aTmAg 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.

---

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.

---

If another quarterback criticizes Brady I'm likely to at least listen, even if I wind up disagreeing. The articles in question interview people who have been long involved with anti trafficking efforts.

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.

---

HFS.

I need to take a shower after reading your posts. This is just wrong.

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!

---

They legitimately don't know

Sapper Redux said:

---

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.

---

This isn't an argument. I'm starting to remember why you don't/won't/can't post on the politics board anymore.

Just to refresh your memory, since you want to condescend to others. This is your post from the exact same thread on the exact same page:

Quote:

---

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."

---

Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on anyone else's reading comprehension skills.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg 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.

---

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.

---

If another quarterback criticizes Brady I'm likely to at least listen, even if I wind up disagreeing. The articles in question interview people who have been long involved with anti trafficking efforts.

---

I've been heavily involved with one myself for years. Your arguments are crap. I feel like I'm talking to my kids explaining that your head knowledge from reading doesn't compare to the actual muscle memory from doing. Most anti-trafficking orgs don't operate the full spectrum of services and there are groups that operate together to try to cover the services. Don't make perfect the enemy of good.

EVERYTHING I DISAGREE WITH POLITICALLY IS A RIGHT WING MAGA CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg 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.

---

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.

---

If another quarterback criticizes Brady I'm likely to at least listen, even if I wind up disagreeing. The articles in question interview people who have been long involved with anti trafficking efforts.

---

The "he doesn't do EVERYTHING" argument is clearly idiotic and full of crap. Just like blaming Brady because he doesn't also play linebacker.

Obviously, you are desperately trying to find something to criticize him for because he is a conservative, but you are making a fool of yourself (again).

Gigem314 said:

---

I guess I don't understand the animosity toward this film from some.

So the lead actor has personal views some consider fringe and odd? We could say that about a lot of actors. If I based my viewing on that, there's a lot of movies I'd have never seen.

I'll give this a shot because they're trying to bring awareness to a major issue, and it's based on a true story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

---

James Caviezel is a really, really good actor.

He's just kind of an outcast in Hollywood because he's Catholic and conservative and outspoken about those things. And good on him for doing so.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg 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.

---

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.

---

If another quarterback criticizes Brady I'm likely to at least listen, even if I wind up disagreeing. The articles in question interview people who have been long involved with anti trafficking efforts.

---

The "he doesn't do EVERYTHING" argument is clearly idiotic and full of crap. Just like blaming Brady because he doesn't also play linebacker.

Obviously, you are desperately trying to find something to criticize him for because he is a conservative, but you are making a fool of yourself (again).

---

No. Again, reading comprehension would help. The criticisms of his approach have been consistent and clear for years. Well before he became a celebrity. Raids are not the most important part of fighting human trafficking. They are mostly a sideshow. Most victims of human trafficking are inaccessible to the kinds of raids Ballard does. Instead, the victims free themselves and then need a strong system of support to help keep them from the streets, or facing reprisals, and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle and make high value arrests. Again, if you did any ****ing reading you would recognize that this is the criticism of Ballard and his organization: they aren't involved in the work that succeeds. They're interested in the splashy stuff like raids and not above lying about who they rescue and what they do.

Quote:

---

and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle

---

Ahhh…there's the answer! More government! That's the sapper we all know and love. Let's just ignore that many high ranking officials in governments across the world were involved in the entire Epstein ordeal. We'll also ignore our current government bending over backwards to cover up for "Pedo Pete" and his incestual pedophile of a son.

If the answer is social workers and government (which we have an over abundance of) why is this problem worse now than ever before in history?

Quote:

---

and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle

---

Half of this vaunted partnership won't even reveal Epstein's client list that is in their possession.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg 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.

---

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.

---

If another quarterback criticizes Brady I'm likely to at least listen, even if I wind up disagreeing. The articles in question interview people who have been long involved with anti trafficking efforts.

---

The "he doesn't do EVERYTHING" argument is clearly idiotic and full of crap. Just like blaming Brady because he doesn't also play linebacker.

Obviously, you are desperately trying to find something to criticize him for because he is a conservative, but you are making a fool of yourself (again).

---

No. Again, reading comprehension would help. The criticisms of his approach have been consistent and clear for years. Well before he became a celebrity. Raids are not the most important part of fighting human trafficking. They are mostly a sideshow. Most victims of human trafficking are inaccessible to the kinds of raids Ballard does. Instead, the victims free themselves and then need a strong system of support to help keep them from the streets, or facing reprisals, and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle and make high value arrests. Again, if you did any ****ing reading you would recognize that this is the criticism of Ballard and his organization: they aren't involved in the work that succeeds. They're interested in the splashy stuff like raids and not above lying about who they rescue and what they do.

---

Again, common sense would help. To pretend that raids are not worth it because the person conducting the raid does not handle 100% of the spectrum like you want is idiotic. These haters should offer to help and provide their own services if they think he doesn't support the other parts of the spectrum enough. But instead, they go run to Vice to complain. Seems to me it's a jealousy thing.

And the fact that you want to let these kids stay as sex slaves so that a conservative doesn't get credit for something good is disgusting.

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle

---

Half of this vaunted partnership won't even reveal Epstein's client list that is in their possession.

---

He's not very smart.

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle

---

Half of this vaunted partnership won't even reveal Epstein's client list that is in their possession.

---

Government Agencies Breaking The Cycle - Exhibit B

Image of Bill Clinton getting a massage from Jeffrey Epstein victim Chauntae Davis (who accused Epstein of rape during massages) on the infamous 2002 trip to Africa with JE, Maxwell, Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey. Later that night Bill Clinton endorsed Joe Biden at the DNC. pic.twitter.com/nIWvpmS2tB

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 12, 2023

Is this movie good?

Is this movie bad?

I saw it, and it was alright.

It seems like most of the contention on this thread is should this movie have been made....and why.

We dont see the same argument on the Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey thread. That movie is objectively awful, but instead of whining about it, most people ignore it.

Why is the question. Why does sapper et al attack a movie about freeing victims of child trafficking?

It's because she was programmed to. She cant help herself. She downloaded an idea that this movie is bad, so she has to repeat her programming to tell others that this movie is bad, and attempt to discredit it.

What else could she do? Completely ignore it. But she cant.

Sapper Redux said:

---

No. Again, reading comprehension would help. The criticisms of his approach have been consistent and clear for years. Well before he became a celebrity. Raids are not the most important part of fighting human trafficking. They are mostly a sideshow. Most victims of human trafficking are inaccessible to the kinds of raids Ballard does. Instead, the victims free themselves and then need a strong system of support to help keep them from the streets, or facing reprisals, and an extremely strong network linked closely between social workers and government agencies to break the cycle and make high value arrests. Again, if you did any ****ing reading you would recognize that this is the criticism of Ballard and his organization: they aren't involved in the work that succeeds. They're interested in the splashy stuff like raids and not above lying about who they rescue and what they do.

---

The absurdity of this reasoning...is absurd. You're basically saying that because he can't help everyone he shouldn't try to help anyone. To you it doesn't matter if he helps 1, 10 or 100 children. Because he can't help them all he shouldn't be doing it. Just total absurdity. This isn't a problem that requires an either/or type of answer. It's a problem that requires EVERYONE to answer. So step up and demand your liberal government agencies do their part, and let Caviezel/Ballard do theirs.

Maybe you can start here and help convince those government agencies you want to rely on to actually help break that cycle you mention:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-assembly-committee-blocks-bill-making-human-traffickers-kids-prison-life

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.

---

This whole thread is digusting.

It's literally down to one (known leftist) poster who is in fact making the argument you summarized above. Appears everyone except the guy with the man crush on the board sheriff has even decided to bail.

I can't believe I am even reading this garbage. F this board.

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

My wife and I saw the movie this afternoon. It's very good and well done. Very quiet at the end and you could hear a few folks crying. Older man beside me wiped away several tears throughout the movie. Someone began to clap and the entire theater, which was full, stood up and clapped.

I encourage those who haven't seen it to do so.

You see, TCTTS believes it best to not state what you believe so your movie will make more money. Because wrong think is bad even if it directly correlates with the objective of the movie. Dude, you watched a doc that was critical of a movement you know nothing about and took it as gospel. You parrot it out as if you know anything at all and you say we need a villain? You don't even understand what you're attacking. It's pretty sad really. You called folks like Ballard lunatics because you're terrified of something you don't even understand.

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

You going to go see the movie?

This thread.

Tibbers said:

---

You see, TCTTS believes it best to not state what you believe so your movie will make more money. Because wrong think is bad even if it directly correlates with the objective of the movie. Dude, you watched a doc that was critical of a movement you know nothing about and took it as gospel. You parrot it out as if you know anything at all and you say we need a villain? You don't even understand what you're attacking. It's pretty sad really. You called folks like Ballard lunatics because you're terrified of something you don't even understand.

---

There you go again with this strange stalker obsession you have with TCTTS

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

You going to go see the movie?

---

He said he would, no less than 10x

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

You going to go see the movie?

---

He said he would, no less than 10x

---

About as many times as he said he was done with this thread.

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

Good for you.

You're still wrong. Adrenochrome is not exclusive to Qanon. You can parrot what the liars at CNN said until Christmas and it won't make you or them any less full of *****

Caviezel and Ballard have explained that ad nauseum, and the movie has nothing to do with Qanon.

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

You going to go see the movie?

---

He said he would, no less than 10x

---

I don't read everything TCTTS writes. In fact, I usually ignore him.

We're on page 24. I feel like in 1-2 more pages everyone will be in agreement. Both sides are making good points.

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

It looks like TCTTS and the others were correct. Child trafficking is malarkey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/exclusive-bidens-doj-eliminates-language-child-sex-trafficking/

---

The ONLY reason I'm chiming back in is to shoot down - yet again - complete and utter bullsh*t like this, to the point of what I can only interpret as clearly intentional slander.

NO ONE here thinks child trafficking is "malarkey," nor have I once downplayed this tragedy in the slightest. I've said a thousand times in this thread that child trafficking is horrible, that more people should be made aware of it, and that I'm glad this movie is doing just that. In fact, you can find me saying as much on nearly every page in this thread.

All of these posts saying that I've "shown my true colors" or whatever other nonsense are so far gone, when what they really show are how desperately some of you need a villain, and how much you crave trying to absolutely eviscerate people who don't see the world *exactly* as you do.

I simply thought this movie would be better served without Cavielzel using QAnon talking points to promote it.

THAT'S IT.

Otherwise, quit f/cking painting me and others as people who excuse child trafficking or think it's "malarkey."

This is absolutely insane.

---

You going to go see the movie?

---

He said he would, no less than 10x

---

About as many times as he said he was done with this thread.

---

Why do y'all flame him so much for expressing his views fairly? Albeit verbose, he's entitled to his opinion.