Angry Pro Gun Control Leftist Screams at Hannity Guest

Steve Cooper


This angry lunatic is a perfect example why people NEED TO BE ARMED.

Leftists use the technique of drowning out the opposition to prevent their speech from being heard. This crack pot is certainly not fit to own a gun…that is for sure.


CLICK FOR THE VIDEO – Electronics, Toys and DVD’s

15 thoughts on “Angry Pro Gun Control Leftist Screams at Hannity Guest”

  1. ever since jfk’s death… a country of ignorance and stupidity… the media are the criminals in this case..; i have no idea why they just didn’t turn his mike off so the other man could make his point but … i guess affirmative action is at work here too…. lol

  2. This rarely, if ever, happens on C-SPAN or PBS NewsHour (formerly MacNeil-Lehrer Newhour) how come?
    Why does FNC/Hannity continually allow this? Hannity likes this on his radio show too.
    methinx they have another agenda

      1. I mean that FNC and Hannity are about generating Heat as opposed to shedding Light. They’re both into the gamesmanship of “Good TV” and “Good Radio” (Producer’s lingo) as opposed to getting to the truth of a matter.

        This Leo Terrell is a well-known Leftist crackpot going back to the O.J. trial days. Why is he even on? Everybody knows what he’s about. He’s never added weight to whatever debate he’s in. So, why was he chosen? FNC couldn’t find anyone else?

        It seems to me that FNC (opinion programs) as well as Hannity radio (who has always been a Lightweight, I’ve never heard any insights from him even if he accurately represents a point of view) are more into pushing buttons, raising the temperature- rather than using their precious time to gain Understanding.

        For whatever else PBS Newshour and C-SPAN are, they present difficult issues in an understandable presentment so the audience can digest it in a clear manner. Similarly, many talk radio show outlets tackle issues in a more digestible long form.
        It is possible to LEARN in such formats.

        An alternative for FNC/Hannity would be to present one side at a time, as is done in a Court room, giving a Jury the ability to digest both sides – and a better ability to judge with clarity.

        Big TV loves the drama of confrontation, which sometimes, but rarely adds to Understanding of any issue. Usually it descends into a contest of manner- which may expose bad manners, but only to the mannerly.
        Leftists know this, so they seek to reinforce their base with such Alinsky tactics- they’re NOT TRYING to persuade us in these “Dramas”.
        We’ll never persuade them either, so these “matches” are useless.

        When a host/moderator allows shouting matches to continue unabated you know they’re in it purely for the entertainment.

        What good are Candidate debates if everyone agreed that Obama was utterly weak in the first and most important debate, yet still walks away with an election victory (fraud or not)

        From here on, we should acknowledge that debates are useless unless the moderator is strict, a la C-SPAN or PBS. Presidential debates are a complete waste of time, unless it would simulate the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Big TV will never allow that.
        (Gingrich tried!)

        I seek Insight and Wisdom, not frustrating debates which only trivialize a serious subject- no matter how entertaining.

        Worse, people are fooled into thinking they’re well-informed by confusing this illusory entertainment for serious news gathering.

        Worst, people vote for a President based on this kind of “information-gathering”. We’re doomed.

        Hey! you asked

        1. Good points, all. While I enjoy watching a lefturd melt down or show his ass as much as the next gal does, you’re right in that I learn nothing at all from the spectacle and neither does anyone else except, perhaps, the person who’s witnessing for the very first time a lefturd in full meltdown or showing his ass. Gamesmanship and ratings can be the only reasons for allowing this kind of thing.

  3. This is part of the FOX formula. Ever notice how they have the same assholes on there week in and week out? Each one with their predictable position on any given issue? Ever notice it’s always Monica Crowley paired up with Alan Colmes? Did you know Colmes is married to Crowley’s sister? Why the hell is that fat-fuck Beckel on The Five? Does anybody have to guess what any of these “guests” will say about any topic? No, of course not. This is all designed to create the shouting and fireworks and get the viewers frustrated and angry. FOX thinks this is “good TV”. They do not care about actual news. Did you see Megyn Kelly smiling like a drunk schoolgirl on election night when FOX jumped the gun and called it for Barry? O’Reilly lies and distorts the facts every night. Disgusting. Fair and Balanced, my ass! FOX is just as bad as CNN and MSNBC. They might have been legit at one time but as soon as Murdoch was caught red-handed in the phone hacking scandal, FOX has been forced by the Obama admin to toe-the-line. Why do you think they fired Beck?

    It isn’t news. It’s what they call “infotainment”. I call it SHIT.

    1. I suspect that Fox was pressured to hire Soros operatives to keep the Justice Dept off of Murdoch’s back regarding that wiretapping investigation in the UK. They wanted to investigate if there was a US link to it.

    2. “Did you know Colmes is married to Crowley’s sister?”

      No, I did not. Interesting tidbit, that one is. The possible implications are also interesting.

      “Why the hell is that fat-fuck Beckel on The Five?”

      To look fair and balanced? (As if four conservatives, pretending for a moment that the others are, indeed, conservatives, against one libtard would make for a fair or balanced discussion/debate session.)

      “Did you see Megyn Kelly smiling like a drunk schoolgirl on election night when FOX jumped the gun and called it for Barry?”

      No. But I saw her and some of the others the following morning and was sickened by their reactions, which ranged from a total lack of reaction whatsoever (just another day in the ol’ salt mine) to supernaturally quick acceptance to giddy cheer. I’ve not tuned into Fox News since that morning, not as some kind of blacklisting or banning or protest, but simply because I have had no desire to watch it. I’ve watched some local tv news in the mornings, tuning out when they report national and political news…just the traffic, weather and local news reports and that’s enough for the day.

  4. I could not agree with you more Jim. Mr. Rush was respectful and allowed that raging maniac his mic time. The defensive animal Tyrell could not wrap his head around the civil dialogue thing because he knows that his screaming is going to force his point of view out into the front. Also, Hannity almost looked like he was getting pleasure from this debate.
    Hannity, while keeping his cool, knew he was inciting Tyrell, but he didn’t give a rats patootie that Mr. Rush wasn’t getting his fair mic time. He was amused.
    So disengenuous. I’d even go so far as to say that Hannity was being very considerate of Mr. Tyrell, even though he didn’t deserve one scintila of consideration once he became an arrogant nasty prick.
    I have to look into this guy Rush though. From what I heard him say, under the distraction of Tyrell, I want to hear more from him. So from here I will look him up.

  5. Here ya’ go.

    Famous Fox News faces ‘get dumped off air’
    ‘Reality-denying predictions became a punch line’
    Published: 8 hours ago
    author-image by Joe Kovacs

    If you’re used to watching Fox News, you may notice a lot less face time by political analysts Karl Rove and Dick Morris.

    New York Magazine is reporting the top-rated cable-news network is doing some “post-election soul searching,” and Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, is changing the characters who appear as talking heads on the air.

Comments are closed.