Candace Owens sued for defamation
- Thread starter Dude653
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, the key word is "they have". They both have published autobiographies therefore it is perfectly legitimate to question something as major as this.
Yes it is. If this debate was about a private citizen who had never run for public office and never published an autobiography you could certainly argue "it is none of your business" one way or the other. But because they have monetized their life story it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to fact check that.
Are you comparing adopting children and being trans to throwing poop at Walmart! That is transphobic and extremely offensive to all those who have adopted kids. That is a Chimpanzee level IQ post.
You should work for the FBI like a a drug sniffing dog, save us the trouble of having to do DNA tests.
Once again a photo of Michelle pregnant, a hospital record of her giving birth, and a DNA test would have put an end to years and years of speculation.
Anyone with functioning common sense would have provided that a long time ago, unless they can't.
Okay, kiddo, imagine someone is playing a big game where they promise to help everyone and follow the rules. The people watching the game—the ones who gave them their job—start asking questions, like, "Are you really playing fair?" If the players don’t answer, the people might think they’re hiding something.
Now, if those players were just regular people, we could say, “That’s private, don’t worry about it.” But they’re not—everyone helped pick them, everyone pays them, and they even sell stories about themselves. So it is people’s business to ask.
And if everything—like doctor's notes or family records—was already out there for everyone to see, people wouldn’t need to ask. But it’s not, so they do.
I feel like I am talking to a five year old.
Let's go to the videotape,
you are the only one who asked to see her genitals, and so by your own admission you are the pervert. I have suggested she could show us hospital records and photos with the two newborn babies and her in the hospital and even DNA records.
Let me clarify, I am not asking for DNA from the two children. I think that is clearly none of our business because they did not run for public office, they were not elected, nor did they publish autobiographies. Also their biography was not an official biography. So I feel they are private people who have every right to say "none of your business".
However, Michelle Obama could provide her DNA which would identify her as a female (or male if the allegations are true). All it would have taken was a simple cheek swab to have put this entire thing to rest.
I agree she is not obligated to unless there was DNA at the site of the man who died at her home that they were trying to identify or unless there is some other crime in which the police were trying to eliminate her as a suspect.
As for what you said, I quoted it verbatim.
perhaps you missed it so I'll quote it again, let the readers decide whether or not you asked to see anyone's genitals.
That is not the only way, DNA of Michelle Obama is definitive proof. I take it basic science was not your strong suit.
This claim of yours is false.
Your claim that I asked to see her genitals is false.
Your claim that you didn't ask to see them is false.
Three strikes you are out, you are untrustworthy.
You also claim that she does not owe us proof of anything. OK, well those asking these questions don't owe anything either, they can continue to ask and continue to question.
You don't get DNA without a court order and she hasn't been accused of a crime
She's on her no obligation to present that either. What part of burden of proof do you not understand?
Fine, it is up to her whether or not to provide DNA to silence the critics.
But if she chooses not to then they can choose not to be silent. This is now the ninth year since Obama's have left office and I don't see anyone being being silenced (except for Joan Rivers). It is completely in her power to silence them and she has chosen not to.
As a result if you don't like these questions, then blame Michelle Obama for not silencing them.
In a court of law she is not required to respond, but in the court of public opinion she is.
Also, if she wished she could sue, but if she did that they would then have the right to demand the DNA evidence. Perhaps the reason she doesn't sue is because she is afraid of a court order for her DNA.