I  think she comes across as a lovely bloke.

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth..."

What's "the truth" in this case that you seem to be suggesting you have knowledge about?

 

Then you have misinterpreted. I posed a question, " Why should people such as Owens be able to publish potentially libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth .... ?"

16 minutes ago, transam said:

I totally agree, Raymond............

 

Morning, Trans. Thanks. Hope you're well?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

14 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth..."

What's "the truth" in this case that you seem to be suggesting you have knowledge about?

 

Then you have misinterpreted. I posed a question, " Why should people such as Owens be able to publish potentially libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth .... ?"

No, I misinterpreted nothing; by posing your question you are suggesting that there is no truth in her allegations. 

On 9/19/2025 at 7:26 AM, Andre0720 said:

Vitriol from Candace Owens triggered vitriol in related comments in this forum.

 

People just love vitriol...

Well they do on this forum!!😄

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I misinterpreted nothing; by posing your question you are suggesting that there is no truth in her allegations. 

She had three kids. So there are birth certificates, which require the provision of medical birth certificates established by the hospital or clinic. Three times during around 10 years.🙂

12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I misinterpreted nothing; by posing your question you are suggesting that there is no truth in her allegations. 

 

Could my question have been constructed better to avoid ambiguity? Would it benefited from better punctuation? Yes.

 

Perhaps due to my poor sentence construction, you interpreted my question to have an unintended meaning. An excusable error. That should have been the end of it, but you insist that you are not mistaken.

 

Apparently you know better than I do what I meant🤦

How about a simple chromosome test showing xx, xy or abnormal? That should do the trick.

54 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Morning, Trans. Thanks. Hope you're well?

I am fine.........☺️

On 9/19/2025 at 1:51 AM, Oliver Holzerfilled said:

The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks.

Not many french in the 60-70 years old who speaks to much English, so I guess it is naturally selection of members here who actually speaks and write english

On 9/19/2025 at 8:59 AM, JonnyF said:

 

I believe that is abuse of a position of trust at the very least, quite possibly something much more serious.

 

Would that be anything like a personally admitted abuse of a position as a..........beauty pageant host. Purely hypothetical of course.

6 hours ago, candide said:

She had three kids. So there are birth certificates, which require the provision of medical birth certificates established by the hospital or clinic. Three times during around 10 years.🙂

Transgender people are capable of giving birth. They have a functioning uterus and ovaries.

 

However, giving birth to three children in a row would be stretching probabilities.

 

Candace Owens strikes me as an Alex Jones clone, anything for publicity.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Transgender people are capable of giving birth.

As far as I am concerned only a human born as a woman is capable of giving birth!

On 9/18/2025 at 5:01 PM, angryguy said:

Are you french? It would explain alot

You are a trump rube and that explains EVERYTHING……who cares what that auntie Tom Candice Owins has to say and furthermore why all the intense interest in this leaders bedroom?im thinking there’s a lot of closeted gay boys around…..

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Transgender people are capable of giving birth. They have a functioning uterus and ovaries.

 

However, giving birth to three children in a row would be stretching probabilities.

 

😄 I see what you did there.  Or did you?

Candace' claim that Brigitte was born a man is outrageous.

 

How was there room for the fedora?

7 hours ago, RayC said:

For the record, my feelings towards Owens have nothing to do with her race, sex, religion, political inclination or any other personal attribute. If she has concrete evidence to support her claim, then she has nothing to worry about.

 

That's what they all say.

 

Don't tell me, you have a good friend who just happens to be a black woman 😃.

 

You're not fooling anyone Ray. We see.

Madame Macron has had 3 natural children, all 3 look very much like her. 
Apart from that, it is hurtful and downright nasty to say such things. If it happened to you and your kids whom you love, how would that make you feel ? Disgusting sensation seeking so called journalist. 

2 minutes ago, geisha said:

Madame Macron has had 3 natural children, all 3 look very much like her. 
Apart from that, it is hurtful and downright nasty to say such things. If it happened to you and your kids whom you love, how would that make you feel ? Disgusting sensation seeking so called journalist. 

Even if they didn't look like her, it would be nearly impossible.

 

The only way for a born male to officially have a kid is to find an unwanted and unregistered newborn, and to forge a fake medical birth certificate. One time, it's already very unlikely; three times, it's nearly impossible. On top of it, who may be dumb enough to do that instead of simply adopting kids? 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's what they all say.

 

Don't tell me, you have a good friend who just happens to be a black woman 😃.

 

You're not fooling anyone Ray. We see.

 

I know a few black women and a few black blokes as well. Wasn't unusual being brought up in South London.

 

Isn't about time you brought out your sarcastic 'Diversity is our friend' quote again? Not that you've got anything against minorities. Perish the thought.

 

I'm not the one trying to fool people, Jonny.

11 hours ago, candide said:

11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I misinterpreted nothing; by posing your question you are suggesting that there is no truth in her allegations. 

She had three kids. So there are birth certificates, which require the provision of medical birth certificates established by the hospital or clinic. Three times during around 10 years.🙂

What are you telling me that for, I made no suggestions about her sex.

7 hours ago, Lee65 said:

 

😄 I see what you did there.  Or did you?

No.

On 9/19/2025 at 7:09 AM, ukrules said:

Well a simple ultrasound scan showing all the usual female parts would certainly get the detractors to shut up

 

If you can prove you have the 'full suite' of female organs then that's it - definitive proof.

 

For the less enlightened I'm talking of the womb, ovaries and fallopian tubes.....

Oh. You mean no sausage scars downstairs?🙃🙃

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I know a few black women and a few black blokes as well. Wasn't unusual being brought up in South London.

 

You met Lammy and Abbott at the ANTIFA rally? Awesome. Did you get an autograph? 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Isn't about time you brought out your sarcastic 'Diversity is our friend' quote again? Not that you've got anything against minorities. Perish the thought.

 

Never said that. Please provide evidence by quoting me or immediately apologise.

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I'm not the one trying to fool people, Jonny.

 

Quote me as requested above. If you cannot do that - you are clearly trying to fool people. 

54 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You met Lammy and Abbott at the ANTIFA rally? Awesome. Did you get an autograph? 

 

Why would you think that three English individuals (Lammy, Abbott and myself) who live in London would meet at a rally held in the US, and that I would ask for their autographs? What a bizarre remark.

 

54 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Never said that. Please provide evidence by quoting me or immediately apologise.

 

 

Quote me as requested above. If you cannot do that - you are clearly trying to fool people. 

 

I did indeed misquote you. (One of) your favourite sayings is not a sarcastic, "Diversity is our friend" as I stated in my previous post but a sarcastic, "Diversity is our greatest strength". One example given below.

 

----------------

 

From a thread entitled, 'Migrants in taxpayer-funded UK hotels accused of rape, assault, theft, and other crimes', your post dated July 20:

 

"More likely caught but either not charged or not reported.

 

It's all for the greater good. DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH (my caps). Nothing must interfere with the globalist narrative"

 

-----------------

 

I withdraw my original comment unreservedly and apologise wholeheartedly. I do hope that my original error hasn't caused you too much discomfort. 

 

Yes, one of us is clearly trying to fool people, Jonny, but it's not me: You can't hide behind semantics, the truth is there for all to see.

Sorry for the delay. Here's a museum worthy piece of art consisting of two ladies which after thoughtful consideration is named Carrying the Other:

 

 

This work begins as something deceptively simple: a black T-shirt. Yet on its surface, two worlds collide. A young woman, captured in a polished photographic portrait, gazes steadily outward with composure and poise. Across her chest, printed as though carried in her very body, appears another image: an older figure, solemn, reflective, framed by the bold red border and declarative text of a TIME magazine cover naming her “Man of the Year.”

 

At first glance, these two figures could not be more different. One embodies youth, freshness, and immediacy; the other, age, authority, and the weight of experience. But the juxtaposition does not settle into contrast alone. Instead, it produces an open field of interpretations that shift with each viewer.

 

For some, the pairing suggests mother and child — the younger woman carrying her elder in an act of protection and continuity. For others, the caption “Man of the Year” reorients the reading toward father and daughter, with the younger figure literally bearing the legacy of patriarchal authority. Still others may see in the combination a commentary on media itself: the way images are circulated, labeled, and consumed, regardless of gender or truth.

 

The key to the work lies in its ambiguity. It refuses a single meaning.

 

Like an empty bag on a Bangkok street — an object whose form attracts attention, but whose value is determined entirely by context — the T-shirt is both vessel and provocation. It invites the viewer to project their own associations, memories, and cultural frameworks onto it.

 

In this way, the shirt transcends its materiality. It becomes a mirror of perception. The young woman does not only wear an image; she bears its weight, its history, its misreadings, and its possibilities. The older figure, meanwhile, is both carried and transformed, seen anew through the frame of another body.

 

What emerges is not a fixed statement but a living dialogue: between youth and age, surface and depth, individual and legacy, self and media. The shirt is not merely a garment; it is a site of meaning-making, as fluid and varied as the streets it walks down.

 

In its refusal to close down interpretation, this work achieves what art does best: it asks us to look again, to look deeper, and to see not just the image, but the act of seeing itself.

 

Personal note:

 

I wish to clarify my position regarding the matter at hand. I do not speak in defense of Ms. Owens, nor do I speak on behalf of President and Mrs. Macron. My perspective is that of an observer.

 

The case brought by the Macrons in Delaware falls under United States defamation law. This legal framework is centered on the question of proven damage — and, in cases involving public figures, whether such damage arose from statements made with “actual malice.” This is the central legal issue.

 

It is important to note what this case does not cover. It does not address the United Kingdom, either before or after 2013; it does not address France; nor does it address Thailand. Each of these jurisdictions operates under its own distinct laws and standards of defamation, and they are not at issue in the Delaware proceedings.

 

The current atmosphere around the matter has, unfortunately, become somewhat polluted. Public discussion has been dominated by sensational questions — such as speculation about gender identity — that lie outside the scope of the legal action. While such themes may attract media attention, they do not define the legal claim, which remains narrowly concerned with the question of damage under U.S. law.

 

Video of the old boy parallel parking will suffice. Can't get much more scientific than that.

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Why would you think that three English individuals (Lammy, Abbott and myself) who live in London would meet at a rally held in the US, and that I would ask for their autographs? What a bizarre remark.

 

 

I did indeed misquote you. (One of) your favourite sayings is not a sarcastic, "Diversity is our friend" as I stated in my previous post but a sarcastic, "Diversity is our greatest strength". One example given below.

 

----------------

 

From a thread entitled, 'Migrants in taxpayer-funded UK hotels accused of rape, assault, theft, and other crimes', your post dated July 20:

 

"More likely caught but either not charged or not reported.

 

It's all for the greater good. DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH (my caps). Nothing must interfere with the globalist narrative"

 

-----------------

 

I withdraw my original comment unreservedly and apologise wholeheartedly. I do hope that my original error hasn't caused you too much discomfort. 

 

Yes, one of us is clearly trying to fool people, Jonny, but it's not me: You can't hide behind semantics, the truth is there for all to see.

so you did misquote him

 

ya talking rubbish 

5 hours ago, EastBayRay said:

so you did misquote him

 

ya talking rubbish 

 

Yes I did misquote him but I guess the context in which that retraction was made went over your head.