "What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."

Those of us who still believe in republican democracy would have "We, The People" make the decisions through representatives we've elected without the feudal influence of corporate money. We realize that "big government" is, indeed, a menace when it's no longer responsive to its own people, as happened in Germany and Russia in the last century - and is happening today in America under the neoconservatives.

But we also remember the vision of a free and democratic America - a sacred archetype so powerful that protestors in Tiananmen Square marched to their deaths carrying a 36-foot-tall paper mache replica of the Statue Of Liberty while quoting the words of Thomas Jefferson.

Facing the power of The East India Company's corporate feudalism in 1773, the Founders of our nation, unable to get their voices heard in the halls of the British government or even in many of the newspapers of the day, turned to two nonviolent and very effective methods to spread the new meme of democracy.

The first was pamphleteering - and the internet is today's pamphlet. Millions are using email and pointing to websites to awaken people and promote democratic change.

The second was creating "committees of correspondence," also used extensively by the Women's Suffrage movement. These were groups organized to write letters to the editors of newspapers.

People across American have already begun letter writing, faxing, and email campaigns, and you can see the results on the editorial pages of our newspapers and in the reactions of some of our politicians. Other correspondents are blogging or calling in to talk shows, modern variations on this theme.

A correspondent in York, New York, who is pamphleteering in email and encouraging committees of correspondence to write letters to newspaper editors against the new feudalism's wars on America and overseas, shared the following quote from Emerson: "One of the illusions [of life] is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive hour."

Yet this is the critical and decisive hour, and we are not without voices or tools.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is an author and talk show host. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for republication in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.