Sound of Freedom - What are they up to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise! Conspiracy theorists have made a conspiracy theory about attendance of a movie. And now they're labeling people who don't watch the movie pedophiles and child traffickers. Comet pizza all over again.

This. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was created and is supported by people who do not care about facts and truth. It’s impossible to support this movie given the agenda of these people. It really isn’t about child trafficking.

Maybe you should go watch the new Mission Impossible movie unless you think Tom Cruise has a secret "agenda" to convert everyone to scientology .

I don't watch Mission Impossible because I don't want to support TC due to his ties to Scientology

That's different than making weird statements about the filmmakers being liars and having an "agenda" without any evidence simply because you are biased against them. I guarantee if Ashton Kutcher had made this movie you would have no problems going to see it.

That is likely. I don't have anything against Ashton Kutcher and I don't mind paying money to see a movie that he produced I do have something against QAnon people and I do mind spending my money on things they profit from. I'm not going to spend my money supporting them just like I'm not spending money to support Tom Cruise. Same difference.

Making things up about people without evidence simply because you don't align with them politically is the same thing QAnon nuts do. You're making this into a partisan issue when it shouldn't be.

How is it partisan not supporting Tom Cruise in Scientology? Or QAnon? This is not to do with politics this has to do with who I want to profit off of my money. I never mentioned politics.

Reread what you wrote about the filmmakers. You accused them of being liars, having an agenda and how the movie isn't really about child trafficking based on no evidence except whatever you made up in your head. You are calling them QAnon because you probably read that on some liberal media article and assuming it if fact. It is one thing to not want to see a movie because you don't support the filmmakers such as Tom Cruise. It is another thing to smear a film and make things up about the filmmakers because you don't align with them politically. Understand the difference?

Nothing "liberal" about criticism of this film. Some people just aren't able to detect propaganda. The film is propaganda. The commentary about liberal backlash against the film is propaganda. And posts like yours are propaganda.

[Anonymous]

^^^^ Nailed it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Nah, not that simple, dear. Making an entire conspiracy laden mind sucking cult out of ideas related to child sx trafficking and highjacking a nation into facism with a plethora of ludicrous claims is a lot different than what child trafficking actually is and how to stop it. It's actually that simple.

Wow, lots of dots to connect between loose associations. Sounds like a conspiracy. Almost circular

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was created and is supported by people who do not care about facts and truth. It’s impossible to support this movie given the agenda of these people. It really isn’t about child trafficking.

Maybe you should go watch the new Mission Impossible movie unless you think Tom Cruise has a secret "agenda" to convert everyone to scientology .

I don't watch Mission Impossible because I don't want to support TC due to his ties to Scientology

That's different than making weird statements about the filmmakers being liars and having an "agenda" without any evidence simply because you are biased against them. I guarantee if Ashton Kutcher had made this movie you would have no problems going to see it.

That is likely. I don't have anything against Ashton Kutcher and I don't mind paying money to see a movie that he produced I do have something against QAnon people and I do mind spending my money on things they profit from. I'm not going to spend my money supporting them just like I'm not spending money to support Tom Cruise. Same difference.

Making things up about people without evidence simply because you don't align with them politically is the same thing QAnon nuts do. You're making this into a partisan issue when it shouldn't be.

How is it partisan not supporting Tom Cruise in Scientology? Or QAnon? This is not to do with politics this has to do with who I want to profit off of my money. I never mentioned politics.

Reread what you wrote about the filmmakers. You accused them of being liars, having an agenda and how the movie isn't really about child trafficking based on no evidence except whatever you made up in your head. You are calling them QAnon because you probably read that on some liberal media article and assuming it if fact. It is one thing to not want to see a movie because you don't support the filmmakers such as Tom Cruise. It is another thing to smear a film and make things up about the filmmakers because you don't align with them politically. Understand the difference?

Nothing "liberal" about criticism of this film. Some people just aren't able to detect propaganda. The film is propaganda. The commentary about liberal backlash against the film is propaganda. And posts like yours are propaganda.

That's a theory. That it's a conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie was created and is supported by people who do not care about facts and truth. It’s impossible to support this movie given the agenda of these people. It really isn’t about child trafficking.

Maybe you should go watch the new Mission Impossible movie unless you think Tom Cruise has a secret "agenda" to convert everyone to scientology .

I don't watch Mission Impossible because I don't want to support TC due to his ties to Scientology

That's different than making weird statements about the filmmakers being liars and having an "agenda" without any evidence simply because you are biased against them. I guarantee if Ashton Kutcher had made this movie you would have no problems going to see it.

That is likely. I don't have anything against Ashton Kutcher and I don't mind paying money to see a movie that he produced I do have something against QAnon people and I do mind spending my money on things they profit from. I'm not going to spend my money supporting them just like I'm not spending money to support Tom Cruise. Same difference.

Making things up about people without evidence simply because you don't align with them politically is the same thing QAnon nuts do. You're making this into a partisan issue when it shouldn't be.

How is it partisan not supporting Tom Cruise in Scientology? Or QAnon? This is not to do with politics this has to do with who I want to profit off of my money. I never mentioned politics.

Reread what you wrote about the filmmakers. You accused them of being liars, having an agenda and how the movie isn't really about child trafficking based on no evidence except whatever you made up in your head. You are calling them QAnon because you probably read that on some liberal media article and assuming it if fact. It is one thing to not want to see a movie because you don't support the filmmakers such as Tom Cruise. It is another thing to smear a film and make things up about the filmmakers because you don't align with them politically. Understand the difference?

NP. The star of the movie promotes the conspiracy theory that children are abducted to harvest their blood for adrenochrome. That's not made up or something I read only a liberal website that's something I heard from his lips. The person the movie is about is controversial within the anti-trafficking community because of his tactics and because he also at least pussyfoots with Qanon ideas like the Wayfair furniture thing (again, this is based on watching videos of him talking about it). That's not made up in anyone's head.

This. Are these guys, who are on record unabashedly supporting adenochrome harvesting and Wayfair kidnapping conspiracy theories, the guys you think we should be getting our news from? Because we can trust their judgment about what is true and what is baseless allegation?

[Anonymous]

QAnon didn’t even start emerging until 2017. The movie script was written in 2014. There is nothing QAnon or political in the film. The movie follows the events as depicted in this 2014 interview with CBS.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm… what kind of HR complaint could force out the world’s best anti-trafficker from the anti-trafficking organization he created, just as the blockbuster movie about his anti-trafficking deeds dominates the box office. 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm… what kind of HR complaint could force out the world’s best anti-trafficker from the anti-trafficking organization he created, just as the blockbuster movie about his anti-trafficking deeds dominates the box office. 🤔

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Well said. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Well said. Thank you.

This isn't about child sex trafficking, which we are all opposed to. This is about people who want to get you mad so you take the action they want you to take against whichever "enemy" they direct your anger toward. In the past, targets have included Comet pizza, the 2020 election results, and the Capitol building. Where will they tell us all good outraged people ["it's that simple"] should attack next?

[Anonymous]

If the movie is not Q propaganda then why are right wing groups buying all the tickets to showings but theaters are empty of actual movie-goers? Look it up. Totality empty theaters despite all the tickets being sold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Well said. Thank you.

This isn't about child sex trafficking, which we are all opposed to. This is about people who want to get you mad so you take the action they want you to take against whichever "enemy" they direct your anger toward. In the past, targets have included Comet pizza, the 2020 election results, and the Capitol building. Where will they tell us all good outraged people ["it's that simple"] should attack next?

You obviously haven’t seen it.
The enemy is anyone who rapes / abuses children, plus anyone who covers for these thugs. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Nah, not that simple, dear. Making an entire conspiracy laden mind sucking cult out of ideas related to child sx trafficking and highjacking a nation into facism with a plethora of ludicrous claims is a lot different than what child trafficking actually is and how to stop it. It's actually that simple.

Wow, lots of dots to connect between loose associations. Sounds like a conspiracy. Almost circular

DP and Nope. NO ONE here is defending human trafficking. I think we all agree it is vile and should be stopped. But a lot of us object to RW conspiracy theorists using this as a way to make money and as a political weapon. If you really care about a serious issue, you don't use it to manipulate people, peddle other lies, and get votes. It's actually quite simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone against an anti-human trafficking film is on the wrong side of history. No political party has exclusive rights to care about any particular issue affecting children, whether it's child abuse, neglect, childhood hunger, childhood poverty, sex trafficking. Either you are opposed to child sex trafficking, or you're not. It's that simple.

Well said. Thank you.

This isn't about child sex trafficking, which we are all opposed to. This is about people who want to get you mad so you take the action they want you to take against whichever "enemy" they direct your anger toward. In the past, targets have included Comet pizza, the 2020 election results, and the Capitol building. Where will they tell us all good outraged people ["it's that simple"] should attack next?

You obviously haven’t seen it.
The enemy is anyone who rapes / abuses children, plus anyone who covers for these thugs. Period.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. People are talking about the filmmakers.