Little Hawk, you and I have talked about David Icke before. I actually deleted a longer post I was writing because it was too convoluted, but something you just said contradicts an earlier post in this thread. You said,

"Now, whether his beliefs are right or not...that I can't say. I would have to BE him to know. You get that? No one can say whether he's right or not...they would have to BE him to know. Other than that, they're just expressing an unconfirmed opinion, based on their own assumptions about life."

So David Icke's beliefs are not allowed to be scorned, scoffed at, debated or what have you, but George Bush and Tony Blair's beliefs are open to hostile ridicule? Replace David Icke with George Bush in what I just quoted, and answer. I would have to be George Bush to know whether I believed for real that Iraq had WMD's. YOU can't say whether he's right or not, because you are expressing an unconfirmed opinion, based on your own assumptions about life.

Now, see? You're probably saying right now, well Robert, everyone knows it was all a propaganda machine, that you would be foolish not to see the evidence that WMD's didn't exist, that it was for oil, etc. Right? You're saying Robert, I can show you proof WMD's didn't exist, Bush was wrong.

So if you can get worked up about someone disputing George Bush and Blair's claims of WMD's, then I think I'm entitled to say that David Icke, although he believes what he writes about, is way off the mark, has a lot of very out there ideas that are kooky, and has a lot of unsubstantiated claims (Ted Heath performing ritual sacrifice on children before shape shifting into a lizard-from an interview on Icke's website). You can't get worked up about Bush, and chide us for failing to understand Icke.

Maybe he just should have stuck with the football!!!