Politics

sad hannity faces 01

Sean Hannity Is Having A Twitter Meltdown Over National Review’s Secret Private Jets

Why is Sean Hannity all riled up against the National Review folks? He’s accusing them of flying private jets because they’re “elitists,” an insult just meant to rile up his dim-witted fan base.

Why is he so angry? His orange-faced idol won, and everything is wonderful right? Could it be… that Trump has actually had a terrible week since firing Comey with zero planning and terrible messaging?

Of course, that’s all National Review’s fault.

This is just amazing:

Notice, he doesn’t deny it. I guess because he flew commercial ONCE that exonerates him? LOL! That actually sounds very elitist! Poor thing had to slum it up with the rabble once.

Goldberg clarifies to be fair to Hannity. Mouth-foaming idiot responds with witless twitter karate chops:

Oh boy. Detective Hannity is on the case of the NRO cruise’s evil scheme of providing an service/product for money. It must have taken weeks of very focused attention by his one last operating brain cell to piece that one together. maybe he’s showcasing his genius investigatory skills as am audition to become Trump’s next FBI Director.

The real reason for witless Hannity to spout of these idiocies is that he pitches an insane fantasy that people who disagree with him are in a grand conspiracy and are all paid off to do it. He can’t possibly conceive that people might actually really believe in conservatism and the principles he’s ostensibly espoused for decades. His barely functioning brain cell must believe that anyone who dares to stand up to his orange-visaged man-crush is doing it for money.

Thus, the private jets.

Maybe, deep down in that last flickering vestige of a brain cell, he accuses others of the same sin he’s most ashamed of – selling out conservatism for money and fame.

Nah, he’s just a shameless dumbass.

  • yanksrule

    Super Mex the super duper Fugging Mental Midget

  • thekytikat

    I love the idea that if you weren’t all aboard the Trump Train in 2016, you gave aid and comfort to the enemy, Hillary. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

  • Hyde

    Scratch this site off the list…

  • cajb11

    I’ll add it to my list. 🙂

  • halodoc

    He may have flown commercial to Israel, or anywhere else, but I’d wager is wasn’t coach.

  • halodoc

    The gods forbid you have your normalcy bias interrupted. The horrors that would create for you would be unimaginable.

  • K-Bob

    Yes. The “Hannity Rulez” list.

  • K-Bob

    I’d think Sean would be more concerned & jealous over where National Review keeps its gleaming fleet of Lear jets and helicopters. A beautiful private airfield, complete with underground bunkers and a fully maintained collection of communications systems, including both modern, high-end encrypted digital broadband over fiber, a satellite transponder no one else can access, and end-of-the world CB radio, telegraph, and twisted-pair copper, not to mention the semaphore tower.

    Plus… they have miniature golf

  • I pray everyday I was wrong about Trump because I love my country, and I want him to succeed. I like many of the things he’s done, but I think he really needs to hire a competent team to run his White House. I think Josh Holmes would be a smart replacement for Rience Priebus.

  • bowman

    MY opinions are still at three.

    YOUR opinions can be however many you want them to be.

    If you are going to insist on having the last word when it is a word I disagree with, this is going to be a very long conversation.

    If you think me expressing the opinion that I have three opinions is banworthy or something, go for it. Otherwise we are going to continue to talk as long as you want to continue to talk.

  • Daniel Ramos

    You said: “I just defined it for you.
    You rejected the definition.
    Your mistake.
    You’re done here.”

    I say:

    You defined no more than a double standard.
    Your mistake.
    I call bs on you and your abusive antics.

    But at least now I am free to tell you what I really think of you here, you loathsome hypocrite.

  • Daniel Ramos

    You said:

    “No worries, all of your trollcraft-101 comments will be here as proof that you aren’t remotely interested in adult-level forum participation.”

    No worries shared, since it’s amply evident you are a liar and you were just looking for an excuse to ban me, given that I stuck a needle in the balloon of yourTed Cruz worship.

    Now what Bob? Going to beg Sooper to ban me here too? Feel free. It’s what cowards like you are known for.

  • Daniel Ramos

    He banned me from TRS after trolling me with attack comments.
    He holds himself to a different standard than he does everyone else.

    He’s a flaming hypocrite, and given what I’ve been told the word “flaming” here might be a double entendre.

  • bowman

    I wanted a discussion of the issue which he was totally unwilling to have.

    I’ve seen several good sites go to hell due to poor moderation and poor decisions by the owners to create certain sacred cows who must not be questioned.

    Probably the most interesting thing to me is that they chose to ban someone who was creating content and revenue for the site in order to protect a media figure who doesn’t.

    If they think it is punishment for them to forbid me from providing free work to make them any more revenue, they have an odd view on capitalism.

  • Daniel Ramos

    Indeed. He simply uses a majority of monosyllabic responses after exhausting a disingenuous pretense for actual debate.
    I can tell you right now that he considers critiques of Mark Levin and Ted Cruz under any circumstances as violations of the unofficial rule 11 and 12 of TRS TOS.
    The first put me on his radar, the second put me on his s**t list.
    He was just waiting for any excuse to ban me, and finally decided on accusing me of “spam” despite me not actually spamming him.
    Apparently, responding to Bob in different ways is considered spam simply because Bob the almighty TRS mod considers it so.
    I would be hard pressed to find a more dishonest hypocrite.

  • bowman

    I never had any problem with him before his refusal to discuss this particular ban on talking about Levin’s dubious history.

    I wasn’t even wanting to discuss Levin’s dubious history. I just don’t think there should be a ban on talking about it any more than there should be a ban on talking about Jake Tapper’s history.

    My concern would have been satisfied by either lifting the ban or putting Levin’s name into the official comments policy as being off limits to criticism. But I wasn’t allowed to progress the conversation to that point.

    If I hadn’t been banned, I was planning on making the unofficial Levin policy the topic of an open discussion and seeing how the community cared to deal with the management over it. If there’s twenty people discussing the appropriateness of the Levin policy in the completely appropriate place for such a discussion, that’s more difficult for them to deal with through intentional rudeness and banning people who want to discuss the policy,

    TRS is fundamentally a discussion site with content generated by the users rather than a news site with content generated by writers. Banning discussion seems contrary to the goal of keeping an audience.

    Sorry for your experience. It sounds like things got a lot more personal than it did with me.

  • bowman

    Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not
    receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust
    under your feet for a testimony against them.

  • K-Bob

    Aaand we’re back to namecalling. You don’t belong at the big table, son. You just belong in the troll bin.

  • K-Bob

    You spammed the comment section. Now you’re stalking me and crying behind old posts I commented on.

    Sad!

  • Daniel Ramos

    One time is a fluke, twice or more is the beginning of a precedent.
    The fact that I discussed with you how speaking critically on Mark Levin essentially got me banned, and you are now stating that the same thing happened to you, is more than enough proof anyone needs to show that Bob intentionally abuses his authority in order to insulate his sacred cows from criticism.
    He is a worthless mod and more and more people are coming to realize this.
    Thanks for your understanding, sorry you had to be banned over bs as well. For the record: I completely agree with you about TRS, Bob, and your thoughts on the merits of discussions about Mark Le’Spin.

  • Daniel Ramos

    Thank you for that friend. It’s much appreciated. Have a blessed day,

  • Daniel Ramos

    No, I just took off the gloves since you enjoy hitting below the belt.
    You’re dishonest, and abusive. You exploit your position to protect your sacred cows and ban anyone that doesn’t kiss your ass.
    You trolled me and hit me with constant criticisms, and when I took it right back to you, you got all butthurt over it and then laid the groundwork for a bs ban of me.
    You’re a thin skinned hypocrite who chirps about being in support of first amendment speech, then bans people when they disagree with you over Levin, Cruz, etc.
    Oh and don’t think I haven’t noticed you wait until much later to actually respond…can’t forget that you’re a coward as well.

  • Daniel Ramos

    Seems like you need to be corrected on more bs Bob.

    I happily oblige.

    Google definition of spam:

    “send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.”

    How exactly did I “spam” you by responding to you in different ways each time you trolled me?

    How exactly is that sending the “same” message in order to qualify as spam?

    Going by your “logic” how then did you not spam me by constantly responding to me with the same negative intent?

    Here’s my theory: you’re a liar.

    And now you want to pull the sorry excuse of every pathetic anorchous man-boy by accusing me of “stalking” you despite you stalking me on TRS.

    Any more hypocrisy to share Bob?

  • Daniel Ramos

    PS: When you’re all done hitting TRS people who disagree with you over your idols Levin and Cruz with rule #1 ad hom violations, feel free to respond to me…in 11 hours, when I’m likely asleep or busy doing far more enjoyable things than responding to your banality.

    Also, don’t think I noticed you removed my comment to Conservator…the one discussing how you were intending to ban me before you actually did.

    What happened to “No worries, all of your trollcraft-101 comments will be here as proof that you aren’t remotely interested in adult-level forum participation.”

    Guess you lied there as well right?

    And finally, why did you remove my response to Conservator over the homosexual sickness ruining the body of America?

    You deleted “4 words: The queering of America.”

    Why? Why indeed.. 😉

    You ever planning to come out of the conservative closet and let TRS commenters know the rainbow truth about you Bob?

    Just so you know, there’s no such thing as a conservative homosexual. It’s a non sequitur.

    You’re a flaming fraud, emphasis on “flaming.”

  • bowman

    I wasn’t even speaking critically of Levin. I was just trying to get the moderator to answer the question of whether that was his policy or whether it was TRS policy so that I could move on to the question of whether that is a good policy to have or not.

    And this may not be a count of “twice”. There’s been a number of regulars who’ve disappeared in recent months so there’s always the possibility that more people have been kicked than we’ve known about.

    I don’t know how your ouster was handled but in mine, he didn’t ask me to end the conversation we were having or give me a warning that I was going to get banned if I continued, the ban just happened.

    I don’t think an outside observer could have looked at the conversation the moderator and I were having and have figured out that the reason the conversation ended was that I was banned. I doubt anyone who comments at TRS knows the reason I’m not around anymore was because a moderator chose to ban me. That makes me retroactively feel uneasy about the disappearance of other regulars from the site.

    Not that it’s my problem anymore because I’ve got no reason to ever return to the site since I can no longer post there. But having been a member of the community, it makes me feel somewhat sad that the community is falling apart. You can’t really have a discussion community if you ban people without warning for trying to have a discussion.

  • Daniel Ramos

    Understood. Elaboration as to whether criticism over Levin/Cruz constitutes a summary ban per an unofficial rule breaking would have been greatly appreciated. The fact that your request was ignored is yet more proof that as a mod Bob leaves much to be desired.
    ***********
    I can imagine. I was merely speaking in regards to you and me, but I’m certain there are other members who have ‘disappeared” from the site due to being banned and removed without notification. Yet more proof of his abusive nature.
    ******
    Agreed. Apparently disagreement with Bob’s intractable personality is also an unofficial 13th rule of TRS. What a jerk.
    *********
    Once again, I agree. A good site becomes far less so when mods like him act with impunity because they’ve allowed the little power they’ve been tasked with to go to their heads.

    I remember telling Bob about a genuine troll that was busy going up and down the threads attacking people with Trump-excusing comments.

    I also remember Bob’s classic response “i’ll keep an eye on him.”
    And then of course I remember nothing came of the request.

    It’s become abundantly clear Bob is quick to act when people disagree with him and also quick to ban, but when others are legitimately attacked by trolls, he basically waves his hand away as if to scoff.

    He’s a poor excuse for a mod and a scumbag to boot.