Jon Stewart dismissing Louis CK abuse allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

Yes they should. Hence it being used correctly by both the first poster and the one who responded to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

Yes they should. Hence it being used correctly by both the first poster and the one who responded to you.

No it's not. Are you part of Trump's legal defense team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

Yes they should. Hence it being used correctly by both the first poster and the one who responded to you.

No it's not. Are you part of Trump's legal defense team?

You have become more and more unhinged as the post goes on. And I mean that sincerely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

Yes they should. Hence it being used correctly by both the first poster and the one who responded to you.

No it's not. Are you part of Trump's legal defense team?

You have become more and more unhinged as the post goes on. And I mean that sincerely.

Sadly, I'm sure that's your best attempt at sincerity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^by hiring him to be on his final show, dismissing the charges against him and mocking the person who brought it up... yes, he is absolutely complicit.

Thanks, ivanka, but that's not what complicit means.

DP. You’re not even being logically consistent at this point. Ivanka would presumably be in favor of a narrow interpretation of “complicity,” just like you.

Wait, you didn't see the Gayle King tv interview of her defining the word "complicit?"

NP. I saw it, and it doesnt make your post any more coherent.

Use of saccasm. Ivanka and pp's use of complicit is incorrect. Words should still be meaningful.

Yes they should. Hence it being used correctly by both the first poster and the one who responded to you.

No it's not. Are you part of Trump's legal defense team?

You have become more and more unhinged as the post goes on. And I mean that sincerely.

Sadly, I'm sure that's your best attempt at sincerity.

Says the person who steadfastly refused to answer any questions or back up his assertions. And is now throwing out accusations of Russian spies. Okay.

[Anonymous]

Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

Yes. When everyone reads a social interaction as being a certain way, you can bet that's a fairly accurate measure of what went down. No matter how many times you want to insist the sky is green, it doesn't change it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

Yes. When everyone reads a social interaction as being a certain way, you can bet that's a fairly accurate measure of what went down. No matter how many times you want to insist the sky is green, it doesn't change it.

Who is everyone? Why is it so important for me and the few other posters who didn't interpret this way agree with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

Yes. When everyone reads a social interaction as being a certain way, you can bet that's a fairly accurate measure of what went down. No matter how many times you want to insist the sky is green, it doesn't change it.

Who is everyone? Why is it so important for me and the few other posters who didn't interpret this way agree with you?

Because you're attempting to deny the reality of what happened. And the truth is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

Yes. When everyone reads a social interaction as being a certain way, you can bet that's a fairly accurate measure of what went down. No matter how many times you want to insist the sky is green, it doesn't change it.

Who is everyone? Why is it so important for me and the few other posters who didn't interpret this way agree with you?

Because you're attempting to deny the reality of what happened. And the truth is important.

Who is denying the truth. Stewart wasn't smiling and said it was important. That's what happened.

Did he know CK was a sleaze? Maybe. It's fine for you to have disgust for what he said and choice of friends. I disagree with your interpretation of the clip. It's significant now that the cat is officially out of the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question, how was Jon Stewart specifically dismissive again? Because everyone said. Okay. We've come full circle.

Yes. When everyone reads a social interaction as being a certain way, you can bet that's a fairly accurate measure of what went down. No matter how many times you want to insist the sky is green, it doesn't change it.

Who is everyone? Why is it so important for me and the few other posters who didn't interpret this way agree with you?

Because you're attempting to deny the reality of what happened. And the truth is important.

Who is denying the truth. Stewart wasn't smiling and said it was important. That's what happened.

Did he know CK was a sleaze? Maybe. It's fine for you to have disgust for what he said and choice of friends. I disagree with your interpretation of the clip. It's significant now that the cat is officially out of the bag.

Stewart dismissed and mocked him, as all the articles have observed. He enabled him and is complicit.

Please providing any article supporting your version of events. We've been waiting.