> You've been pushing to get this thread deleted for a while. I agree with Dave - you've not been saying anything worth saying, just mindlessly contradicting everything anyone else says and justifying it by claiming that you're "exersizing your right to be skeptical" or "thinking outside the box" or "sweatin' with the oldies" or whatever. Basically, all you've said is "everything Bush says is a lie." When presented with evidence and/or arguments to the contrary, your response has been "but you can't PROVE that so I won't believe it!" When presented with proof, your response was "that's not proof because it's based on things other people said rather than on things you saw first-hand!" I believe you made a reference to it being impossible to prove that George Washington ever lived.
>
> So allow me to be the first to welcome you to the Official Shut The Hell Up Club. We tried being patient with you, we tried explaining exactly WHY you were making an ass of yourself. No good. The ideas you heard on Nick News or read in the opinion columns of the local free press were the gospel truth, and you were not to be persuaded otherwise. Fine. Dandy.
>
> "People are supposed to read our statements and think about our ideas, not follow an argument." You needn't worry - your argument was impossible to follow. It was illogical, ranting, and obviously based on childish prejudices rather than hard facts. Yeah, we get that you don't like Bush. This means exactly zero in terms of whether or not Saddam Hussein is a dictator, a brute, and an all-around not-nice-guy. Yes, president Bush's statement was meant to cast his policies as being generally favourable. That would be the point of any public speech made by a political official. You said some drivel about how Hussein wouldn't have been elected if he was truly barbaric and tortured people. Perhaps that would be true - IF he were running in a country that has free elections, and IF his platform was "if elected, I pledge to torture and kill my constituents." 86 that being the case, sub you're retarded. Iraq is not like that. Iraq is a dictatorship with fixed elections. He didn't need to "get elected" - he seized power. His reelections are a blind.
>
> In short: your ideas are crap. They are what I would call deranged, lunatic paranoia, except that you're a child; in that case, they're not even that interesting. They're just standard childish drivel. They're the reason, simply put, that children are not allowed to vote.
>
> Which isn't to say that children aren't allowed to discuss. In fact, I've been holding my tongue for quite a while, and have been much more tolerant of this idiocy than I should otherwise have been, simply *because* you're a child. But there are limits, and your ridiculous whining about how "mean" Dave was to you exceeded them.



I said I was leaving, but one clarification post can't hurt.

On re-reading this thread, and thinking about this post, I have to agree somwhat with Darien. I would like to defend myself by saying that my "reliable source" was the Boston Globe. My ideas were my own elaborations on aspects of the philosophy of George Harrison.

I am not as young as you claim I am, but I am still not quite a fully matured adult. I understand from personal experience as a fourth grade assistant teacher that some aspects of younger people are just plain annoying, and you want them to realize a few things quickly, and almost want to force them to grow up a little. That takes time. I know that there are definitely some aspects of my life, ideas, humor, and thoughts many older people find horribly annoying. You are the first to freely admit that I am annoying and even specify some ways in which I can improve myself. I guess that's a good thing. Thanks for telling me.

I don't think most of you really wanted to be so harsh, and I both apologize to and forgive anyone who that applies to.

Some things I said were crap, and I'm not going to add anything to my controversial post about Iraq.

MANGO