aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

And saying "raids don't solve the problem" is like saying that arresting murderers doesn't solve the murder problem. Of course not. It's not supposed to "solve" the problem, just make them happen a lot less often.

---

Except the victims in a murder are dead and murderers are rarely part of a larger group. The victims in trafficking are alive and often victimized again because they are left without support or resources and the networks that allow trafficking are intact.

---

And none of that refutes anything I said.

Rape victims aren't dead, theft victims aren't dead, assault victims aren't dead. Yet it is still worthwhile going after all of those criminals because we want less of that stuff happening.

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't ALSO go after the networks and support victims.

---

I didn't say to not arrest traffickers. I said that raids are not the solution to trafficking. Not even close. They can cause bigger problems than they solve when done wrong.

---

Nobody said raids are the "solution'. But they do help.

And what do you consider "doing it wrong"? Shooting everybody in the room? I think these guys are pretty squared away on not doing it "wrong". It's not like they are Dateline NBC.

---

Conducting a raid, saying you liberated kids, and then doing almost nothing to help get those kids care and support so that they don't wind up victims again is doing it wrong. Sort of like what Ballard and other groups like IJM have done.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

---

Good God that is your claim?

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

I don't blame therapists for not breaking into houses to rescue abused kids. That's not their job either. People should do what they are good at. I don't get pissed at my auto mechanic for failing to install a new motherboard on my PC. Maybe because I'm not desperately trying to find something senseless to blame him for.

LOL

---

Oh, my bad. I thought you were interested in stopping human trafficking. Clearly not, since just doing raids doesn't actually stop trafficking. At all.

---

Back to this? Where did I say "just doing raids"? Oh that's right, I didn't. In fact, I said (and you quoted right here in this post) the opposite:

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't ALSO go after the networks and support victims.

---

And the notion that THIS ONE GUY is responsible for EVERY aspect of the war on child trafficking is idiotic. Your criticism of him is as senseless as blaming Oskar Schindler for not defeating the entire German war machine by himself.


No wonder you fled F16. I forgot how bad you are at this.

---

Can you provide evidence that just raiding small time hoods and releasing the trafficked people back to the environment that led them to be trafficked in the first place actually prevents or limits trafficking? I've already provided discussions of the problems with Ballard's approach. The people who have spent their careers researching and working on the issue have explained their problems with Ballard's approach. You aren't actually addressing that. You're just asserting that raids disconnected from any larger program are effective. Prove it.

As far as Ballards approach goes, who cares in terms of the movie. It can still be a good story and have a good message without being 100% realistic. There have been countless based on a true story bio-pics that white washed the lives of complete pieces of ****, and no body whined about them when they came out.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

And saying "raids don't solve the problem" is like saying that arresting murderers doesn't solve the murder problem. Of course not. It's not supposed to "solve" the problem, just make them happen a lot less often.

---

Except the victims in a murder are dead and murderers are rarely part of a larger group. The victims in trafficking are alive and often victimized again because they are left without support or resources and the networks that allow trafficking are intact.

---

And none of that refutes anything I said.

Rape victims aren't dead, theft victims aren't dead, assault victims aren't dead. Yet it is still worthwhile going after all of those criminals because we want less of that stuff happening.

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't ALSO go after the networks and support victims.

---

I didn't say to not arrest traffickers. I said that raids are not the solution to trafficking. Not even close. They can cause bigger problems than they solve when done wrong.

---

Nobody said raids are the "solution'. But they do help.

And what do you consider "doing it wrong"? Shooting everybody in the room? I think these guys are pretty squared away on not doing it "wrong". It's not like they are Dateline NBC.

---

Conducting a raid, saying you liberated kids, and then doing almost nothing to help get those kids care and support so that they don't wind up victims again is doing it wrong. Sort of like what Ballard and other groups like IJM have done.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/22/the-new-abolitionists-mexico-dominican-republic-human-trafficking-mormon-our/

---

Good God that is your claim?

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

I don't blame therapists for not breaking into houses to rescue abused kids. That's not their job either. People should do what they are good at. I don't get pissed at my auto mechanic for failing to install a new motherboard on my PC. Maybe because I'm not desperately trying to find something senseless to blame him for.

LOL

---

Oh, my bad. I thought you were interested in stopping human trafficking. Clearly not, since just doing raids doesn't actually stop trafficking. At all.

---

Back to this? Where did I say "just doing raids"? Oh that's right, I didn't. In fact, I said (and you quoted right here in this post) the opposite:

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't ALSO go after the networks and support victims.

---

And the notion that THIS ONE GUY is responsible for EVERY aspect of the war on child trafficking is idiotic. Your criticism of him is as senseless as blaming Oskar Schindler for not defeating the entire German war machine by himself.


No wonder you fled F16. I forgot how bad you are at this.

---

Can you provide evidence that just raiding small time hoods and releasing the trafficked people back to the environment that led them to be trafficked in the first place actually prevents or limits trafficking? I've already provided discussions of the problems with Ballard's approach. The people who have spent their careers researching and working on the issue have explained their problems with Ballard's approach. You aren't actually addressing that. You're just asserting that raids disconnected from any larger program are effective. Prove it.

---

AGAIN, I never asserted raids alone would fix the problem. Clearly these kids need years of therapy and support. It's just not UP TO THIS GUY TO PERSONALLY PROVIDE EVERYTHING. He DOES work with law enforcement and raises money for after after care programs. I literally have no idea what the hell else you want him to do. Oh, that's right, be a liberal.

You act like he literally raids homes, and then drops them off outside the front door. It's not like he could lock them up in his basement for 10 years and force them to go to therapy, school, etc. It's not his fault if some of the victims later go back to sex work. If anything, their (likely liberal) therapists failed them. Not the one guy who rescued them in the first place.
He's doing more than you have ever done and will ever do. The fact that you and other libs are criticizing him merely because he is conservative is pathetic. It makes me think there is something to the accusations that the left are defenders of pedophiles. You guys do it a lot. Not just in this thread.

(Regarding proof. Governments agencies all over the world (including the FBI) are doing raids just like Ballard. The onus is on you to prove that what they all do is ineffective. That it's better to just let these kids be abused. The fact that you doubt that imprisoning traffickers and "Johns" is effective is indicative of the delusion of liberalism.)

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

TCTTS said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Are we really playing gotcha here by trying to say that because he didn't say Qanon by NAME, that his peddling of all the horse**** conspiracies is somehow better and different?

I mean is that what this argument has devolved to at this point?

---

This is what they've been reduced to. The goal posts have been moved so many times, and their pretzel logic has become so twisted, that I don't even know what to say anymore.

---

So where did Caviezel or Ballard introduce Qanon into their marketing?

---

And with that, I think we've officially reached the end of our time here.

This question has been asked and answered what feels like a hundred times now, to the point of absurdity, where I just can't believe that someone is seriously, genuinely asking it again now.

We have to be getting played at this point.

You guys have fun!

---

How many times has this guy been done with this thread?

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

I never said "well they've been rescued so **** 'em". You are a liar like always.

He rescues them and then turns them over to existing aftercare programs. And OAR runs aftercare programs in 30 countries. And in places where they don't, he turns them over to local aftercare programs. What the hell else would you have him do? Just let them stay sex slaves unless he himself acts as their personal therapist?

And who has problems with Ballard's approach? Vice? Rolling Stone? Other liberals like you? Who gives a **** what they think. Their opinion is as valuable as a stain on Biden's diaper.

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis. It's a long road, but step 1 is getting them out of the situation and to that road. Nothing happens without that

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

Ballard's org has a whole aftercare program.....what is your point?

Imagine being so triggered by politics that you'll ****-talk a guy trying to stop sex trafficking.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Imagine being so triggered by politics that you'll ****-talk a guy trying to stop sex trafficking.

---

Well, that guy's just not doing enough. It's the guys on the internet telling other guys how it should be done that are the real heroes.

Saw the movie last night with my wife. It was maybe 80% full on a Monday night in my town…which is crazy. Lots of adults and seniors in the audience. Audible sniffles from many.

I'm thankful the movie was made. I'm much more thankful people are waking up to this issue and going after it. The post credit message was genius. We took up that cause and are spreading the word.

Watch the movie. Take as many as you can. And watch to the end of the credits.

JCA1 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Imagine being so triggered by politics that you'll ****-talk a guy trying to stop sex trafficking.

---

Well, that guy's just not doing enough. It's the guys on the internet telling other guys how it should be done that are the real heroes.

---

i would say I lost a lot of respect for a few posters out here, but …

TCTTS said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

And so it begins. Again.

---

What begins? Please tell the class how "Q" directly incited January 6th…apparently the most horrific day in the history of the world.

---

https://abcnews.go.com/US/qanon-emerges-recurring-theme-criminal-cases-tied-us/story?id=75347445

https://www.insider.com/capitol-riots-qanon-protest-conspiracy-theory-washington-dc-protests-2021-1

https://www.businessinsider.com/qanon-trump-capitol-attack-belief-precursor-the-storm-2021-1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-capitol-congress-riot-trump-b1784460.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_capitol-riot-exposed-qanons-violent-potential/6203967.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/qanon-capitol-siege-trump/

https://theweek.com/politics/1000962/the-qanon-contradiction

https://theconversation.com/qanon-and-the-storm-of-the-u-s-capitol-the-offline-effect-of-online-conspiracy-theories-152815

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents_involving_QAnon

Also, see the HBO documentary thread linked to above, which outlines it all great detail.

---

I knew it. You watched the doc and think you know what Q is about. Read the posts and see for yourself but you won't. You don't have the wherewithal or intellectual honesty to do so it seems. You are chasing your tail sir.

---

You're an admitted Q believer/supporter, which makes you one of the most gullible people on this entire board. You realize I'm not going to listen to or take seriously a single thing you have to say, right? I might as well be talking to a first grader.

---

Well go to flames then, and take the enablers with you
Awesome movie.

Tim Ballard shreds CNN for slandering Sound of Freedom as a "QAnon film."

"It’s embarrassing and simply grotesque for this guy who knows nothing to start throwing out terms like Qanon and connecting it to a real story." pic.twitter.com/d9WwhBc93y

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 10, 2023

Uh oh.. He's on Fox News. That makes him even worse than the traffickers.

The hypocrisy of some on this forum is just amazing. Conservatives have for years had to suck it up and make moral compromises if they wanted to watch pretty much anything coming out of Hollywood. Movies with actors they disagree with politically, forced woke content, woke marketing, etc. We've even been told to "suck it up" and watch it anyway by the very same people on this forum who are now crying about this movie. All because of how some associated with it have "marketed" the movie. Some of you'll really need to open your eyes to how idiotic this all sounds.

And yes, of course you have every right to complain and boycott the movie, etc. As do we. But we're not the ones who for years have been saying just shut up and watch the movie.

And this movie isn't even about anything controversial! Just imagine if it was about gun rights, abortion or some other actual divisive topic!

aTmAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

---

No, it's not. Multiple links have been provided which interview people working in the field who have problems with Ballard's approach and the lack of support his organization provides. The fact that he seems way more obsessed with raids and fund raising than the harder work of support and that he frequently stretches the truth. You haven't actually addressed any of that. Instead you just assert **** with no actual evidence. Though that is your actual MO.

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem."

---

This is extremely disingenuous.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

---

No, it's not. Multiple links have been provided which interview people working in the field who have problems with Ballard's approach and the lack of support his organization provides. The fact that he seems way more obsessed with raids and fund raising than the harder work of support and that he frequently stretches the truth. You haven't actually addressed any of that. Instead you just assert **** with no actual evidence. Though that is your actual MO.

---

Again links from Vice and Rolling Stone? You might as well ask the Cartels what they think of him.

There are people who criticize Jesus. Sometimes people are morons. You should stop listening to (and voting for) morons.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Tim Ballard shreds CNN for slandering Sound of Freedom as a "QAnon film."

"It’s embarrassing and simply grotesque for this guy who knows nothing to start throwing out terms like Qanon and connecting it to a real story." pic.twitter.com/d9WwhBc93y

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 10, 2023

---

This guy says more than he doesnt say. The movie wasnt about elites buying children. It was about (presumably) cartels, who make a lot of their revenue trafficking children.

The fact that he is attacking the movie that he has never seen as being an attack on "elites" says...quite a bit. And says a lot about why people might be attacking this movie.

---

Bottom line, this movie about human traficking is making CNN uncomfortable. Why would that be? What would make them so uncomfortable that they would attack and lie about a movie that depicts the horrors of human trafficking?

How could any journalist live with themselves after doing this? Truly, journalists at CNN are protecting a known scumbag and partaker in human traficking (Hunter Biden) while attacking a movie that aims to try and curtail human traficking.

This is the state of complete degradation our country is in.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

---

No, it's not. Multiple links have been provided which interview people working in the field who have problems with Ballard's approach and the lack of support his organization provides. The fact that he seems way more obsessed with raids and fund raising than the harder work of support and that he frequently stretches the truth. You haven't actually addressed any of that. Instead you just assert **** with no actual evidence. Though that is your actual MO.

---

Again links from Vice and Rolling Stone? You might as well ask the Cartels what they think of him.

There are people who criticize Jesus. Sometimes people are morons. You should stop listening to (and voting for) morons.

---

Not just Vice and Rolling Stone. And the articles talk to named individuals and groups involved in fighting human trafficking. And again you are providing no evidence. Just bald assertions.

---

LOL.. talk about bald assertions. Look in the mirror.

Of course one can find individuals who criticize others. Just look at all the people who criticize Tom Brady as a QB. Doesn't mean their opinion is worth a damn.

Sorta like yours.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Caviezel went on Charlie Kirk's podcast yesterday and again spread QAnon conspiracies about adrenochrome.

---

You are very dim.

As I've said, adrenochrome is not a "conspiracy" and the mention of it is not automatically Qanon.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

---

No, it's not. Multiple links have been provided which interview people working in the field who have problems with Ballard's approach and the lack of support his organization provides. The fact that he seems way more obsessed with raids and fund raising than the harder work of support and that he frequently stretches the truth. You haven't actually addressed any of that. Instead you just assert **** with no actual evidence. Though that is your actual MO.

---

Again links from Vice and Rolling Stone? You might as well ask the Cartels what they think of him.

There are people who criticize Jesus. Sometimes people are morons. You should stop listening to (and voting for) morons.

---

Not just Vice and Rolling Stone. And the articles talk to named individuals and groups involved in fighting human trafficking. And again you are providing no evidence. Just bald assertions.

---

Coming from the person arguing that these trafficked individuals would just be better off remaining trafficked since they are likely to fall back into trafficking because their environments are so conducive to trafficking.

Your position is untenable and disgusting.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Caviezel went on Charlie Kirk's podcast yesterday and again spread QAnon conspiracies about adrenochrome.

---

You and a few others show a lot of aggression and animus towards the invisible yet somehow omnipresent and seemingly powerful "Q". You've spent a lot of time and energy in this thread doing so. Not so much towards sex trafficking of children. Please understand I'm not making any insinuations or accusations, I just find that odd.

Jim Caviezel quote

Quote:

---

"I want this to be so huge that they're forced to look at this. I lost my agents over this. Yep, 17 years, 15 years. I lost my lawyer over this, and now I understand why all these actors didn't want to do the movie because of this. Listen, you do 'Schindler's List' 50 years later, you're a hero. Try doing 'Schindler's List' when the real Nazis are right there. Understand how that becomes more dangerous? I don't understand why people are willing to let children be hurt, but in this time, Hollywood says, 'No, no, let's kick that down fifty years from now and then [see where we're at]. That's crap."

---

having something to lose is a prerequisite for courage. Both Caviezel and Ballard have taken significant risks to their livelihoods and in Ballard's case, to his life, to try and help the innocent and bring justice to the worst of the worst.

Yet the only thing you hear is how they are conspiratorial and attacking the left. I will repeat that I don't care about the race, religion, or political opinions of the offenders, I only care that they are stopped. Why should it matter if the people who are stopping them are aligned with me politically or not? Why should it matter if the offenders are politically aligned with me or not?

I identify as one who cares more about the children and their innocence, how do you identify?

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This you?

Quote:

---

Why should it be on him to provide or pay for the kids care and support afterwards? That's what therapists are for. Should a cop, who rescues a battered woman from her abusive husband, be on the hook to make sure she gets care and support and doesn't go back to her husband? Hell no. That's somebody else's job.

---

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who have already been failed by society and your approach, "Well, they've been "rescued," so **** 'em. Someone else's problem." There isn't a "someone else" unless a lot of work has been done through different channels to provide one. You keep trying to ignore reality because it's not nice and tidy like the image Ballard keeps trying to convey and like this film wants to convey. It's part of why a lot of people working on this problem have had issues with Ballard's approach for years.

---

These people have suffered unimaginable abuse and any recovery is going to be a massive hill to climb and filled with issues, setbacks, and challenges due to the psychological trauma. This post seems like a gross mischaracterization of Ballard's work with zero factual basis

---

That's his MO.

---

No, it's not. Multiple links have been provided which interview people working in the field who have problems with Ballard's approach and the lack of support his organization provides. The fact that he seems way more obsessed with raids and fund raising than the harder work of support and that he frequently stretches the truth. You haven't actually addressed any of that. Instead you just assert **** with no actual evidence. Though that is your actual MO.

---

Again links from Vice and Rolling Stone? You might as well ask the Cartels what they think of him.

There are people who criticize Jesus. Sometimes people are morons. You should stop listening to (and voting for) morons.

---

Not just Vice and Rolling Stone. And the articles talk to named individuals and groups involved in fighting human trafficking. And again you are providing no evidence. Just bald assertions.

---

Coming from the person arguing that these trafficked individuals would just be better off remaining trafficked since they are likely to fall back into trafficking because their environments are so conducive to trafficking.

Your position is untenable and disgusting.

---

I'm constantly amazed at the spectrum of human reading comprehension skills.