They've taken out a contract to kill Candace. Why would they do that if they intended to go to court?
Charlie Kirk - so what now ?
- Thread starter the_seeker
- 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.
- Status
Come back to me in 3 months. It will be just another example of "I told you so", and you being too slow to catch on.
okay so when she's still alive in 3 months you will admit you were wrong right?
We don't need to convince anyone, simply warn them and what they do with that is on them.
That's what she claims, right? Is there any evidence other than her word?
No, we will thank God for answering our prayers to keep her safe. Why would we want to see her killed?
I wouldn't want to live with the fact that I supported the pedophiles in power up to the very end. Even if I had been so terribly slow and hardhearted that I couldn't see it for so long, I would hope my legacy would be that in the end, the evidence against them was insurmountable, and I stopped supporting and defending their wicked perversions.
I'm just treating these others who can't yet see as I would like to be treated.
I am too, but I don't bear the burden of feeling responsible for convincing anyone. Free will means that it is up to them what they do with the information.
What evidence?
And just for the sake of argument let's just say hypothetically Ms macron is a man, it's not a crime to marry a transgender person.
Other credible journalists and defenders of free speech saying her claim sounds legit? The French (not to mention Israeli and US) government's record of getting away with assassinations?
Candace Owens' word comes with receipts.
Is it a crime for a 30/40+ year old man to date a 14 or 15 year old boy? My understanding is that's pedophilia in most jurisdictions, including France.
I'm not seeing any receipts here. All I see is hearsay and conjecture.
That's not what the defamation lawsuit is over. It's over the transgender allegations.
The reason that Brigitte's gender matters is that these are sick and evil people (i.e. pedophiles and worse), who obtained their positions of power through deceit. The fact that Brigitte was born a man actually seems to be a very minor issue in the scheme of things, but is presumably what the Macrons are suing over because everything else would be seen for the vice that it is.
well if you're ever being sued for defamation and try to use that as a defense, I would pay money to see the judges reaction
Agree, they want to discredit CO because she spoke truth on the collective punishment being executed.
The Haggee acolytes do like that.
It is clear what she stated was vetted by her lawyers and not likely she would go outside those boundaries.
No one claimed it was. The Macrons are claiming it is slander to say she was born a man. Candace didn't say it was a crime.
The thing is most people make comments and have not even watched any of it nor done independent research.
And remember this was not originally CO's story it was other independent investigative journalists and they won their case in court when they were sued.
As you probably know @Charlesiii it is not possible to have any real conversation with people who know less about the situation than you do.
They just give one line responses of denial as if that means something, lol.
- Status