AS WE MAINSTREAM AMERICANS continue to sharpen our focus upon just
how serious the Al-Qaeda threat of WMDs pose against the greatest
nation on Earth and the free world, the desperate bleeding-heart
liberals continue to desperately sink into their electionary-oblivion
thanks to their foolishly-nominated Presidential candidate <snip>

Path:
twister.nyroc.rr.com!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nwr.
nac.net!ply1.onvoy!onvoy.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-fo
r-mail
From: "Daniel Joseph Min" <Real.Min@Colorado.USA>
Newsgroups:
alt.prophecies.nostradamus,alt.security.terrorism,alt.law-enforcement,alt.lawy
ers,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.binaries.e-book
Subject: 55 Days & Counting.....
Lines: 295
Organization: Min's Free Press
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0103_01C495FF.1490CE90"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-ID: <F9x%c.45$Mi2.77199@news.uswest.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:53:46 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.4.65.18
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1094622949 67.4.65.18 (Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:55:49 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:55:49 CDT
Xref: news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com alt.prophecies.nostradamus:1525498
alt.security.terrorism:1240104 alt.law-enforcement:1531833
alt.lawyers:1059229 alt.politics.usa.republican:3280864
alt.politics.democrats.d:2289292 alt.binaries.e-book:907476
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0103_01C495FF.1490CE90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
AS WE MAINSTREAM AMERICANS continue to sharpen our focus upon just how
serious the Al-Qaeda threat of WMDs pose against the greatest nation on Earth
and the free world, the desperate bleeding-heart liberals continue to
desperately sink into their electionary-oblivion thanks to their
foolishly-nominated Presidential candidate's rapidly dwindling poll numbers.
They chose Kerry. And now, they're paying for their mistake.
This is because the overwhelming majority of Americans wholly acknowledge
that the tragic events of 9/11/2001 have permanently changed the way that
America must deal with the problem of the Islamic Jihad and radical Muslim
extremism. Now, with the imminent and credible threat of another, this time
most deadly WMD attack by Al-Qaeda against the people and property of the
USA, particularly a threat to New York City, Washington D.C., and other
densely-populated areas and otherwise high-value targets like public water
works and power-generating facilities (Jesus, what if they destroy Hoover Dam
with a suitcase nuke?!), the majority of American voters surely know by now
that there is no more important election-year issue than is our WAR AGAINST
TERROR. That's why Bush number 43's poll numbers are consistently climbing,
because our President George W. Bush is no friend whatsoever to terrorists.
Rather, Bush is Al-Qaeda's worst nightmare! Because President George W Bush &
Co. are resolute in defending our nation by proactively taking this war TO
the enemy. And that's exactly the kind of president who I want in office. Not
some wishy-washy appeaser to foreign interests. France opposed us in taking
out Saddam Hussein. France is John Kerry's best friend. Think about that.
And that's why John Kerry couldn't possibly win the election if he wanted to
provided Al-Qaeda doesn't strike against us in the meantime thereby slamming
the brakes on the whole election process for the foreseeable future. But as
for John Kerry, he is viewed by the American public at face-value (pun
intended) according to his own words, according to his own political record.
We all know that Vietnam was a disaster. Not bad policy, but a disaster
nonetheless (I thought that we should've nuked Hanoi and B52d the whole north
Vietcong nation with napalm while warning the Kremlin to please avoid
thermonuclear holocaust circa 1968; moreso, we should've heeded General
Douglass MacArthur's advise from the beginning). But at least John Kerry did
in fact, after all, volunteer for US military service in Vietnam amidst
cowardly draft-dodgers fleeing to Canada who were rife, and yes indeed, the
sons and daughters of the rich and shameless also avoided military service.
That bodes extremely well for Kerry's patriotism at the time that he
volunteered. But once Kerry got the hell out of Dodge with his
life-threatening injuries and medals to go with them (uh huh), he turned an
about-face and tossed his patriotism out the window along with his medals (or
he didn't, or he did it, but then he didn't do it, and then he did it; but
no! Kerry changes his story every time that the wind blows; daily; hourly; by
the minute & second, that's John Kerry).
The bottom line is that we patriotic and law-abiding Americans trust our good
President GW Bush a whole universe more than we could ever possibly trust
Hanoi John Kerry to defend our sovereign borders against terrorist threats
and even far more importantly, how strongly shall our President retaliate
against Muslim extremists around the world in the event of such an Al-Qaeda
WMD attack on the United States of America? We know that GW Bush will kick
the ever-living chit out of the Islamic Jihadists worldwide. And that's a
good thing. Contrarily, we know that Kerry would be on the phone with Jacque
Cherac, to get his marching orders for the USA. I ask WHO would vote for
John Kerry??
Voters have seen the first-hand precedent to fear that Kerry would cede his
Presidential decision-making authority completely over to France and the UN.
By stark contrast, voters know that such an egregious act of treason would
never be made by President GW Bush. So you see, that's why Kerry's dying
hopes of being elected US President are now but a pipedream. Maybe Senator
John Kerry of Massachusetts should think about moving to France & running for
office over there? I just know he'd be elected in France. I just know it.
On this subject, Al-Qaeda sleeper cells are said by our best intelligence
sources to be already here in America, and are probably armed with six or
seven Soviet-era Russian-made 10-kiloton suitcase-sized nuclear weapons,
chemical weapons, and possibly biological weapons (on this issue I do
respectively and most vehemently disagree with my VP Cheney, because mutating
level 4+ bio-weapons are most definitely vastly more dangerous and lethal
than are a few 10-kiloton nukes, or even a few dozen Russian-made
multiple-spread 100-megaton hydrogen SS-25s etc. Thus I do say, get a clue) .
Furthermore, the US Government has for decades been far too lax in defending
our borders. But we can argue that sustaining and developing global trade is
surely what has thus-far restrained our Admini

In article <F9x%c.45$Mi2.77199@news.uswest.net>, Daniel Joseph Min
<Real.Min@Colorado.USA> wrote:

"_YOU_ wasting MY bandwidth that I PAY FOR with MY money!"
HAHAHA! What a loser. Me, I deal with tons of parasites on my NG, tons
of anti-semites, this is real #@($, yet in the virtual world, unless
someone use the legit ID of someone else to impersonate him (and this is
not the case, and even if, you don't even have a legit ID), or if
someone spam a NG, and Min, although a radical, doesn't spam, providers
can't intervene, they don't control their user's thought.
This is even more radical than Min's proposition. LOL
Go whine to your mommy.

J.
Friday a crit:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:QsN%c.111871$A8.108614@edtnps89...
There is such a thing called OFF TOPIC and Cross posting.
NO Nos

These, who post hundreds of hate mongering lies every day, are the most
ferocious ones who dislike Min's one or two daily posts. Not that either
have any bearing on the subject, but at least the extremism in both
seems to balance each other even if it is one to 100.

But meanwhile, why not get to people who are really professing
anti-Semitism or anti-americanism an disregard topics rather than min
who, although, again very radical, still has some legitimacy and bearing
on the topics his average posts are concerned with.

I don't get this, that Min post 1 post that has different correlated
esoteric or political opinion, even though very radical I admit, and
dozens attack him like he was the plague, while dozens and dozens of
posts that are usually dumping of pure propaganda from anti-US sites,
never get any (attack) by the same critics.

These posters have absolutely nothing original to say, merely any lies
that demean the AMERICANS, but it is always the Min one who gets blasted.

In article <cWm0d.130968$A8.14763@edtnps89>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Are you insinuating that all posts that you disagree with are lies?
Or, rather, all posts that are critical of the Bush administration are
lies? That there is nothing of substance behind ANY criticism?

You must, because you say here that 'both' sides are 'extremism'.
Extremeist views are usually held by small groups of malcontents (such
as Min seems to characterize). If these 'lies' were extremist, then
the current election wouldn't be so close.

Min's posts are no more on-topic than these. On-topic posts should at
least be related to postings.

And any criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism.

Because they are attacking Min's argument, primarily, not the
'propaganda'. Min's argument IS radical, you even admit that...
And, you seem to attack the 'propaganda' pretty regularily, as does
russ, Ken, and many others.
And, I would challenge you on the 'dozens and dozens' of
'anti-American' posts. It seems to me there are vastly more
conservative views here.
Which is interesting. I check out the comedy and spoken word mp3
groups, which also tend to attract a lot of political posts, and the
subsequent commentary, and the tone there noticeably more even-handed.

So why do you think everything they say is a lie and/or is demeaning,
and why do you think they say it? I hope you don't blame the 'liberal'
media & brainwashing.

Nah, I am speaking of anti-Semitism, foreign policy, not domestic policy
when I say that. There are a thousands more extremist anti
administration posts from the dems BTW. Isn't it odd that they are the
intolerant ones?

But what I say is that if hate laws cannot be implemented in the virtual
world, because they are opinions, if only internet fraud, spam, or
harassment can be addressed, it comes to reason that anyone else who
expresses an opinion especially in merely a couple of daily posts (if
there were hundreds, it would be different) about politics, or some
esoteric related topic, doesn't have any more liability than hate
mongers or even all those on the "left" who pollutes NG.

Bah, malcontents by definition are those who criticize the US
administration with accusations based on air, especially in times of war.

Well, on my NG (apn) ~90% of the hundreds of daily posts are made by
people who have no clue about the Seer. You must be lucky if the 1 or 2
posts Min does, which subject are somewhat related to the topics of the
NGs in the headers (even if alt.lawyers might not be exactly
appropriate), make you jump on your high horses. I see that on most of
these NG there is much more political unwarranted diatribe from the
other side and that it is strange that you manifest intolerance only
against this, which is still not exactly making the case for anything
given the radicalism.

Related to postings? So you mean they should not start threads, just
follow YOUR threads?

Not all, but usually IS.
Yeah, sure, MTV generation people. Very much unbiased. LOL

Bah, I don't know why liberals attacking their leadership in times of
war is more questionable than Min taking extreme position about the
reps. If you really want the MTV generation make your country relive the
Vietnam era, which, along the music revolution of the 70's brought about
its share of disregard for the troops who valiantly combated for
America, electing someone like Kerry who has a great experience in
making the troops the bad guys by spreading lies about the Vietnam era,
if you want to do the same about the Iraqi war (which both the house and
the senate authorized for the legitimate reasons of the breach in the UN
resolutions), when it there should be worldwide solidarity for the
reason to go there (which are more broad than merely the WMD, are all
legitimate, but even include them legitimately), if you think it is OK
to brand the Commander in chief a misleading liar as a political
platform in times of war, without any shred of evidence, if you think it
is OK to kiss the ass of Fr

In article <EVI0d.183971$X12.47319@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Are you insinuating that all posts that you disagree with are lies?
Or, rather, all posts that are critical of the Bush administration are
lies? That there is nothing of substance behind ANY criticism?
I would say there's plenty of intolerance coming from all sides these
days.

I've never actually complained about Min's posts... They tell me more
about the poster himself really than anything else. That someone would
feel driven to continuously post countdowns to disaster is intriguing.
That he would call for the incarceration, torture and execution of
political dissidents is spooky. That he posts these diatribes daily is
entertaining.

You must, because you say here that 'both' sides are 'extremism'.
Extremeist views are usually held by small groups of malcontents (such
as Min seems to characterize). If these 'lies' were extremist, then
the current election wouldn't be so close.
Malcontent. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
A chronically dissatisfied person. 2. One who rebels against the
established system: immature malcontents who have long since sold out
to conformity (John M. Wilson). ...

Being a malcontent by definition has nothing to do with criticism of
the US, it is criticism of the established system, which certainly
could be interpreted as the policies of whatever administration is
currently running the government.

Under the Clinton administration many conservatives could've been
defined as malcontents.

But meanwhile, why not get to people who are really professing
anti-Semitism or anti-americanism and disregard topics rather than min
who, although, again very radical, still has some legitimacy and bearing
on the topics his average posts are concerned with.
Min's posts are no more on-topic than these. On-topic posts should at
least be related to postings.
Again, what 'high horse', what 'intolerance'? I've never suggested Min
cease posting. And the only NG I read these posts on is
alt.binaries.e-book and here at least there isn't 'much more political
unwarranted diatribe from the other side'

Don't think I've started any lately, but what I meant by that was
commentary related to the postings of e-books.
And any criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism.
Kind of flippant don't you think?
And the dismissal of 'MTV generation' aside, those groups don't attract
people interested in music 'cause there is none posted there. By and
large, people who frequent spoken-word and comedy mp3 newsgroups are
the same kinds of people who are interested in e-books, or certainly
are interested in similar topics.

These posters have absolutely nothing original to say, merely any lies
that demean the AMERICANS, but it is always the Min one who gets blasted.
So why do you think everything they say is a lie and/or is demeaning,
and why do you think they say it? I hope you don't blame the 'liberal'
media & brainwashing.

Aardman a crit:
Because it doesn't pan out with the verifiable facts.

Dems have their agendas to demean their own country and kiss up to those
who have really made the mission Iraq very difficult, it is taking over
the country. Radical Islamic hate freedom, because there is no provision
for it in their doctrine.

"Friday"'s post.
Gee, you didn't realize that I was replying to "Friday"?

In article <W9W0d.189182$X12.184477@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
If true that the facts don't pan out, does that necessarily make it a
lie?

Can't it just be a mistake? Is all criticsm a demeaning attack?

Saying the dems hate America or like to blame America first makes about
as much sense as saying the radical islamics hate us because they 'hate
our freedom'. That's skirting the problems, not addressing them.
Dems have an agenda, true, but thinking the agenda is to demean America
and kiss up to the enemies is simplistic and opinionated.

And, if Radical Islamists hate freedom because there is no provision
for it in their doctrine, why are they supposedly picking on America,
given the oodles 'n' oodles of freedom loving countries in the world,
most of them on their side of the ocean?

What intolerance?
No, I didn't. You seemed to be taking having an issue with my post.

Aardman a crit:
Yes it does.
Well, errors are errors. if facts are not taken at face value but are
rehashed to become the opposite of what they are, to the flock who looks
up to this particular leadership, then error is possible, but not by
those who do the misleading, they are responsible, even if of not
knowing any better.

Their intentions may be less antagonistic to the country, but the result
is the same. Their agenda is to win, at all cost.
They, for instance, are the ones calling the true allies of the US, sold
out puppets.
THIS is simplistic and opinionated.

The answer to that is in your question.
If they hate freedom why are they picking on the US? IT is why.
Their bull#@($ is not as effective with people having access to mass
media, and they blame the US for openness of mind that debunks their
radicalism.

In article <TEg3d.85242$XP3.73215@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Hate to keep flogging the issue, but if, as you say, the leadership is
in error because they don't know any better - is that an error or a
lie?

The reason I keep harping on this is that I think it's important to
actually get down to issues and have honest debates on them. When
everybody is fingerpointing and calling those they disagree with liars
& worse, then there is no real debate - just intolerance.
It is possible for many different people to look at the same set of
facts and come up with widely different interpretations, and, they are
usually colored by pre-dispositions. Conservatives see Bush one way
and liberals another mostly because of their pre-dispositions. This
doesn't make anybody a liar or an America hater of a terrorist lover.

Saying the dems hate America or like to blame America first makes about
as much sense as saying the radical islamics hate us because they 'hate
our freedom'. That's skirting the problems, not addressing them.
Dems have their agendas to demean their own country and kiss up to those
who have really made the mission Iraq very difficult, it is taking over
the country. Radical Islamic hate freedom, because there is no provision
for it in their doctrine.
Dems have an agenda, true, but thinking the agenda is to demean America
and kiss up to the enemies is simplistic and opinionated.
That's true - simplistic & opinionated sound-bites are omnipresent.
And the agenda to win at all costs isn't limited to the dems.

And, if Radical Islamists hate freedom because there is no provision
for it in their doctrine, why are they supposedly picking on America,
given the oodles 'n' oodles of freedom loving countries in the world,
most of them on their side of the ocean?

I dunno - mass media & the internet are pretty much pandemic now in the
free world and terrorism is also pretty much universally condemned for
the same reasons globally.

I think the reasons are more nuianced, and that we'll keep on having
problems with terrorism until we figure out the root cause(s).
Don't ask me what they are - I only have opinions, not cold hard facts.
However, I really don't believe we're any safer from terrorism now than
we were three years ago. Does that make me a liar?