co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, September 20, 2025
As Said, Candace Was Certainly Not Trying to Smudge Charlie's Name
Officer Tatum BREAKS His Silence on Candace Owens' Allegations on Charlie Kirk
Tamera Nealy | 19.IX.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96-YXBuVDKc
A certain pastor who had been that of Charlie Kirk went after Candace for "denigrating" his memory over saying he was going towards Catholic conversion.
You say she's "denigrating" his memory for going against the atrocities Israel does in Gaza and stating Charlie Kirk was withdrawing his previous support.
As becoming Catholic and not supporting what Israel does in Gaza (most of it) is not Candace Owen's "black" but her (and my) "white" ... it's pretty obvious that such a way of seing it totally misrepresents Candace Owens.
You may think she and I are wrong. You may think Charlie Kirk was wrong if he was joining us on those issues. You may think Candace Owens was wrong about Charlie Kirk. BUT you cannot pretend she would have thought Charlie Kirk joining us would be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment