Posted on 12/06/2025 9:40:18 AM PST by Eleutheria5
“I logically do not care about your internally logical irrelevancy.”
We both know you can’t make a logical argument.
I just did. You continue to embarrass Mr. Spock, but are incapable of being embarassed yourself by your utter stupidity. Go back to college and demand a refund. Talmud is the place where you learn real logic.
A dog chases his tail around and around and around. He catches it in his teeth and tells his master, “You can’t catch my tail! Only I can!” The master responds, “You are useless on the hunt, and instead just chase your tail around. Good luck,” and takes the dog to the pound.
You logically prove that Neal has a checkered past, and then illogically use that to dismiss her present incarnation as a committed Israeli American ex pat. “Impossible!” You say. “She has a checkered past!” That dog does not hunt.
Belief in personal redemption is a shared belief among both Christians and Jews, but that does not even occur to you. Instead, you chase your tail around and glory in catching it, because you used logic and evidence to support a fact, but one that you use to reach to a fallacious and illogical conclusion.
The end. Find someone else to troll. I’m done.
Neal is a registered Democrat. She described her political views as “a little libertarian, a lot liberal, mostly progressive”.
You should really quit while you’re behind.
You are intellectually dishonest.
You wrote:
“You logically prove that Neal has a checkered past, and then illogically use that to dismiss her present incarnation as a committed Israeli American ex pat. “Impossible!” You say. “She has a checkered past!” That dog does not hunt.”
I never doubted that she is a “committed Israeli American ex pat” - whatever the hell that means. Seriously, you’re creating straw men.
Yes, actually it is.
“I never doubted that she is a “committed Israeli American ex pat” - whatever the hell that means. Seriously, you’re creating straw men.”
No, you are refusing to acknowledge the relevance of that fact. Consistent with being a “committed Israeli American ex pat,” she stuck it out when the going was tough, and stayed despite the war and the missiles and terror attacks. That is not what an insincere hollyweirdo does. That is consistent with a change in outlook and personality. In other words, no longer progressive, and probably no longer a mean, slandering b!tch, as you characterise her.
I’m not even saying that I like her much. During the interview, she dramatized her feelings and those of her former friends with strange noises and faces. Perhaps that’s some sort of drama class exercise. I don’t know. From the getgo, I find her annoying. But what’s right is right, and a person changing and redeeming themselves should be celebrated, and their sincerity should not have aspersions cast upon it without evidence, other than past behavior.
But instead you’re obsessing about some supposed “claim” she’s not even making. “Seriously (your pet word),” your entire argument is inane and morally wrong.
Now either watch the f@#$ing video, or don’t. But STFU already. I’m no longer interested in your comments. You’re seriously tedious, and obviously insincere.
I admire your work ethic toward building and fleshing out a straw man. Putting that much effort into intellectual dishonesty requires effort. Way to go, bud!
STFU and go away. We’re done. Go anally rape a straw man.
Do we believe this?
“The DA investigator who told her: “You’re a Jew — it’s always about the money””
He may have said it in order to test how she would respond to hostile cross-examination, though no judge would allow such an inflammatory statement on the record. He may have said it because he believed it. I don’t know. I wasn’t in the room. The second possibility is likely, but unprovable. On the other hand, he would not say such a thing in public. She says that he said he wanted to talk to her in a deserted laundromat, and while there, away from prying ears and recording devices, she said that he said that, but when she explained to him that she had plenty of money and fame already, he then promised to investigate the stalker. He’s dead, so can’t say what happened. If a body would say something like that, they wouldn’t want the person he was saying it to to be able prove it.
In New York, among the echelons of the Democrap Party and the Left generally, antiSemitism is pretty blatant behind closed doors, and not just about Israel. Nobody calls them out on it, not even Jews. Jews fatefully vote Democrap there, probably to disprove the stereotype about our being smart. I was raised to vote D, but got red-pilled later in life.
When I was four years old, and our parents were out of the house, and the sitter was drunk and passed out on the couch, my older brother repeatedly bashed my head against a wall while lecturing me about his grievances against me. I can’t prove that, either. But I remember it clearly. Abusers don’t want witnesses around.
Or, he may not have said it.
We don’t know.
Earlier you wrote: “Talmud is the place where you learn real logic.”
Now you write: “STFU and go away. We’re done. Go anally rape a straw man.”
Was that second comment very logical?
Very.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.