Just saw the movie and it was a good movie. Nothing political at all.

This thread. Arguing no one is trying to suppress the film and posts pages of tweets trying to suppress the film. You literally could cut the irony with a chainsaw

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

Just odd to see you be against a community that seeks to expose a, who is behind this, and b, why there is such a backlash from all media in bringing this to light. By that, I mean, look how difficult it was to even get this movie made and brought to theaters. A total grassroots movement that bypassed the Hollywood system. Now why do you think that had to be done? Do you think it's because Hollywood doesn't want to shine the light on negative action like human trafficking and point the finger at why it exists, who profits, and who maintains its status quo? Now why would they not want to do that?

AgBQ-00 said:

---

This thread. Arguing no one is trying to suppress the film and posts pages of tweets trying to suppress the film. You literally could cut the irony with a chainsaw

---

It was 10 tweets. Not "pages of tweets." And they're rightfully questioning A) the claims of the the real life individual the movie is based on, and B) the intent of the filmmakers' QAnon rhetoric. They're not trying to "suppress the film" in a way that means they're pro child trafficking, as so many here keep alluding.

Tibbers said:

---

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

Just odd to see you be against a community that seeks to expose a, who is behind this, and b, why there is such a backlash from all media in bringing this to light. By that, I mean, look how difficult it was to even get this movie made and brought to theaters. A total grassroots movement that bypassed the Hollywood system. Now why do you think that had to be done? Do you think it's because Hollywood doesn't want to shine the light on negative action like human trafficking and point the finger at why it exists, who profits, and who maintains its status quo? Now why would they not want to do that?

---

Are you serious with this nonsense?

And yet in an era of free speech the Movement was scrubbed from the internet. Over the target maybe???? Hit a nerve? Sounds like some refuse to admit and acknowledge the possiblity Q was and has been right about these issues all along.

And to those doubting adrenochrome....um have you ever seen fear and loathing in Las Vegas? It was used in that movie. It's real AF. Anyone trying to censor or suppress these topics is beyond suspicious...

Left right blue red don't matter. Hang em all in trees and beat em like pinatas of they are involved in this.

Do you think government actors ever lace groups seeking truth and transparency with misinformation and agent provocateurs in order to discredit said groups?
Seems we have seen this come to light over and over again.
There is a lot of truth to what has come out about the rampant nature of trafficking and modern day slavery. You have to ask why the all out attack on anyone who dares to try and see behind the curtain when it comes to this area.
Epstein didn't kill himself.

Glad to hear from people who've seen it that it isn't nearly as political as feared.

Fairly positive and fair (IMO) review here: https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/sound-of-freedom-review-jim-caviezel-1235660035/

Definitely sounds like the reluctance of Fox and later Disney to distribute the movie was based on inconsistencies with the real life story they were sold and not with the possible connections to conspiracy theories propagated by folks connected with the film.

Tibbers said:

---

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

---

See this is the stuff I was talking about earlier. Human trafficking is a real issue impacting real people and deserves real attention and solutions... but spouting easily debunked conspiracy theories absolutely undermines any effort whatsoever to gain consensus and support to address it. Stick with what can be supported by facts. There's plenty of compelling points there to hang your hat on without diving into nonsense.

jeffk said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

---

See this is the stuff I was talking about earlier. Human trafficking is a real issue impacting real people and deserves real attention and solutions... but spouting easily debunked conspiracy theories absolutely undermines any effort whatsoever to gain consensus and support to address it. Stick with what can be supported by facts. There's plenty of compelling points there to hang your hat on without diving into nonsense.

---

jeffk said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

---

See this is the stuff I was talking about earlier. Human trafficking is a real issue impacting real people and deserves real attention and solutions... but spouting easily debunked conspiracy theories absolutely undermines any effort whatsoever to gain consensus and support to address it. Stick with what can be supported by facts. There's plenty of compelling points there to hang your hat on without diving into nonsense.

---

Actually it's beyond verified. Why was Paul Walker killed?

Wake the **** up.

redsquirrelAG said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

So if the Q community is exposing who is behind child abduction and human trafficking and shining a light on that, why would the filmmakers not share those views? Why would those views be met with vitriol? Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed. If the Clinton foundation made boatloads of money in Haiti trafficking children, who cares what party she is affiliated with?

---

See this is the stuff I was talking about earlier. Human trafficking is a real issue impacting real people and deserves real attention and solutions... but spouting easily debunked conspiracy theories absolutely undermines any effort whatsoever to gain consensus and support to address it. Stick with what can be supported by facts. There's plenty of compelling points there to hang your hat on without diving into nonsense.

---

Actually it's beyond verified. Why was Paul Walker killed?

Wake the **** up.

---

Enlighten us. And since this is all "beyond verified", how about showing some receipts instead of simply yelling at us mere sheep to "wake the **** up."

Yeah, I'm done here. We've officially entered crazy town.

Ah ok, so everything was on the up and up in Haiti. All the money raised sure did help their situation. The point I was trying to make is it doesn't matter politically with who is involved. If they committed these heinous acts, they should be punished severely and no one should come to their defense. But sure, if it ruffles the feathers and hits too close to home, would you rather not know than risk being wrong or offended? Whether it be republican or democrat or Clinton or trump. It shouldn't matter.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I'm done here. We've officially entered crazy town.

---

I would still recommend seeing the movie, it's well done and worth the price of admission.

Ah, ridicule.

https://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2009/09/King.pdf

Paul was going to expose the crimes in Haiti and connections to the Clintons.

Nonregdrummer09 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I'm done here. We've officially entered crazy town.

---

I would still recommend seeing the movie, it's well done and worth the price of admission.

---

The dude attacked the movie from the get go but encourages us all to see Indiana Jones? Lul

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I'm done here. We've officially entered crazy town.

---

You should've been banned.

For what, exactly? I would love to hear you explain.

Tibbers said:

---

Ah, ridicule.

https://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2009/09/King.pdf

---

Are you familiar with that case? That doesn't support your claim that the "Clinton foundation making boatloads of money trafficking children in Haiti."

Just stating that things weren't on the up and up there. A billion was raised and Haiti didn't see very much of it. So where did the money go? What was built with the funds? Sound of freedom focuses on areas of opportunity for traffickers like war zones, natural disasters, etc.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3776

https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/09/haiti.clinton.arrests/index.html

Thanks for illustrating my point. Why include unproven and easily disputed claims about the Clinton Foundation trafficking Haitian children at all? Why not stick to reliable statistics about disaster areas being a huge problem for trafficking? You end up having to hedge and backtrack and rephrase your arguments and by then any goodwill you had with an audience is gone. You're poisoning your own well of discourse and then complaining when people don't engage with you long enough to make a meaningful point. It's unnecessary.

TCTTS said:

---

We've officially entered crazy town.

---

jeffk said:

---

Thanks for illustrating my point. Why include unproven and easily disputed claims about the Clinton Foundation trafficking Haitian children at all? Why not stick to reliable statistics about disaster areas being a huge problem for trafficking? You end up having to hedge and backtrack and rephrase your arguments and by then any goodwill you had with an audience is gone. You're poisoning your own well of discourse and then complaining when people don't engage with you long enough to make a meaningful point. It's unnecessary.

---

What has been disproven? Backup your claims that everything was on the up and up with Haiti and that child trafficking did not occur there and the billion raised through the Clinton foundation benefited the Haitian community. If it didn't, what was the money used for and why did Clinton attempt to use the state department to free someone the Haitians believed was acting nefariously. Why was the plan to bring back 150 Haitian kids and why did those emails exist on the hacked Clinton email server? Disprove it, please.

redsquirrelAG said:

---

Paul was going to expose the crimes in Haiti and connections to the Clintons.

---

If you say so. Thanks for all the "receipts", btw.

Definitely seems reasonable that the Clintons recruited somebody to drive 120 mph straight into a tree…because reasons.

I'm not able to disprove all of those allegations, nor would I ever claim to be able to. I don't trust the Clinton Foundation further than I could throw the two of them. But importantly, that's the exact opposite of how our legal system works. If there's something fishy going on (like making millions trafficking kids!), then the onus of proof is on you to support that claim.

Have a happy 4th. I need to go work on my deck.

This thread needs to be locked. Too much zealousy in here

This is the final thing I'm going to say on the subject, before heading out to grill and celebrate with my heathen Hollywood friends...

People here keep talking about "the truth," while actively participating in a bad faith effort to accuse a number of us of not wanting to get to the bottom of that truth. Because we either have something to "hide," or "protect," or because we're making excuses for Hollywood, or whatever other bullsh*t talking point nonsense. Even though we've repeated over and over and over again that child trafficking = bad.

The thing is, QAnon doesn't care about the truth. Instead, what QAnon does is choose a number of targets on the left, and then reverse engineers fabricated stories to paint those targets in the most hideous light possible, truth and consequences be damned.

Are there some kernels of truth to their stories? No doubt - just enough to make the most gullible believe the overall lie.

You guys say things like, "Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed." And guess what? I agree 100%. However, it's QAnon who *injects* politics into human trafficking, maintaining that the perpetrators of only *one* political affiliation be exposed.

As for the movie itself, in a vacuum, it sounds innocuous enough. I'm genuinely glad to hear that there don't seem to be any QAnon/conspiracy elements embedded into the story, that it's not blaming only one side politically, etc. That's great!

What I have a huge problem with is the real life subject of the movie itself, Tim Ballard, and the actor who plays him, Jim Caviezel, using the movie, in their promotion of it, to prop up wild, batsh*t insane QAnon conspiracy theories. Because, again, those conspiracy theories aren't after "the truth." Rather, they're engineered *specifically* to demonize and target a *specific* group of people, politically speaking, whether those people have anything to do with child trafficking or not. To be clear, this does not mean I endorse the left, or believe that they're completely innocent in the matter. I'm simply calling attention to the fact that if Ballard and Caviezel were genuinely after "the truth," they wouldn't be so deep down the QAnon rabbit hole.

Seriously, how does it not irk some of you that Ballard and Caviezel use this subject - and thus the victims - to peddle their own political nonsense? To demonize people who have absolutely nothing to do with child trafficking? To enrage the right to hate the left to such a ridiculous, delusional degree? Again, this is the kind of sh*t that leads to nut jobs showing up at pizza parlors with guns, yet some of you could not care less about that aspect. It's all about "the children." Well, if you truly cared about the children, you'd also care that they were being used to peddle nonsense by the very people telling this story. Which should make any sane person suspicious of their motives, and thus of the movie they made. Never mind the fact that it's also pretty clear that Ballard has fabricated elements of his story, which makes me question the events of the movie even more, as innocuous (and emotionally effective) as it apparently is.

In short, the point I'm trying to make (or, rather, repeat for the dozenth time) is that it's possible to despise child trafficking, yet also find the filmmakers' intentions dubious. The two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive, and those of you who continue to suggest that believing the latter means endorsing child trafficking, frankly, need to get a life.

Go watch Indy buddy. We get it. You work in Hollywood and hate the Q movement even when it sheds light on things such as human trafficking. If you think the Q community doesn't value truth, why do they continue being right?

It's not peddling, their movie is a reinforcement of their beliefs. They fall in line completely. How can you not see that the movie and the movement are of the same coin?

It's hilarious that you defend the makers and producers of obvious politically driven drivel yet turn up your nose at folks who want child traffickers to meet justice. Face it, you really are a zealot. Anyway, off to see the fireworks. Have a good 4th!

Tibbers said:

---

Go watch Indy buddy. We get it. You work in Hollywood and hate the Q movement even when it sheds light on things such as human trafficking. If you think the Q community doesn't value truth, why do they continue being right?

It's not peddling, their movie is a reinforcement of their beliefs. They fall in line completely. How can you not see that the movie and the movement are of the same coin?

It's hilarious that you defend the makers and producers of obvious politically driven drivel yet turn up your nose at folks who want child traffickers to meet justice. Face it, you really are a zealot. Anyway, off to see the fireworks. Have a good 4th!

---

Wow. A true dyed in the wool believer.

So did the driver of the Carrera GT say "the Clintons send their regards" before driving into the tree and light pole?