that fails on many levels, though. SNL isn't Jay Leno level comedy. they assume their audience is hip and informed. so it was just cowardly of SNL, but that's nothing new.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486366)

but how do you interpret it? "because Weinstein is a fellow New Yorker we are going to give him a pass?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486520)

Yeah, something like that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486529)

But as stated none of this even matters because it's actually just egregious ethnic affinity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486586)

Additionally, I don't see how "new York" means "jew" other than NYC having a large Jewish population, or frothy mouthed anti-Semites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486617)

And Lorne said what he meant. It's a New York thing. You don't get it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486674)

-SNL had never gone after other New Yorkers

-SNL parody skits had any relation to "being a rat"

As is, your poast is utterly retarded and nonresponsive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486657)

And when I say "rat", I mean loyalty.

You don't grasp the concept, and you're also clouded by your delusional anti-Semitic tripes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486760)

If Michaels had said "we agree with Weinstein politically so we don't want to go after him," that would be one thing, but he said something totally different. This is very obviously a "Jew thing," you dishonest kike.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486782)

dishonest kike, your response?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486914)

ANY OF THE THREE

((GOYS WHO CAN'T READ))

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486940)

Author: Nancy Pelosi farting on a hot mic

Maybe you guys aren't from NYC/east coast, but there is a mentality of "don't be a rat". I'm not saying it's right but it's part of the culture. A rat is the lowest thing you can be.

Your original poast. Now you are saying it is because Lorne is "loyal" to Weinstein. Is there any evidence that they were best buds? Anything other than acquaintances that ran into each other at Hollywood shit? Fuck, Lorne probably ran in the same social circles as Trump but had not problem with running him down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486996)

Meanwhile in anti-Semite fucktardville, we've still yet to come up with something better than "Lorne defends Harvey because he's a Jew and so is Harvey."

Do tell.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487069)

What he really meant was "I'm friends with Weinstein and we're both New York Jews, I'm not gonna attack him," and I'd actually respect that statement in a way. But lol at you trying to defend this statement on its face

hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487270)

just for the record, SNL apologists say that SNL tried Weinstein jokes in the dry run, got no laughs (from a lib NYC audience, of course), and Michaels decided the topic was too limited in its appeal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487640)

this answer is fantastically jewish

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34486322)

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:

I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[65]

Retired naval Lieutenant Commander James Ennes, a junior officer (and off-going Officer of the Deck) on Liberty's bridge at the time of the attack, authored a book titled Assault on the Liberty describing the incident during the Six Day War in June 1967 and saying, among other things, that the attack was deliberate.[66] Ennes and Joe Meadors, also survivors of the attack, run a website about the incident.[67] Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,[68] to which survivors and other former crew members belong. Other survivors run several additional websites. Citing Ennes's book, Lenczowski notes: Liberty's personnel received firm orders not to say anything to anybody about the attack, and the naval inquiry was conducted in such a way as to earn it the name of "coverup".[53]

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, said that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship that the Israelis knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of A. Jay Cristol's book The Liberty Incident, which Boston said was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts", Boston prepared and signed an affidavit in which he said that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that Boston and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate.[69] On the issue Boston wrote, in part:

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487249)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487343)

This was a huge news story and this ugly ogre taking advantage of famous actresses is good material for a skit. Even if it wasn't a skit they would usually rip on him during the news update part

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487003)

Who is upset about this: Jews or anti-Jews? And why?

Are women who are sensitive to sexual assault upset that SNL didn't bring it up? If so why?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487340)

CNN masquerades as a news station and is actually a propaganda wing of the DNC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34487507)

Let's make this plain: there is not and will be no "consistency", because there are Two Teams, red and blue. The two teams hate each other and want to bring each other down by any means necessary. SNL is team blue and so is Harvey. Nuff said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34488089)

My theory, based on this anecdote, is that SNL cast members are marginal, replacement-value movie actors perpetually in the hunt/on the cusp of breaking into the movies (obviously, many of them do get a shot at tinseltown, such as the all-female ghostbusters project). As such, they have the most to lose by pissing off show biz elites -- including by going after guys currently going down in flames with sex scandals. (It's not Cosby and Harvey W they worry about; it's the signal it sends to friends of men like those, survivors who might resent the pile-on and seek revenge. Harvey has a brother Bob, for example.)

It's not necessary for Lorne to be a member of an evil Jew cabal -- he could just be trying to protect those of his cast members who are still trying to maek it from small screen to big screen. And it's best for cast morale for Lorne to be the bad guy and say "no HW jokes", rather than for, say, Kate McKinnon to shirk and pull punches.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758510&forum_id=2#34489128)