Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.LOLThat’s my nickname for him buddy
"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.
What's wrong with being gay?
You do realize a Coup d’etat means you have to kill someone?
Bullshit however, I wouldn't put it past some of you TDSers. After all we already had a left-looney pose with Trump's bloody, severed head and that Madonna-Whore say she wanted to blow up the WH.
Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT
"a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"
You forgot to copy the second half of the definition. Here, from your link............
Definition of coup d'état
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group a military coup d'état of the dictator
You left out the violent overthrow part, and yeah, when there is violence, death is always a possibility.
Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.Dumbfuck...heh - you funny. "stupid things you've said" doesn't mean i'm calling YOU stupid, it means i called what you SAID stupid."who's the one doing the playground namecalling?"who's the one doing the playground namecalling?
you're a broken record dude. say something stupid then get all bent when called on it. rinse, repeat, add in gratuitous insults along the way.
I'll take posts by that hypocrite, iceberg, for $200, Alex...
and this post to the ever growing list of stupid things you've said in here.
"you're a broken record dude. say something stupid then get all bent when called on it. rinse, repeat, add in gratuitous insults along the way."
LOL
If what I said was stupid, you'd be able to explain how it was stupid after I asked you twice. That you opt to hurl more invective rather than explain how it was stupid only serves to demonstrate that not only what I said wasn't actually stupid, as you vacuously cried; but it also demonstrates my perspective that you're nothing but a crybaby who threw his Barbie doll at me.
Frustrated much, bitch?
but for the sake of clarity, yes i think you're stupid.
And given how you idiotically called what I said was "stupid" only to discover it wasn't, I can believe you're an imbecile who doesn't know that calling facts, "stupid," qualifies as "insulting language."
Frustrated much, bitch?
Nice job with that supreme court hypocriteBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.Dumbfuck.... try using proof. Try showing what part of the impeachment process is not being followed....
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
Take your meds.Nice job with that supreme court hypocriteBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
I didn't answer because it was a stupid question. I guess I over-estimated your comprehension abilities because I figured you know that. The answer is there's nothing wrong with being gay.Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.LOLThat’s my nickname for him buddy
"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.
What's wrong with being gay?
Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsTucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.Dumbfuck...heh - you funny. "stupid things you've said" doesn't mean i'm calling YOU stupid, it means i called what you SAID stupid."who's the one doing the playground namecalling?"
I'll take posts by that hypocrite, iceberg, for $200, Alex...
"you're a broken record dude. say something stupid then get all bent when called on it. rinse, repeat, add in gratuitous insults along the way."
LOL
If what I said was stupid, you'd be able to explain how it was stupid after I asked you twice. That you opt to hurl more invective rather than explain how it was stupid only serves to demonstrate that not only what I said wasn't actually stupid, as you vacuously cried; but it also demonstrates my perspective that you're nothing but a crybaby who threw his Barbie doll at me.
Frustrated much, bitch?
but for the sake of clarity, yes i think you're stupid.
And given how you idiotically called what I said was "stupid" only to discover it wasn't, I can believe you're an imbecile who doesn't know that calling facts, "stupid," qualifies as "insulting language."
Frustrated much, bitch?
Faun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
Yea he’s so easily toyed with none of the dems will go on his most popular show lolUhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsTucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.Dumbfuck...heh - you funny. "stupid things you've said" doesn't mean i'm calling YOU stupid, it means i called what you SAID stupid.
but for the sake of clarity, yes i think you're stupid.
And given how you idiotically called what I said was "stupid" only to discover it wasn't, I can believe you're an imbecile who doesn't know that calling facts, "stupid," qualifies as "insulting language."
Frustrated much, bitch?
Faun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
That's not deer in the Headlights that's the 'puzzled that people can be so ignorant, dishonest and misinformed' look.Yea he’s so easily toyed with none of the dems will go on his most popular show lolUhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsTucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.Dumbfuck...
And given how you idiotically called what I said was "stupid" only to discover it wasn't, I can believe you're an imbecile who doesn't know that calling facts, "stupid," qualifies as "insulting language."
Frustrated much, bitch?
Faun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
LOLOLThat's not deer in the Headlights that's the 'puzzled that people can be so ignorant, dishonest and misinformed' look.Yea he’s so easily toyed with none of the dems will go on his most popular show lolUhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsTucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.Faun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
Tucker Carlson:LOLOLThat's not deer in the Headlights that's the 'puzzled that people can be so ignorant, dishonest and misinformed' look.Yea he’s so easily toyed with none of the dems will go on his most popular show lolUhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsTucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Faun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
I like how you propose that as though Carlson is not more ignorant than his guests.
That was really funny.
I love Tucker Carlson, and I'm a tough crowd coming from the true progressive side ....aka Jimmy Dore , Aaron Maté, Max Blumental...Abby Martin.....Tucker Carlson:LOLOLThat's not deer in the Headlights that's the 'puzzled that people can be so ignorant, dishonest and misinformed' look.Yea he’s so easily toyed with none of the dems will go on his most popular show lolUhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlightsFaun sez: Tucker Carlson? Isn't he the guy who always has that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?Why Mr. Faun, I do believe you are turning Mr. Carlson into a wild man. Don't you know that drives the young ladies crazy when all they do is fantasize about wild men? I think Mr. Carlson is a family man first. And if he's wild, lucky Mrs. Carlson, I say.
I like how you propose that as though Carlson is not more ignorant than his guests.
That was really funny.
1. Loyal to the Constitution
2. Gets information out that should have been out before
3. Is totally well-prepared
4. Facial gestures a plus (sometimes humorous)
5. And now, thanks to Faun's hoity toity stuff - look out girls1 - WILD MAN!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.Dumbfuck.... try using proof. Try showing what part of the impeachment process is not being followed....
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
If we want the mainstream spincycle version of the truth we can just read the Washington Post or the New York Times or watch CNN MSNBC ABC CBS. Or PBSLOLOLOLOLOLBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
It truly cracks me up watching a loon post a link to fake news gatewaypundit after whining about CNN.
Dumbfuck, here's an earlier version of that same document updated on 6.14.2019, two months before the whistleblower filed their complaint, and it stated the same thing then as it does now ....
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769/1
Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official.
"most often" ... as in ... not required.
And just like the current version, there's nothing in there stipulating the full House has to vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.
But the bests part about your gatewaypundit link is how it utterly proves just how fake news that is. They could have just as easily found that June version as I did but instead, chose to leave their low information readers b'lieving the August update was to make changes about authorizing an impeachment inquiry when in reality, it did no such thing. And the gatewaypundit did that for no reason other than the date matched the date of the whistleblower complaint being filed and they wanted to dumb you dumbfucks down even lower than you already are, just so you're cheer for the right.
Congrats dead-head, you're now fully brainwashed (with a Brillo pad) and have eagerly guzzled every ounce of the rightard koolaid.
If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.If we want the mainstream spincycle version of the truth we can just read the Washington Post or the New York Times or watch CNN MSNBC ABC CBS. Or PBSLOLOLOLOLOLBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
It truly cracks me up watching a loon post a link to fake news gatewaypundit after whining about CNN.
Dumbfuck, here's an earlier version of that same document updated on 6.14.2019, two months before the whistleblower filed their complaint, and it stated the same thing then as it does now ....
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769/1
Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official.
"most often" ... as in ... not required.
And just like the current version, there's nothing in there stipulating the full House has to vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.
But the bests part about your gatewaypundit link is how it utterly proves just how fake news that is. They could have just as easily found that June version as I did but instead, chose to leave their low information readers b'lieving the August update was to make changes about authorizing an impeachment inquiry when in reality, it did no such thing. And the gatewaypundit did that for no reason other than the date matched the date of the whistleblower complaint being filed and they wanted to dumb you dumbfucks down even lower than you already are, just so you're cheer for the right.
Congrats dead-head, you're now fully brainwashed (with a Brillo pad) and have eagerly guzzled every ounce of the rightard koolaid.
Oh, the Devil is in the details and you know it too, don't you Faun, creature from down under that you are miming in your nom-de-plume. As a matter of fact, Joe Biden and you were quite young when you plotted your little antichrist careers in the nebulous world of prevarication that is now your vocation. And Joe Biden had the Hollywood of London stars singing your theme song, which makes you thick as thieves with Joe Biden, and I quote:If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.If we want the mainstream spincycle version of the truth we can just read the Washington Post or the New York Times or watch CNN MSNBC ABC CBS. Or PBSLOLOLOLOLOLBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
It truly cracks me up watching a loon post a link to fake news gatewaypundit after whining about CNN.
Dumbfuck, here's an earlier version of that same document updated on 6.14.2019, two months before the whistleblower filed their complaint, and it stated the same thing then as it does now ....
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769/1
Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official.
"most often" ... as in ... not required.
And just like the current version, there's nothing in there stipulating the full House has to vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.
But the bests part about your gatewaypundit link is how it utterly proves just how fake news that is. They could have just as easily found that June version as I did but instead, chose to leave their low information readers b'lieving the August update was to make changes about authorizing an impeachment inquiry when in reality, it did no such thing. And the gatewaypundit did that for no reason other than the date matched the date of the whistleblower complaint being filed and they wanted to dumb you dumbfucks down even lower than you already are, just so you're cheer for the right.
Congrats dead-head, you're now fully brainwashed (with a Brillo pad) and have eagerly guzzled every ounce of the rightard koolaid.
Oh, the Devil is in the details and you know it too, don't you Faun, creature from down under that you are miming in your nom-de-plume. As a matter of fact, Joe Biden and you were quite young when you plotted your little antichrist careers in the nebulous world of prevarication that is now your vocation. And Joe Biden had the Hollywood of London stars singing your theme song, which makes you thick as thieves with Joe Biden, and I quote:If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.If we want the mainstream spincycle version of the truth we can just read the Washington Post or the New York Times or watch CNN MSNBC ABC CBS. Or PBSLOLOLOLOLOLBREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
This link has a comparison between the previous language and the current rules.
It should tell you something that Democrats can't win anything without changing the rules.
It should -- but it won't.
It truly cracks me up watching a loon post a link to fake news gatewaypundit after whining about CNN.
Dumbfuck, here's an earlier version of that same document updated on 6.14.2019, two months before the whistleblower filed their complaint, and it stated the same thing then as it does now ....
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769/1
Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official.
"most often" ... as in ... not required.
And just like the current version, there's nothing in there stipulating the full House has to vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry.
But the bests part about your gatewaypundit link is how it utterly proves just how fake news that is. They could have just as easily found that June version as I did but instead, chose to leave their low information readers b'lieving the August update was to make changes about authorizing an impeachment inquiry when in reality, it did no such thing. And the gatewaypundit did that for no reason other than the date matched the date of the whistleblower complaint being filed and they wanted to dumb you dumbfucks down even lower than you already are, just so you're cheer for the right.
Congrats dead-head, you're now fully brainwashed (with a Brillo pad) and have eagerly guzzled every ounce of the rightard koolaid.
Wrong all seems so right in large groups choosing their path in life, and merriment has a way of obfuscating right and wrong to the unsuspecting youthful man who becomes addicted to vice and just can't stop for any reason on the planet once his course into dark things is charted by himself. Irresponsibility is the bane of wrongful thinking, it really is, but the type of behaviors encouraged in the song above (picking a pocket or two) winds up killing a cop or two someday.
Funny, that's the very same reason I ignore much of what you post.I didn't answer because it was a stupid question. I guess I over-estimated your comprehension abilities because I figured you know that. The answer is there's nothing wrong with being gay.Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.LOLThat’s my nickname for him buddyLOL
That's not even his name, ya trumprard.
"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.
What's wrong with being gay?
Funny, that's the very same reason I ignore much of what you post.I didn't answer because it was a stupid question. I guess I over-estimated your comprehension abilities because I figured you know that. The answer is there's nothing wrong with being gay.Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.LOLThat’s my nickname for him buddy
"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.
What's wrong with being gay?
