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.
“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.