CNN whistleblower claims network is ‘pumping out propaganda' :vid:

[daveman]

LOL

That's not even his name, ya trumprard.

That’s my nickname for him buddy

LOL

"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.

Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.

What's wrong with being gay?

Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

 

[daveman]

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.

Dumbfuck...

name-calling

Verbal abuse; insulting language.​

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?

This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.

Tucker 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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

 

[daveman]

Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.

Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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.

Goodness, you're an emotional little thing.

Look, I get it. You've been told that Democrats can do no wrong, and whatever they want is good and righteous and holy.

Other people, however, are more tuned in to reality.

Hey, speaking of reality, you know Pelosi isn't going to call for an impeachment vote? That means there will be no impeachment.

 

[daveman]

Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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 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 PBS

If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.

YEAH IF I AGREE WITH IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT BIASED HA HA CHECKMAET TRUMP NUTS

-- Faun

 

[Faun]

That’s my nickname for him buddy

LOL

"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.

Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.

What's wrong with being gay?

Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

Because my target thinks it's an insult.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck...

name-calling

Verbal abuse; insulting language.​

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?

This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.

Tucker 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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

 

[Faun]

Your mindless memes are not proof that the impeachment process into being properly followed.

Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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.

Goodness, you're an emotional little thing.

Look, I get it. You've been told that Democrats can do no wrong, and whatever they want is good and righteous and holy.

Other people, however, are more tuned in to reality.

Hey, speaking of reality, you know Pelosi isn't going to call for an impeachment vote? That means there will be no impeachment.

Holyfuckingshit!

I prove to you how thegatewaypundit lied to your face and that's your response??

 

[Faun]

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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 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 PBS

If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.

YEAH IF I AGREE WITH IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT BIASED HA HA CHECKMAET TRUMP NUTS

-- Faun

Uh, biased news is not biased based on what you agree or disagree with. Biased news is biased based if they lean towards an ideology.

 

[daveman]

LOL

"Love Muffin" is your nickname for him. O'Keefe is his name.

Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.

What's wrong with being gay?

Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

Because my target thinks it's an insult.

So, you're perfectly willing to throw a group you support under the bus for worthless internet points.

What a piece of shit you are.

 

[Faun]

Oh, look -- yet another leftist using homosexuality as an insult.

What's wrong with being gay?

Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

Because my target thinks it's an insult.

So, you're perfectly willing to throw a group you support under the bus for worthless internet points.

What a piece of shit you are.

LOL

You take this place waaay to seriously.

 

[daveman]

This is how Shepard Smith used to get his ass kicked by Tucker Carlson off-camera at Fox News. Time for Faunzie to retire.

Tucker 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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

It's funny the way you think your opinions define reality.

 

[daveman]

Lemme guess -- you heard it was all legit on CNN.

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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.

Goodness, you're an emotional little thing.

Look, I get it. You've been told that Democrats can do no wrong, and whatever they want is good and righteous and holy.

Other people, however, are more tuned in to reality.

Hey, speaking of reality, you know Pelosi isn't going to call for an impeachment vote? That means there will be no impeachment.

Holyfuckingshit!

I prove to you how thegatewaypundit lied to your face and that's your response??

Except...they didn't lie. They compared the previous language to the language Pelosi changed it to.

Look, Skippy, your acknowledgement is not required and certainly not expected.

 

[Faun]

Tucker 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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

It's funny the way you think your opinions define reality.

Spits the imbecile who's tryin' to tell me not to believe my own eyes.

 

[daveman]

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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 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 PBS

If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.

YEAH IF I AGREE WITH IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT BIASED HA HA CHECKMAET TRUMP NUTS

-- Faun

Uh, biased news is not biased based on what you agree or disagree with. Biased news is biased based if they lean towards an ideology.

Then you admit the Washington Post,the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS are biased?

Prediction: You don't actually admit that.

 

[the other mike]

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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 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 PBS

If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.

YEAH IF I AGREE WITH IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT BIASED HA HA CHECKMAET TRUMP NUTS

-- Faun

Uh, biased news is not biased based on what you agree or disagree with. Biased news is biased based if they lean towards an ideology.

So out of curiosity what is Disney corporation's ideology ?

Tucker 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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

It's funny the way you think your opinions define reality.

I think it's called narcissism, I'm not sure how it applies to anonymous news board trolls like faunzie.

 

[daveman]

Hey, Faun, you coward. Answer the question.

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

Because my target thinks it's an insult.

So, you're perfectly willing to throw a group you support under the bus for worthless internet points.

What a piece of shit you are.

LOL

You take this place waaay to seriously.

What's next, you gonna call people the n-word?

 

[daveman]

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.

Uhh, no ... he really does look like a deer in the headlights

No, that's a look of disbelief that anyone could be stupid enough to swallow leftist horseshit.

LOLOL

Suuure, uh-huh.

It's funny the way you think your opinions define reality.

Spits the imbecile who's tryin' to tell me not to believe my own eyes.

And it's even funnier that you can't see how your perceptions are colored by your bigotry.

 

[Faun]

No, I got it from the House rules on impeachment.

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint Filed — Pulled Authority Away from Full House!

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.

LOLOLOLOLOL

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.

Goodness, you're an emotional little thing.

Look, I get it. You've been told that Democrats can do no wrong, and whatever they want is good and righteous and holy.

Other people, however, are more tuned in to reality.

Hey, speaking of reality, you know Pelosi isn't going to call for an impeachment vote? That means there will be no impeachment.

Holyfuckingshit!

I prove to you how thegatewaypundit lied to your face and that's your response??

Except...they didn't lie. They compared the previous language to the language Pelosi changed it to.

Look, Skippy, your acknowledgement is not required and certainly not expected.

LOLOL

Dayum, you're even more rightarded than I thought.

Of course they lied. Apparently you're just not bright enough to recognize when you're being lied to your face. Oh well, regardless of your G-d given limitations, they said said the version of that document update on August 12th...

"Pulled Authority Away from Full House!"​

(emphasis theirs)

... when in fact, it did no such thing; which I proved by linking a June 14th version which shows that document never stated a full House vote was needed to authorize an impeachment inquiry. In fact, I even showed you where it stated a full House vote is not even always taken to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

So when thegatewaypundit falsely claims Democrats updated that document on August 12th to take authority away from the full House, they are bald-faced lying. And you, being the ever faithful brain-dead con you are, guzzle down every last drop they shoot at your uvula.

Even worse for you, they connect the date of that update to the date the whistleblower filed their complaint, along with the fallacious claim that it was updated to strip authority away from the full House -- as though the two events were connected.

Only, dumbfuck, they were not in anyway connected since Congress wasn't privy to the complaint until September 25th. You prove to be gullible AND stupid and too blinded by the right to know when you've been snookered.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOLOLOL

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 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 PBS

If you can't identify biased news by now, that's on you, conspiracy nut.

YEAH IF I AGREE WITH IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT BIASED HA HA CHECKMAET TRUMP NUTS

-- Faun

Uh, biased news is not biased based on what you agree or disagree with. Biased news is biased based if they lean towards an ideology.

Then you admit the Washington Post,the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS are biased?

Prediction: You don't actually admit that.

Of course they are. Look at that, ya moron.... you prove to be wrong yet again.

 

[Faun]

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.

Then why do you use it as an insult?

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you pout.

But then, it's no secret you're a flaming hypocrite.

Because my target thinks it's an insult.

So, you're perfectly willing to throw a group you support under the bus for worthless internet points.

What a piece of shit you are.

LOL

You take this place waaay to seriously.

What's next, you gonna call people the n-word?

Uh, no, that word isn't an insult to rightards.