Live vote: Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? - Page 16

Billo_Really · 10-02-07, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Origininally posted by DeeJayH:
wah wah wah wah wah wah

think the teachers in Peanuts

your arguments on this Saddam apologist BS have been debunked for YEARS
but cling tight to them all you want, just like that lil binky when you were a baby

Looks like you were captain of the debating team. However, you can't get one international lawyer to back you up. Why? Because your position is FOS. I, on the other hand, have many, many sources from many, many, un-related websites to throw in your face.

Are you going to pull a TOT and bad-mouth the brave men and women who served in our armed forces?

Quote:

Veterans For Peace Calls for the Impeachment of George W. Bush;
Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General John David Ashcroft

"We believe the war against Iraq that the United States government is planning and preparing for is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law. The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted, "Resort to war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal.

"The principle of renunciation of the use or threat of force is now one of the fundamental principles of international law and, as such, is stated with the utmost clarity in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which imposes definite obligations on states participating in international affairs. States are bound in their international relations to renounce "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

"The United States seeks to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq on the basis of self-defense. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of force by a state to repel an armed attack or a substantial and immediate threat to the national security of the state until the Security Council exercises jurisdiction. A threat which permits the use of force must be an immediate, specific threat to United States national security and not a general threat to the Gulf region or a possible future threat. The legality of pre-emptive self-defense has been rejected on the basis that use of force to deter future use of force constitutes punitive rather than defensive action. Because the United States has failed to gain Security Council approval for war, the United States is bound by United Nations Article 51 and may not lawfully, unilaterally take military action.

Or are you going to man-up and admit you were wrong?

DeeJayH · 10-02-07, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Looks like you were captain of the debating team. However, you can't get one international lawyer to back you up. Why? Because your position is FOS. I, on the other hand, have many, many sources from many, many, un-related websites to throw in your face.

Are you going to pull a TOT and bad-mouth the brave men and women who served in our armed forces?Or are you going to man-up and admit you were wrong?

well i can find you websites that say the world is flat, or is 5000 years old
or any other thing you may want to have an opinion on
websites dont make something true
and if it were true, it would have been dealt with already
we are powerful, but we are not all powerful
as such yours is a fantasy made into a porn film sold to the hungry as gospel
and since there have been threads ad nauseum about this, there is no reason to debate it
I am sure you believe you won them all, but from where many of us sit, you just excused poor lil Saddam and his mistreatment by dubya
so we will have to agreee to see each other as living in a fantasy world on this issue
cheers

Billo_Really · 10-02-07, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Origininally posted by DeeJayH:
well i can find you websites that say the world is flat, or is 5000 years old
or any other thing you may want to have an opinion on
websites dont make something true
and if it were true, it would have been dealt with already
we are powerful, but we are not all powerful
as such yours is a fantasy made into a porn film sold to the hungry as gospel
and since there have been threads ad nauseum about this, there is no reason to debate it
I am sure you believe you won them all, but from where many of us sit, you just excused poor lil Saddam and his mistreatment by dubya
so we will have to agreee to see each other as living in a fantasy world on this issue
cheers

No we don't agree! I don't live in a fantasy world. You do. You respond to my post with 90% of un-related garbage. I wasn't saying the website made it true. I was showing a credible organization saying the same thing I was saying. Why don't you go find someone just as credible saying the opposite? No, you want to go off like Alex lost in Wonderland and spew out some bull**** mantra that has nothing to do with what were talking about.

Hey, whatever floats your boat!

DeeJayH · 10-02-07, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

No we don't agree! I don't live in a fantasy world. You do. You respond to my post with 90% of un-related garbage. I wasn't saying the website made it true. I was showing a credible organization saying the same thing I was saying. Why don't you go find someone just as credible saying the opposite? No, you want to go off like Alex lost in Wonderland and spew out some bull**** mantra that has nothing to do with what were talking about.

Hey, whatever floats your boat!

I would like to reacquaint you with a phrase. I dont know how old it is , but its a keeper

Actions speak louder than words

I am sure we could go tit for tat with websites 'justifying' our positions
but in the end

Bush has NOT BEEN IMPEACHED or charged in any International court

Best you got is, I believe, Kofi "Mr. Corruption that makes dubyas presidency pale in comparison" Annan is the only one to make any kind of statement resembling your accusations.

therefor the rest of your beliefs ('evidence') is bunk, garbage, rhetoric, nonsense....do i need to go on?

Actions speak louder than words

Billo_Really · 10-02-07, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Origininally posted by DeeJayH
I would like to reacquaint you with a phrase. I dont know how old it is , but its a keeper

Actions speak louder than words

I am sure we could go tit for tat with websites 'justifying' our positions
but in the end

Bush has NOT BEEN IMPEACHED or charged in any International court

Best you got is, I believe, Kofi "Mr. Corruption that makes dubyas presidency pale in comparison" Annan is the only one to make any kind of statement resembling your accusations.

therefor the rest of your beliefs ('evidence') is bunk, garbage, rhetoric, nonsense....do i need to go on?

Actions speak louder than words

Actions do speak louder than words. And between the two of us, I'm the only one who backed up what he said. And I didn't even need Kofi's statement.

Back to you...

DeeJayH · 10-02-07, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Actions do speak louder than words. And between the two of us, I'm the only one who backed up what he said. And I didn't even need Kofi's statement.

Back to you...

sadly (sarcastically) it is time for RED EYE on FNC
simply hillarious
so between that and debating Iraq with you, I hope you can understand

"If fanatical partisanship was a single malt, you would be filling up my mouth, throat & stomach"

inspired by Gutfeld on Red Eye (2amET/11amPT)