Originally posted by Bout Time
After 4 terms of Kerry/Edwards, but he's too easy to bury politically.

BS never flew with me.

Hmmm, seems as though BS flies FROM you, not with you!

Originally posted by Herman
And yes, Bush is better for dealing with these terrorists. He's done a pretty good job already.

Oh yeah, he's done an EXCELLENT job! Invading a secular nation, with a dictator who would never allow ANYBODY (terrorists or otherwise) to come into his country and challenge his authority in any way, who McCain even admitted in his whore speech that we had contained in a fish tank, and turning it into a hot bed for terrorists, who can come in with Syria's blessing and attack at their leisure the thousands of American KIDS Bush has so conveniently set up as targets for them, although we have killed some terrorists (which actually grants them their wish of martyrdom), we have created many more, kinda like cutting off the heads of the Hydra. And, if that wasn't a good enough job, Bush has also created with his war in Iraq, a groundswell of support from even moderate muslims for Bin Laden and his agenda of jihad, causing them to view this as a holy war, one their religion will NOT allow them to sit out. And I'm sure the reports of the Iraqi people being happy with the occupation are true . Too bad China won't liberate us from Bush, the American people would be thrilled to have a foreign country occupy our land. Sure, Bush has done an awesome job. <---INSERT SARCASM The only way to effectively fight the war on terror, is through increased vigilance here at home, ACTUAL border control (not pandering for the hispanic vote), and covert intelligence and special forces operations that hit terrorists hard and fast wherever we find them, not all out invasions, if the terrorists have support of the arabs and other muslim people, there's no way we'll ever win, it's impossible, Bush even said it himself (in his own flip-flop) that he now doesn't believe we can win the war on terror, but we can make it hard for them to operate. Which is also wrong, because now that the muslim world supports them, it will be easier than ever for them to operate. Good job Bush!

Read the below post.............................................................

[Edited on 1-9-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by s13guy
That argument always bothers me, because if it's so morally intolerable to have a regime in the world that tortures people and commits genocide, why aren't we sending troops to the Sudan right now? That argument is so incosistent.

Maybe because we're saving some of the responsibility for the rest of the world, like France, China, N. Korea, Iran, Canada, etc. It's about time someone else kicked in and helped out, wouldn't you say?

Sorry, 27jd. I haven't replied in a day because my internet has been being stupid (More like a stupid brother...but oh well). I'll have to make this short, not get as in-depth as I wanted to because my internet is likely to shut down again any minute.

Most of your arguments can be summed up as "Why aren't we doing more?". Or, "Yeah, that's good, but why haven't we ____". See, things take time. We can't do it all at once. We can't take out all the tyrants in the world, does that mean we shouldn't do anything about any of them? We have to start somewhere. Besides, just because we haven't caught Bin Laden YET, doesn't mean we're not going to. This isn't over. Did I call you anti-American? Now it's you who are making assumptions about what I said. You don't believe that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.? I'll go into that later...first, let me ask you this: Are you against us taking Saddam out of power?

And the whole thing about the iraqi's being unhappy with us is liberal propaganda. Like I said, I have better reasons to believe that they ARE happy, than you do to believe that they AREN'T happy. I'm not sure if you heard it, probably didn't because it was something positive, therefore it was only broadcast on a few conservative talk radio shows. It was about an Iraqi citizen living in the U.S. He traveled back to Iraq, and under-cover went around asking citizens who they wanted to win this election. The GREAT majority of them wanted Bush in power, and liked what he is doing. I'll post more later when my internet is completely fixed...still not sure if it is .

Saying what he said was not a flip-flop by Bush. He admited that he phrased his words wrong, and corrected them. I am not a die-hard Bush supporter. I'm against some of his policies. I believe Gay's should be allowed equal rights (Aren't they already though? I mean what to we legally deny them other than marriage (I am not agianst gay marriage)?) And let me correct my own spelling error, please. I said "He didn't say that it couldn't be ONE". That was stupid of me...I meant WON.

Oh, and I believe that I said destroying the taliban IN AFGHANISTAN. I basically meant, by that, the same thing that you said. We sent them scattering about....destroyed their power IN AFGHANISTAN.



[Edited on 2-9-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by marg6043

Rudy, the ex-mayor Koch, and several other Democrats have sided with Bush because frankly, they know the truth, and the truth is, Kerry does not have what it takes to lead this nation in a time of war.

Sorry to ask this question, but which country did US declared war on?
hummm my memory is fuzzy but I can not remember wish one.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by marg6043]

The War on Terror maybe you have heard of it, You know the war unlike any war that the US has ever fought a War were the enemy is in many a country a War without boundaries. A unconvential war in every sense of the word.

Originally posted by Herman
Sorry, 27jd. I haven't replied in a day because my internet has been being stupid (More like a stupid brother...but oh well). I'll have to make this short, not get as in-depth as I wanted to because my internet is likely to shut down again any minute.

Yeah, my provider at home always disconnects me, but I can always depend on my connection here at work.

Most of your arguments can be summed up as "Why aren't we doing more?". Or, "Yeah, that's good, but why haven't we ____". See, things take time. We can't do it all at once. We can't take out all the tyrants in the world, does that mean we shouldn't do anything about any of them?

No, but we should take out the tyrants that are ACTUAL threats to our national security, I will never believe Saddam was a gathering threat, but North Korea sure is, and Iran represents a far greater danger to the Middle East in these times, again we had Saddam caged.

We have to start somewhere. Besides, just because we haven't caught Bin Laden YET, doesn't mean we're not going to. This isn't over.

The cynical and paranoid side of me thinks they let Bin Laden remain free so they can keep the carrot in front of the donkey (the donkey being the American people), they know that if Bin Laden was captured, most people would consider the war on terra over, and there goes Bush's platform.

Did I call you anti-American? Now it's you who are making assumptions about what I said.

I didn't mean to say you called me anti-American, I just meant that's a tactic of many neo-con Bush supporters, but you did not use that tactic on me, you don't seem like the type to stoop that low, I may have worded it wrong (but corrected it). But you did hint through a rhetorical question that I may think Hussein was a "good" guy, which of course I don't, he was a bastard, but he was THEIR (Iraq's) bastard, they have plenty of men willing to fight the most powerful army on earth right now, why did they not unite against Saddam the way they unite against us?

You don't believe that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.?

No, I don't believe he was a threat to the U.S. at all, do you think a tiger in a cage is a threat? Not as much as the tigers that are not in cages (metaphors for North Korea, etc.). He may have been giving money to Palestinian homicide bombers families, but that was Israel's problem, we have our own, and he was not part of it, nor would he be, he didn't want to commit suicide by directly or indirectly attacking the U.S., but it didn't do him any good because we attacked him anyway.

I'll go into that later...first, let me ask you this: Are you against us taking Saddam out of power?

You mean WAS I against it, we already did it, but I'm sure that's what you meant (not being nit-picky ). And to answer you, yes I believe he should've been removed, but not the way we went about it, again, we had him in a cage, we could have taken him out at anytime, maybe we could have focused on the many more pressing issues first, while keeping an eye on him and waiting for him to slip up, which he probably would have, then we could have acted. Preferably though, he should've been removed the first time we went to war with him, but hindsight's always 20/20.

And the whole thing about the iraqi's being unhappy with us is liberal propaganda. Like I said, I have better reasons to believe that they ARE happy, than you do to believe that they AREN'T happy.

That's cool, if you believe that, then at least someone can feel good about this war, I sure don't, and there is propaganda on BOTH sides, the first casualty of war is the truth. When I see the scores of Iraqi men taking up arms against our soldiers, and the massive protests, that makes me believe they are not happy. But like I said before, I'm sure there are some who are happy, those who were likely directly wronged by Hussein, and their happiness is legitimate, but I also think about the nearly 1,000 very unhappy families of American soldiers who have died because these oppressed people would not fight their own dictator with the ferocity in which they fight our soldiers. That's how I see it, but I'm not trying to force my views on anybody (not to say that you are).

Saying what he said was not a flip-flop by Bush. He admited that he phrased his words wrong, and corrected them.

To me, it didn't sound like an incorrect phrasing, it was very clear:

"I don't think you can win it," Bush responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

How could that have meant anything different?

I am not a die-hard Bush supporter. I'm against some of his policies. I believe Gay's should be allowed equal rights (Aren't they already though? I mean what to we legally deny them other than marriage (I am not agianst gay marriage)?)

Marriage is a pretty important right, but that's another subject.

And let me correct my own spelling error, please. I said "He didn't say that it couldn't be ONE". That was stupid of me...I meant WON.

Quite alright, we all make errors here and there.

Oh, and I believe that I said destroying the taliban IN AFGHANISTAN. I basically meant, by that, the same thing that you said. We sent them scattering about....destroyed their power IN AFGHANISTAN.

Yeah, but "destroyed" would probably not be the correct term, let's say "relocated", they WILL continue to cause problems for Afghanistan, they are probably just waiting in the tribal regions of Pakistan for the U.S. forces to leave, they're patient, Afghanistan has not seen the last of the Taliban.










[edit on 2-9-2004 by 27jd]

As from Plato's 'Republic',
We see the shadows of objects on the wall before us. Yet do not see the objects or the fire creating the shadows.

The terrorists are in the FBI, CIA, US military and among our elected officials.

How did we end up in the land of shadow play? We were led there willingly or unwillingly. The shadow masters are at work, only light can dispell their lies.

Will the American public throw off their shackles of their minds and rise and look around themselves for the first time?
.

You can judge a man's character by his enemies. Even though I have never really cared for Guiliani because of his lack of support for the Second Amendment, I can say now that the man must be doing something right.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Herman
Sorry, 27jd. I haven't replied in a day because my internet has been being stupid (More like a stupid brother...but oh well). I'll have to make this short, not get as in-depth as I wanted to because my internet is likely to shut down again any minute.

Yeah, my provider at home always disconnects me, but I can always depend on my connection here at work.

Most of your arguments can be summed up as "Why aren't we doing more?". Or, "Yeah, that's good, but why haven't we ____". See, things take time. We can't do it all at once. We can't take out all the tyrants in the world, does that mean we shouldn't do anything about any of them?

No, but we should take out the tyrants that are ACTUAL threats to our national security, I will never believe Saddam was a gathering threat, but North Korea sure is, and Iran represents a far greater danger to the Middle East in these times, again we had Saddam caged.

We have to start somewhere. Besides, just because we haven't caught Bin Laden YET, doesn't mean we're not going to. This isn't over.

The cynical and paranoid side of me thinks they let Bin Laden remain free so they can keep the carrot in front of the donkey (the donkey being the American people), they know that if Bin Laden was captured, most people would consider the war on terra over, and there goes Bush's platform.

Did I call you anti-American? Now it's you who are making assumptions about what I said.

I didn't mean to say you called me anti-American, I just meant that's a tactic of many neo-con Bush supporters, but you did not use that tactic on me, you don't seem like the type to stoop that low, I may have worded it wrong (but corrected it). But you did hint through a rhetorical question that I may think Hussein was a "good" guy, which of course I don't, he was a bastard, but he was THEIR (Iraq's) bastard, they have plenty of men willing to fight the most powerful army on earth right now, why did they not unite against Saddam the way they unite against us?

You don't believe that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.?

No, I don't believe he was a threat to the U.S. at all, do you think a tiger in a cage is a threat? Not as much as the tigers that are not in cages (metaphors for North Korea, etc.). He may have been giving money to Palestinian homicide bombers families, but that was Israel's problem, we have our own, and he was not part of it, nor would he be, he didn't want to commit suicide by directly or indirectly attacking the U.S., but it didn't do him any good because we attacked him anyway.

I'll go into that later...first, let me ask you this: Are you against us taking Saddam out of power?

You mean WAS I against it, we already did it, but I'm sure that's what you meant (not being nit-picky ). And to answer you, yes I believe he should've been removed, but not the way we went about it, again, we had him in a cage, we could have taken him out at anytime, maybe we could have focused on the many more pressing issues first, while keeping an eye on him and waiting for him to slip up, which he probably would have, then we could have acted. Preferably though, he should've been removed the first time we went to war with him, but hindsight's always 20/20.

And the whole thing about the iraqi's being unhappy with us is liberal propaganda. Like I said, I have better reasons to believe that they ARE happy, than you do to believe that they AREN'T happy.

That's cool, if you believe that, then at least someone can feel good about this war, I sure don't, and there is propaganda on BOTH sides, the first casualty of war is the truth. When I see the scores of Iraqi men taking up arms against our soldiers, and the massive protests, that makes me believe they are not happy. But like I said before, I'm sure there are some who are happy, those who were likely directly wronged by Hussein, and their happiness is legitimate, but I also think about the nearly 1,000 very unhappy families of American soldiers who have died because these oppressed people would not fight their own dictator with the ferocity in which they fight our soldiers. That's how I see it, but I'm not trying to force my views on anybody (not to say that you are).

Saying what he said was not a flip-flop by Bush. He admited that he phrased his words wrong, and corrected them.

To me, it didn't sound like an incorrect phrasing, it was very clear:

"I don't think you can win it," Bush responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

How could that have meant anything different?

I am not a die-hard Bush supporter. I'm against some of his policies. I believe Gay's should be allowed equal rights (Aren't they already though? I mean what to we legally deny them other than marriage (I am not agianst gay marriage)?)

Marriage is a pretty important right, but that's another subject.

And let me correct my own spelling error, please. I said "He didn't say that it couldn't be ONE". That was stupid of me...I meant WON.

Quite alright, we all make errors here and there.

Oh, and I believe that I said destroying the taliban IN AFGHANISTAN. I basically meant, by that, the same thing that you said. We sent them scattering about....destroyed their power IN AFGHANISTAN.

Yeah, but "destroyed" would probably not be the correct term, let's say "relocated", they WILL continue to cause problems for Afghanistan, they are probably just waiting in the tribal regions of Pakistan for the U.S. forces to leave, they're patient, Afghanistan has not seen the last of the Taliban.
[edit on 2-9-2004 by 27jd]

Well, I finally got my internet up again (I think). A re-format fixed it for some odd reason. Anyway, I do believe that Saddam was a great threat (And yes, I do mean was ). But apparently, this has become an argument of two people's opinions, at this point it would just become circular logic to argue my point.

I doubt that we are just holding back our capture of Bin-laden for "Bush's Platform". I think that catching Bin-Laden would just boost Bush's support even higher, and he could easily win the election. He focuses on alot more issues that just the war. Of course, if that's what you think, it is once again your opinion which you are entitled to.

I asked that rhetorical question because I was not quite sure if that is what you meant. I knew that you wouldn't, that nobody would say he's a good person. I just thought you may have been saying he was "good" enough to not be taken out of power. My mistake. To answer your question about the Iraqi's raising up, I'll have to do it in two parts.

A.) Like you (Was it you, or someone else?) said, this is being viewed as a holy war for many radical (And maybe not so radical) Muslims. They could be being convinced into thinking that they are defending the muslim religion. Besides, the terrorists dress just like citizens, who's to say who's who?

B.) Saddam would not let them raise up. Saddam had officials. If anyone showed signs of raising up against him, they would be quickly struck down. Besides, I'm sure there were some attempted revolutions, just none of them made it big enough to be announced on any media.

You must also remember that there are many families who have had members die, and are proud of their sacrifice.

As I already said, he corrected his mistake. I mean, come on, you know how bad of a public speaker Bush is . Poor guy, he thinks he's a great public speaker. But hey, I'm watching him now and he's doing pretty damned well.

What I meant by the Afghanistan thing is that yes, some of them scattered, but we did kill alot of their top officers, as well as, like you said, "Scattering" them. We've secured Afghanistan, is what I'm trying to say. Hopefully, the taliban won't try to take it back in the future.

[Edited on 2-9-2004 by Herman]

Everyone seriously please take it easy on the giant quotes. Just wanted to say something in thread so others don't get the idea to start replying in like fashion.

Originally posted by jsobecky
...Maybe because we're saving some of the responsibility for the rest of the world, like France, China, N. Korea, Iran, Canada, etc. It's about time someone else kicked in and helped out, wouldn't you say?

They can't do that, then they'd have to actually take sides... Everyone knows that in the U.N., dictatorships are equal to democracies! We can't play favorites!

Originally posted by Herman
Anyway, I do believe that Saddam was a great threat (And yes, I do mean was ). But apparently, this has become an argument of two people's opinions, at this point it would just become circular logic to argue my point.

Well, I've explained why I believe he was NOT a threat, why do you believe he was? What kind of danger would you say he posed to you and I? Was it the WMD's he didn't have? Was it the 8 ball of fake anthrax Powell displayed as a "visual fear aid" at the U.N.? Was it the fact that he oppressed his own people, like so many other dictators do, but do not pose a threat to us? Or do you just believe without question what this administration says? There is a billboard up over I-17 here in Phoenix, near Bethany Home Rd, it says in big letters: QUIT; then in small letters: second guessing and doubting, support President Bush. The sign is offensive to me because it is basically TELLING me not to second guess or think for myself, that the reasons our soldiers are dying, might be wrong, and to put blind faith in the President, I will not, and I will think for myself.

I doubt that we are just holding back our capture of Bin-laden for "Bush's Platform". I think that catching Bin-Laden would just boost Bush's support even higher, and he could easily win the election. He focuses on alot more issues that just the war.

He doesn't seem to, that's all the RNC was about, 9/11 this and 9/11 that, it would seem the Republicans claim to own the trademark on the deaths of 3,000 Americans, if a Democrat had been in office, I wonder if they would do the same, probably, but I think it's dispicable either way. And for them to somehow claim that Kerry would just take another attack on the chin is ridiculous, Kerry said himself another attack would bring swift reaction, and the Republicans tried to spin it as he would just sit around, let the terrorists gather strength, and wait for another attack, which he never said, they are clearly using fear to scare everybody into voting for Bush, when in fact Kerry will likely gain more support from other countries, making it alot easier to pre-empt terrorists wherever they are in the world.

A.) Like you (Was it you, or someone else?) said, this is being viewed as a holy war for many radical (And maybe not so radical) Muslims. They could be being convinced into thinking that they are defending the muslim religion. Besides, the terrorists dress just like citizens, who's to say who's who?

If the U.S. didn't invade, it wouldn't be viewed as a holy war, so if they were to rise against Saddam, that wouldn't be a factor.

B.) Saddam would not let them raise up. Saddam had officials. If anyone showed signs of raising up against him, they would be quickly struck down. Besides, I'm sure there were some attempted revolutions, just none of them made it big enough to be announced on any media.

If you recall, after the first gulf war, the Shiite's attempted to rise against Saddam, which of course turned into a massacre, that would have been the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to jump in and assist those Shiite's, but we didn't lift a finger, we knew they were being massacred and did nothing, if we would have assisted the uprising with weapons and air support, we would have been viewed as liberators, and, we woudn't have even had to invade.

You must also remember that there are many families who have had members die, and are proud of their sacrifice.

To me it is extremely sad that parents who have lost their children, believe the lies (IMO) that this administration has told them, about the reasons for the war, and the reasons their children died. Again, Saddam posed no threat to America (at that point), so they sacrificed their children to "liberate" a people who were too cowardly to liberate themselves, but again they seem to fight our soldiers, who are far more skilled than Saddam's were, with no problem. If I lost my son for those reasons, I would be proud of his bravery, but extremely sad, and extremely furious with the administration that put him in harms way for their own agenda, not to directly protect our country.

Hopefully, the taliban won't try to take it back in the future.

They will, no leader will be safe in Afghanistan once our soldiers have left.



[edit on 3-9-2004 by 27jd]

Rudy spent more time criticizing Kerry's flip-flops than scaring people.
And he is exactly right. Kerry is an opportunist. I do not believe he can take a true stand for anything.

Bush has and I agree with him on most of it.
I can't agree with Kerry because he doesn't stand for anything.

Originally posted by 27jd
Well, I've explained why I believe he was NOT a threat, why do you believe he was? What kind of danger would you say he posed to you and I? Was it the WMD's he didn't have? Was it the 8 ball of fake anthrax Powell displayed as a "visual fear aid" at the U.N.? Was it the fact that he oppressed his own people, like so many other dictators do, but do not pose a threat to us? Or do you just believe without question what this administration says? There is a billboard up over I-17 here in Phoenix, near Bethany Home Rd, it says in big letters: QUIT; then in small letters: second guessing and doubting, support President Bush. The sign is offensive to me because it is basically TELLING me not to second guess or think for myself, that the reasons our soldiers are dying, might be wrong, and to put blind faith in the President, I will not, and I will think for myself.

Well, I would say that Saddam having used WMD's before, acquired them before, and most likely still had them puts him in a position to be a threat to the U.S. I think that Saddam was not the only reason for going into Iraq. He was a reason, but there is also that whole thing about the terrorists. Oh yeah, those terrorists!! Alot of their leaders were IN Iraq, plus Saddam, I think that makes a pretty good reason to go in.

You live in Phoenix too!?!? WIERD!!! I made a post a while ago asking if anyone was from Arizona...nobody replied. What part do you live in?

He doesn't seem to, that's all the RNC was about, 9/11 this and 9/11 that, it would seem the Republicans claim to own the trademark on the deaths of 3,000 Americans, if a Democrat had been in office, I wonder if they would do the same, probably, but I think it's dispicable either way. And for them to somehow claim that Kerry would just take another attack on the chin is ridiculous, Kerry said himself another attack would bring swift reaction, and the Republicans tried to spin it as he would just sit around, let the terrorists gather strength, and wait for another attack, which he never said, they are clearly using fear to scare everybody into voting for Bush, when in fact Kerry will likely gain more support from other countries, making it alot easier to pre-empt terrorists wherever they are in the world.

Well, I don't agree with them twisting Kerry's words, but I still think that if we had CAUGHT Bin-laden, Bush would have a MUCH easier chance at winning this election, seeing as how it would prove that his plan worked...

If the U.S. didn't invade, it wouldn't be viewed as a holy war, so if they were to rise against Saddam, that wouldn't be a factor.

Well, you're right about that in a way. If we had not invaded, there wouldn't have even been a war...that brings us back to point A. Unless, of course, you are still referring to the covert operations. That wouldn't have done it. I don't think we could beat the terrorists with just covert ops, and Special Forces.

If you recall, after the first gulf war, the Shiite's attempted to rise against Saddam, which of course turned into a massacre, that would have been the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to jump in and assist those Shiite's, but we didn't lift a finger, we knew they were being massacred and did nothing, if we would have assisted the uprising with weapons and air support, we would have been viewed as liberators, and, we woudn't have even had to invade.

Well, we should have jumped in. Different president...sort of . But just because we didn't do the right thing then, doesn't mean that we shouldn't now. And I do believe that this is the right thing.

To me it is extremely sad that parents who have lost their children, believe the lies (IMO) that this administration has told them, about the reasons for the war, and the reasons their children died. Again, Saddam posed no threat to America (at that point), so they sacrificed their children to "liberate" a people who were too cowardly to liberate themselves, but again they seem to fight our soldiers, who are far more skilled than Saddam's were, with no problem. If I lost my son for those reasons, I would be proud of his bravery, but extremely sad, and extremely furious with the administration that put him in harms way for their own agenda, not to directly protect our country.

And there's where we contradict. I believe that it's a good reason, and would be proud. I would be sad, of course wish that it hadn't happened, but I wouldn't feel like he died for an un-worthy cause.

They will, no leader will be safe in Afghanistan once our soldiers have left.

True, and that's why this subject is so touchy. When do we pull out? What will happen when we DO pull out? Because, eventually, we ARE going to have to leave Iraq.


[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Herman]

I'm going to, again, try to avoid these long quotes . Ok, the point of the argument was not HOW he got the WMD's, it was that he HAD them at one point, was able to USE them at another point, and could still possibly have them dis-assembled or concealed somewhere.

Are you saying that the al qaeda is not eminent in Iraq? I think it's pretty obvious that they were, that and Saddam was running a pretty strict tyranical government. Sure, there are other tyrants out there, but like I said; we can't get them all....at once And my point was not how much money that Bush got us, but that he didn't make it any harder to live. Yes, certain levels got bigger tax cuts... I'm sorry, but I think the top few richest percentages need it. They're paying way too much in taxes. If it was the same, or close to the same percentage, they would still be paying more money than the lower-class people, but it would be putting the same dent in them as it would be in the lower class people. That's a whole other argument in it's own though .

I don't believe that the Iraqi's could have done it on their own, even with some weapon support from us. And as far as Bin-laden goes, I still believe that we're not holding back. I believe that we are doing what we can to catch him, it just hasn't happened yet.

By the way, I live around (Edited: don't want random people to know where I live moved there about a year ago). I don't think you'll be a murderer who will hunt me down with those details How old are you? Did you go to Greenway High School?









[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Herman]