ChemEAg08 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This thread: literally 29 pages of people trying to "gotcha" each other. How are you guys not bored yet?

---

It never gets old watching people attempt to defend sex traffickers.

---

Who in this thread is defending sex traffickers?

Rocag said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This thread: literally 29 pages of people trying to "gotcha" each other. How are you guys not bored yet?

---

It never gets old watching people attempt to defend sex traffickers.

---

Who in this thread is defending sex traffickers?

---

Funny how you had to specify "in this thread".

Goes to show how pathetic liberals in this country are.

Conservative here. Lolwut.

aTmAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This thread: literally 29 pages of people trying to "gotcha" each other. How are you guys not bored yet?

---

It never gets old watching people attempt to defend sex traffickers.

---

Who in this thread is defending sex traffickers?

---

Funny how you had to specify "in this thread".

Goes to show how pathetic liberals in this country are.

---

You're so lucky to be a conservative because as everyone knows it's just impossible to find a conservative with controversial views that are considered reprehensible to even their fellow conservatives. Alas, it's a problem we liberals alone have to deal with.

BenTheGoodAg said:

---

I wonder if would focus their energy on combatting trafficking instead of keeping arguments like this going how different the world would look.

---

You mean if libs didn't bash the crap out of a movie that highlights trafficking just because they don't like the politics of the people who made it?

Sane people would be united FOR this movie. If it wasn't for their ridiculous stand, this argument wouldn't be occuring.

Arent there rules around here about waiting to experience a movie/album/concert before you criiticise it?

Rocag said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This thread: literally 29 pages of people trying to "gotcha" each other. How are you guys not bored yet?

---

It never gets old watching people attempt to defend sex traffickers.

---

Who in this thread is defending sex traffickers?

---

Funny how you had to specify "in this thread".

Goes to show how pathetic liberals in this country are.

---

You're so lucky to be a conservative because as everyone knows it's just impossible to find a conservative with controversial views that are considered reprehensible to even their fellow conservatives. Alas, it's a problem we liberals alone have to deal with.

---

On the conservative side you have a few morons like David Duke.

On the liberal side you have enough of legislatures, like that of California which refused classify child sex trafficking as a "serious felony" 9 times since 2007.

To pretend you are on the same planet is a joke.



Edit: When are you going to see the movie?

I disagree and could present you with dozens of examples of Republican politicians or popular figures within conservatism saying absolutely awful things as I suspect you well know. However, I don't think the Entertainment board is the correct place for it.

As for seeing the movie, I'm not interested in it enough to see it in theaters. I'll wait.

Rocag said:

---

I disagree and could present you with dozens of examples of Republican politicians or popular figures within conservatism saying absolutely awful things as I suspect you well know. However, I don't think the Entertainment board is the correct place for it.

---

Then you would be disagreeing with basic reality. There are FAR more than "dozens" of Democrats saying awful things. Again, enough of the California legislature voted AGAINST making child trafficking a "serious felony" many times. That means over HALF of them voted that way. And they wouldn't have done so if it wasn't for the support of the voters they represent.

Quote:

---

As for seeing the movie, I'm not interested in it enough to see it in theaters. I'll wait.

---

Of course.. how predictable.

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

Great film that exposes a horrible truth going on everyday. Ignore the haters, see it and be informed.

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

California OWNS the legislature in California. 32-8 in senate, and 62-18 in the house. They can write the law however the hell they want. If it was "poorly written" (9 times) then that is their fault. Did you even think for more than 20 seconds before you started typing that nonsense?

And the reason that bill has been approved (FINALLY) is because the overwhelming bad press from the sane half of the country (likely in large part due to this movie coming out).


And what is pathetic is bashing an anti-child trafficking movie because you don't like the politics of the people involved. You deserve every bit of shame you guys are getting over it.

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

You're talking to aTmAg, an expert in every subject known to man, who is never wrong about anything, who would argue with a wall if it meant getting to use his megaphone to spread his vast wealth of knowledge.

The same poster who, in 2018, spent weeks on this very board sh*t talking the movie First Man, a movie he hadn't yet seen, in the lead up to its release, because the director apparently refused to show the planting of the American flag on the moon, out of an anti-American effort to promote some kind of a globalist agenda, or whatever nonsense aTmAg had convinced himself of. Again, *before* seeing the movie for himself. Turns out, the American flag was of course all over the eventual movie itself, and aTmAg never once fessed up or humbled himself in anyway. He just went straight on to the next Hollywood project he could find to be prematurely mad about, while also gracing us with his vast knowledge about whatever subject that particular project happened to be about.

The irony is that he's the absolute king of this move, and has been for years. In fact, nearly every person calling out others here for not having seen this movie yet has b*tched endlessly on this board about "woke" Disney movies or whatever other crap, long before seeing any of those movies for themselves. Yet now, when he tables are turned, it enrages them to no end that other posters even dare point out the way the star is promoting the movie, never mind us not "bashing" the movie itself, and our constant proclaiming of how terrible child trafficking is.

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way. They're keyboard warriors after all, and anyone who dares not agree with them 110% must be systemically mocked, called pro-child-traffickers, and eradicated. For theirs is a seething, righteous cause, with no room for facts, nuance, or pushback of any kind.

Quote:

---

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way.

---

The truth is that they just have a different perspective than you and get bent out of shape about different things. You're on a message board for bored people to go off on topics that interest them, and the cross-section of posters here represents something a lot more intellectually diverse than your bubble (or a lot of Texans'). Hoping eventually you'll realize that other people can have their take, even as crazy as you think it is, and that rude condescension isn't ever going to make these threads go better.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Quote:

---

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way.

---

The truth is that they just have a different perspective than you and get bent out of shape about different things. You're on a message board for bored people to go off on topics that interest them, and the cross-section of posters here represents something a lot more intellectually diverse than your bubble (or a lot of Texans'). Hoping eventually you'll realize that other people can have their take, even as crazy as you think it is, and that rude condescension isn't ever going to make these threads go better.

---

QAnon is not just a "different perspective." It's complete and utter bullsh*t, objectively so, and there are multiple, admitted Q believers in this very thread, who have been spreading their nonsense nonstop. Something else that isn't just a "different perspective" is thinking that the people who aren't singing this movie's praises from the rooftops are evil and are trying to defend children trafficking in any way. Those are both objectively ridiculous positions to hold, and are the only things myself and others have pushed back on.

TCTTS said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Quote:

---

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way.

---

The truth is that they just have a different perspective than you and get bent out of shape about different things. You're on a message board for bored people to go off on topics that interest them, and the cross-section of posters here represents something a lot more intellectually diverse than your bubble (or a lot of Texans'). Hoping eventually you'll realize that other people can have their take, even as crazy as you think it is, and that rude condescension isn't ever going to make these threads go better.

---

QAnon is not just a "different perspective." It's complete and utter bullsh*t, objectively so, and there are multiple, admitted Q believers in this very thread, who have been spreading their nonsense nonstop. Something else that isn't just a "different perspective" is thinking that the people who aren't singing this movie's praises from the rooftops are evil or are trying to defend children trafficking in any way. Those are both objectively ridiculous positions to hold, and are the only things myself and others have pushed back on.

---

As someone right of center I've never visited QAnon (I don't think most of us have, tbh), but if it's a platform or message board with a lot of people sharing ideas, isn't it plausible that some of it has validity and some of it is unfounded? Your tone from the moment you jumped into this thread (and many others in the past) was weirdly defensive and combative. It's ok just to state that you disagree with something and move on.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Quote:

---

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way.

---

The truth is that they just have a different perspective than you and get bent out of shape about different things. You're on a message board for bored people to go off on topics that interest them, and the cross-section of posters here represents something a lot more intellectually diverse than your bubble (or a lot of Texans'). Hoping eventually you'll realize that other people can have their take, even as crazy as you think it is, and that rude condescension isn't ever going to make these threads go better.

---

QAnon is not just a "different perspective." It's complete and utter bullsh*t, objectively so, and there are multiple, admitted Q believers in this very thread, who have been spreading their nonsense nonstop. Something else that isn't just a "different perspective" is thinking that the people who aren't singing this movie's praises from the rooftops are evil or are trying to defend children trafficking in any way. Those are both objectively ridiculous positions to hold, and are the only things myself and others have pushed back on.

---

As someone right of center I've never visited QAnon (I don't think most of us have, tbh), but if it's a platform or message board with a lot of people sharing ideas, isn't it plausible that some of it has validity and some of it is unfounded? Your tone from the moment you jumped into this thread (and many others in the past) was weirdly defensive and combative. It's ok just to state that you disagree with something and move on.

---

Ah yes, yet another "I don't know anything about QAnon, but surely it can't be that bad" post.

There are of course truths in every lie. That's what makes so many of them stick. That doesn't mean we should excuse anyone for using those *very* minor truths to peddle their much larger, rancid, harmful bullsh*t.

TCTTS said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

You're talking to aTmAg, an expert in every subject known to man, who is never wrong about anything, who would argue with a wall if it meant getting to use his megaphone to spread his vast wealth of knowledge.

The same poster who, in 2018, spent weeks on this very board sh*t talking the movie First Man, a movie he hadn't yet seen, in the lead up to its release, because the director apparently refused to show the planting of the American flag on the moon, out of an anti-American effort to promote some kind of a globalist agenda, or whatever nonsense aTmAg had convinced himself of. Again, *before* seeing the movie for himself. Turns out, the American flag was of course all over the eventual movie itself, and aTmAg never once fessed up or humbled himself in anyway. He just went straight on to the next Hollywood project he could find to be prematurely mad about, while also gracing us with his vast knowledge about whatever subject that particular project happened to be about.

The irony is that he's the absolute king of this move, and has been for years. In fact, nearly every person calling out others here for not having seen this movie yet has b*tched endlessly on this board about "woke" Disney movies or whatever other crap, long before seeing any of those movies for themselves. Yet now, when he tables are turned, it enrages them to no end that other posters even dare point out the way the star is promoting the movie, never mind us not "bashing" the movie itself, and our constant proclaiming of how terrible child trafficking is.

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way. They're keyboard warriors after all, and anyone who dares not agree with them 110% must be systemically mocked, called pro-child-traffickers, and eradicated. For theirs is a seething, righteous cause, with no room for facts, nuance, or pushback of any kind.

---

LOL.. yet example #82,373 that TCTTS is a liar.

What piece of information *might* TCTTS be leaving out of his summary of the First Man fiasco? Was it really just a matter of conservatives wanting a flag shot every 10 minutes, and only got one every 11 minutes? No. The important piece of info he just so happened to omit was the fact that *before* the movie came out, a reporter asked Ryan Gosling why they chose to omit the scene of them planting the flag on the moon (after all, it's a seminal event of world history), and Gosling responded "This was widely regarded as a human achievement and I think that's how we chose to view it." and "I don't think Neil viewed himself as an American hero."

THAT ridiculous answer is what people were up in arms about before the movie and what we were arguing about. Not the flag to minute ratio. They could have digitally added a flag tattoo to Goslings forehead throughout the entire movie, and it would never have changed the dumbass statements he said prior to the movie. Us seeing the movie changed nothing about that. And TCTTS furthermore lies about his side of the argument. As he and his idiot sheep argued that Gosling was right. That America wouldn't have gone to the moon if it wasn't for Russia pushing them. That Russia deserved some credit too. You guys were idiots then and are idiots now.

Of course, after the movie came out, there were more arguments on how it sucked and focused too much on marital strife and not enough on the actual achievements that made Armstrong special. You guys argued "but it's not ABOUT that" and I responded that it's going to bomb then. Of course, I was right (again) and it did bomb. I find it funny how after 5+ years later you are still steaming about this. Maybe stop being so adamantly wrong then. Maybe more things will go your way.


And the reason I am asking people "have you seen it?" in this case, is because clearly the QAnon BS is not in the movie and you guys are claiming your criticisms are not political. So I am merely seeing if you guys will put your money where your mouth is. Or if you are lying (again).

If I was being hypocritical and doing what TCCTS was doing prior to First Man, I would be telling him to refrain from criticizing Caveziel Q-Anon statements until after he sees the movie.

There's not a chance in hell I argued that "Russia deserved some credit too."

I certainly seemed to have pushed a button, though.

TCTTS said:

---

There's not a chance in hell I argued that "Russia deserved some credit too."

I certainly seemed to have pushed a button, though.

---

I'm pretty sure you did. And 100% sure people on your side of the argument did. You sure as hell didn't join my side to renounce that nonsense.


And *you* pushed a button? LOL. You are the guy bringing up a 5+ year old argument that didn't go your way. Not me.

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

There's not a chance in hell I argued that "Russia deserved some credit too."

I certainly seemed to have pushed a button, though.

---

I'm pretty sure you did. And 100% sure people on your side of the argument did. You sure as hell didn't join my side to renounce that nonsense.


And *you* pushed a button? LOL. You are the guy bringing up a 5+ year old argument that didn't go your way. Not me.

---

The point is - clearly - that you're holding people to a standard (seeing a movie before judging it) that you yourself break more than anyone on this board. Which is especially hypocritical, considering no here is even complaining about or judging the movie itself. I've watched you go on tirade after tirade about movies you haven't yet seen, and now here you are wagging your finger at people for not first seeing a movie. It's just insanely contradictory behavior.

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

You're talking to aTmAg, an expert in every subject known to man, who is never wrong about anything, who would argue with a wall if it meant getting to use his megaphone to spread his vast wealth of knowledge.

The same poster who, in 2018, spent weeks on this very board sh*t talking the movie First Man, a movie he hadn't yet seen, in the lead up to its release, because the director apparently refused to show the planting of the American flag on the moon, out of an anti-American effort to promote some kind of a globalist agenda, or whatever nonsense aTmAg had convinced himself of. Again, *before* seeing the movie for himself. Turns out, the American flag was of course all over the eventual movie itself, and aTmAg never once fessed up or humbled himself in anyway. He just went straight on to the next Hollywood project he could find to be prematurely mad about, while also gracing us with his vast knowledge about whatever subject that particular project happened to be about.

The irony is that he's the absolute king of this move, and has been for years. In fact, nearly every person calling out others here for not having seen this movie yet has b*tched endlessly on this board about "woke" Disney movies or whatever other crap, long before seeing any of those movies for themselves. Yet now, when he tables are turned, it enrages them to no end that other posters even dare point out the way the star is promoting the movie, never mind us not "bashing" the movie itself, and our constant proclaiming of how terrible child trafficking is.

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way. They're keyboard warriors after all, and anyone who dares not agree with them 110% must be systemically mocked, called pro-child-traffickers, and eradicated. For theirs is a seething, righteous cause, with no room for facts, nuance, or pushback of any kind.

---

LOL.. yet example #82,373 that TCTTS is a liar.

What piece of information *might* TCTTS be leaving out of his summary of the First Man fiasco? Was it really just a matter of conservatives wanting a flag shot every 10 minutes, and only got one every 11 minutes? No. The important piece of info he just so happened to omit was the fact that *before* the movie came out, a reporter asked Ryan Gosling why they chose to omit the scene of them planting the flag on the moon (after all, it's a seminal event of world history), and Gosling responded "This was widely regarded as a human achievement and I think that's how we chose to view it." and "I don't think Neil viewed himself as an American hero."

THAT ridiculous answer is what people were up in arms about before the movie and what we were arguing about. Not the flag to minute ratio. They could have digitally added a flag tattoo to Goslings forehead throughout the entire movie, and it would never have changed the dumbass statements he said prior to the movie. Us seeing the movie changed nothing about that. And TCTTS furthermore lies about his side of the argument. As he and his idiot sheep argued that Gosling was right. That America wouldn't have gone to the moon if it wasn't for Russia pushing them. That Russia deserved some credit too. You guys were idiots then and are idiots now.

Of course, after the movie came out, there were more arguments on how it sucked and focused too much on marital strife and not enough on the actual achievements that made Armstrong special. You guys argued "but it's not ABOUT that" and I responded that it's going to bomb then. Of course, I was right (again) and it did bomb. I find it funny how after 5+ years later you are still steaming about this. Maybe stop being so adamantly wrong then. Maybe more things will go your way.


And the reason I am asking people "have you seen it?" in this case, is because clearly the QAnon BS is not in the movie and you guys are claiming your criticisms are not political. So I am merely seeing if you guys will put your money where your mouth is. Or if you are lying (again).

If I was being hypocritical and doing what TCCTS was doing prior to First Man, I would be telling him to refrain from criticizing Caveziel Q-Anon statements until after he sees the movie.

---

Oh, so kind of like how Caveziel has been pushing QAnon claims while promoting this movie, causing some of us to stop and question what the film is intended to portray?

Most of the discussion in this thread has not been about the movie itself and I think most people have agreed it doesn't exhibit the QAnon type politics its creator and star spout. At this point I'm not really interested in the movie itself but I am interested in the very weird position from its supporters that anyone who doesn't think it's the greatest film ever made and kneels down to worship at the altar of Jim Ballard is a pedophile and supporter of child trafficking.

Movie aside, I don't have a good impression of Ballard and suspect he's really not the guy you should want as the face of any anti- child trafficking movement. He comes off as a glory hound who treats it all as reality tv complete with celebrity guest stars as "operators" and taking clues from psychics. Doesn't mean the movie can't be entertaining or informative though.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

You're talking to aTmAg, an expert in every subject known to man, who is never wrong about anything, who would argue with a wall if it meant getting to use his megaphone to spread his vast wealth of knowledge.

The same poster who, in 2018, spent weeks on this very board sh*t talking the movie First Man, a movie he hadn't yet seen, in the lead up to its release, because the director apparently refused to show the planting of the American flag on the moon, out of an anti-American effort to promote some kind of a globalist agenda, or whatever nonsense aTmAg had convinced himself of. Again, *before* seeing the movie for himself. Turns out, the American flag was of course all over the eventual movie itself, and aTmAg never once fessed up or humbled himself in anyway. He just went straight on to the next Hollywood project he could find to be prematurely mad about, while also gracing us with his vast knowledge about whatever subject that particular project happened to be about.

The irony is that he's the absolute king of this move, and has been for years. In fact, nearly every person calling out others here for not having seen this movie yet has b*tched endlessly on this board about "woke" Disney movies or whatever other crap, long before seeing any of those movies for themselves. Yet now, when he tables are turned, it enrages them to no end that other posters even dare point out the way the star is promoting the movie, never mind us not "bashing" the movie itself, and our constant proclaiming of how terrible child trafficking is.

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way. They're keyboard warriors after all, and anyone who dares not agree with them 110% must be systemically mocked, called pro-child-traffickers, and eradicated. For theirs is a seething, righteous cause, with no room for facts, nuance, or pushback of any kind.

---

LOL.. yet example #82,373 that TCTTS is a liar.

What piece of information *might* TCTTS be leaving out of his summary of the First Man fiasco? Was it really just a matter of conservatives wanting a flag shot every 10 minutes, and only got one every 11 minutes? No. The important piece of info he just so happened to omit was the fact that *before* the movie came out, a reporter asked Ryan Gosling why they chose to omit the scene of them planting the flag on the moon (after all, it's a seminal event of world history), and Gosling responded "This was widely regarded as a human achievement and I think that's how we chose to view it." and "I don't think Neil viewed himself as an American hero."

THAT ridiculous answer is what people were up in arms about before the movie and what we were arguing about. Not the flag to minute ratio. They could have digitally added a flag tattoo to Goslings forehead throughout the entire movie, and it would never have changed the dumbass statements he said prior to the movie. Us seeing the movie changed nothing about that. And TCTTS furthermore lies about his side of the argument. As he and his idiot sheep argued that Gosling was right. That America wouldn't have gone to the moon if it wasn't for Russia pushing them. That Russia deserved some credit too. You guys were idiots then and are idiots now.

Of course, after the movie came out, there were more arguments on how it sucked and focused too much on marital strife and not enough on the actual achievements that made Armstrong special. You guys argued "but it's not ABOUT that" and I responded that it's going to bomb then. Of course, I was right (again) and it did bomb. I find it funny how after 5+ years later you are still steaming about this. Maybe stop being so adamantly wrong then. Maybe more things will go your way.


And the reason I am asking people "have you seen it?" in this case, is because clearly the QAnon BS is not in the movie and you guys are claiming your criticisms are not political. So I am merely seeing if you guys will put your money where your mouth is. Or if you are lying (again).

If I was being hypocritical and doing what TCCTS was doing prior to First Man, I would be telling him to refrain from criticizing Caveziel Q-Anon statements until after he sees the movie.

---

Oh, so kind of like how Caveziel has been pushing QAnon claims while promoting this movie, causing some of us to stop and question what the film is intended to portray?

---

Considering it was made before q anon im not sure how it was intended to portray anything to do with that

We've already covered the concerns with how trafficking is addressed and how the film has been slotted into QAnon conspiracies by Caviezel and others during the previous 20-something pages.

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

There's not a chance in hell I argued that "Russia deserved some credit too."

I certainly seemed to have pushed a button, though.

---

I'm pretty sure you did. And 100% sure people on your side of the argument did. You sure as hell didn't join my side to renounce that nonsense.


And *you* pushed a button? LOL. You are the guy bringing up a 5+ year old argument that didn't go your way. Not me.

---

The point is - clearly - that you're holding people to a standard (seeing a movie before judging it) that you yourself break more than anyone on this board. Which is especially hypocritical, considering no here is even complaining about or judging the movie itself. I've watched you go on tirade after tirade about movies you haven't yet seen, and now here you are wagging your finger at people for not first seeing a movie. It's just insanely contradictory behavior.

---

Post a link to where I said to watch this movie before judging it. You won't be able to.

Believe it or not, asking "are you going to watch it?" is not the same as saying "watch it before judging it".

Hell, I don't even believe that nonsense. If this movie portrayed a kid getting raped and that was reported prior to the movie coming out, then I would trash the movie and refuse to watch it. I wouldn't reward them with my money. And I sure as hell wouldn't say "go watch it before judging it." That is total nonsense. It it totally valid to form an opinion on a movie by hearing about it beforehand. Hell, that's what the entire critic industry is built around.

The reason I am asking people if they have watched it, is because you guys are denying the claim that you are criticizing it because of politics. By every account, it's a good movie and doesn't have any QAnon nonsense in it. So if you are honest, then why haven't you seen it?

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Reality is rarely as simple as you seem to think it is. For example, in the California case you mentioned there were anti-trafficking groups that opposed the law because they argued it was poorly written and could end up being used to punish the victims of child trafficking as child traffickers. American history is littered with poorly written or conceived laws being passed with good intentions and leading to disastrous results. ("If you don't support the Patriot Act you're with the terrorists!" for example) In any event, you're wrong about the basic facts of the case because the initial vote was not the full legislature but a committee. The bill has since been approved by that committee and is moving on to the next steps.

And trying to shame people for not running to go see a movie is pathetic.

---

You're talking to aTmAg, an expert in every subject known to man, who is never wrong about anything, who would argue with a wall if it meant getting to use his megaphone to spread his vast wealth of knowledge.

The same poster who, in 2018, spent weeks on this very board sh*t talking the movie First Man, a movie he hadn't yet seen, in the lead up to its release, because the director apparently refused to show the planting of the American flag on the moon, out of an anti-American effort to promote some kind of a globalist agenda, or whatever nonsense aTmAg had convinced himself of. Again, *before* seeing the movie for himself. Turns out, the American flag was of course all over the eventual movie itself, and aTmAg never once fessed up or humbled himself in anyway. He just went straight on to the next Hollywood project he could find to be prematurely mad about, while also gracing us with his vast knowledge about whatever subject that particular project happened to be about.

The irony is that he's the absolute king of this move, and has been for years. In fact, nearly every person calling out others here for not having seen this movie yet has b*tched endlessly on this board about "woke" Disney movies or whatever other crap, long before seeing any of those movies for themselves. Yet now, when he tables are turned, it enrages them to no end that other posters even dare point out the way the star is promoting the movie, never mind us not "bashing" the movie itself, and our constant proclaiming of how terrible child trafficking is.

The truth is, these posters simply cannot live without being horribly, righteously angry about something, and directing that anger at whoever they deem to be standing in their way. They're keyboard warriors after all, and anyone who dares not agree with them 110% must be systemically mocked, called pro-child-traffickers, and eradicated. For theirs is a seething, righteous cause, with no room for facts, nuance, or pushback of any kind.

---

LOL.. yet example #82,373 that TCTTS is a liar.

What piece of information *might* TCTTS be leaving out of his summary of the First Man fiasco? Was it really just a matter of conservatives wanting a flag shot every 10 minutes, and only got one every 11 minutes? No. The important piece of info he just so happened to omit was the fact that *before* the movie came out, a reporter asked Ryan Gosling why they chose to omit the scene of them planting the flag on the moon (after all, it's a seminal event of world history), and Gosling responded "This was widely regarded as a human achievement and I think that's how we chose to view it." and "I don't think Neil viewed himself as an American hero."

THAT ridiculous answer is what people were up in arms about before the movie and what we were arguing about. Not the flag to minute ratio. They could have digitally added a flag tattoo to Goslings forehead throughout the entire movie, and it would never have changed the dumbass statements he said prior to the movie. Us seeing the movie changed nothing about that. And TCTTS furthermore lies about his side of the argument. As he and his idiot sheep argued that Gosling was right. That America wouldn't have gone to the moon if it wasn't for Russia pushing them. That Russia deserved some credit too. You guys were idiots then and are idiots now.

Of course, after the movie came out, there were more arguments on how it sucked and focused too much on marital strife and not enough on the actual achievements that made Armstrong special. You guys argued "but it's not ABOUT that" and I responded that it's going to bomb then. Of course, I was right (again) and it did bomb. I find it funny how after 5+ years later you are still steaming about this. Maybe stop being so adamantly wrong then. Maybe more things will go your way.


And the reason I am asking people "have you seen it?" in this case, is because clearly the QAnon BS is not in the movie and you guys are claiming your criticisms are not political. So I am merely seeing if you guys will put your money where your mouth is. Or if you are lying (again).

If I was being hypocritical and doing what TCCTS was doing prior to First Man, I would be telling him to refrain from criticizing Caveziel Q-Anon statements until after he sees the movie.

---

Oh, so kind of like how Caveziel has been pushing QAnon claims while promoting this movie, causing some of us to stop and question what the film is intended to portray?

---

Oh you are back for more?

You know there are no QAnon claims in this movie, otherwise all your liberal heros would have been posting every word about it for weeks now. Instead, they have to claim it's "QAnon adjacent" whatever the hell that means.

I like how you ignored the point being made. Is because you don't understand it or you're too conceited to ever admit you're little more than a self-obsessed argumentative hack?

Right. They aren't fighting trafficking how you say they are supposed to. Got it.

Rocag said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

This thread: literally 29 pages of people trying to "gotcha" each other. How are you guys not bored yet?

---

It never gets old watching people attempt to defend sex traffickers.

---

Who in this thread is defending sex traffickers?

---

Funny how you had to specify "in this thread".

Goes to show how pathetic liberals in this country are.

---

You're so lucky to be a conservative because as everyone knows it's just impossible to find a conservative with controversial views that are considered reprehensible to even their fellow conservatives. Alas, it's a problem we liberals alone have to deal with.

---

It is very difficult actually. Every conservative person I know is a normal decent family person who is loving and tolerant towards others. The modern left is the side that is completely out of control. The fringe has now become mainstream. Look at what your side is pushing for in many states...abortion with no restrictions...chemical castration and breast removal for un-consenting minors. Are there small pockets of extreme tiki torch weirdos on the right? Sure. But there are many doctors and politicians and tens of millions of liberals advocating for removing breasts of 13 year old girls etc. Could go on and on with the crazy sh** the left openly embraces.

I wouldn't throw stones, I'll just say that.

Good grief. How many people do you actually know and spend time with that are left of center?