6 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-12-03 1310 +Twit Wit

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-12-03 1310 +Twit Wit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEk14JdAS9Q&lc=z12wtpl4kpm1jvn4z04cibtqmyyngprrhn00k
https://pastebin.com/xtMxHKgt
__

+Twit Wit __ So when "Jeff C" makes a nutty connection (the "Doritos connection") it caused you to "lol" *but when I applied the same standard to the same guy who made that nutty Doritos connection* you say that the "implication is sick" and that it's an "insult to his audience"?







Is it only sick and insulting to point something out about a person (even though it's in accordance with the rules set out by that person) when it happens to someone you like? Because when it happens to someone you don't know or you don't like - it has caused you to "lol".







Furthermore - if you can see that there is *no clear connection* between the "Doritos chip" and the FBI symbol (e.g., "who really knows") then you are acknowledging that "Jeff C" has *insinuated* to his audience something *very sinister* about people who are most likely *innocent*.







And when "Jeff C" does this it makes you "lol"? But when it is done *to* "Jeff C" in order to demonstrate a point - it upsets you? How can you possibly justify the (immense) discrepancy between these two reactions?!


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.