boy09 said:

---

A movie theater adding showings is you evidence that the movie is being suppressed?

---

Yup, it has run 90% occupancy for 16 days and they continue to drop showings. Most other movies are running 20-40% everyday. There is no excuse to schedule the most sold out show in your theater for 3 showings per day in the smallest theater you offer.

Ruby Gilman Kracken movie is in a 162 person auditorium, every day. Sound of Freedom is in a 60 person auditorium. There is no 11AM showing scheduled for Sound of Freedom every day, all the other shows have an 11AM showing.

Why would a show that has sold out every viewing, every day drop from 7 showings to 3 showings? Why would the new showings be added 2 hours before being shown, when the demand is obvious?

Again, maybe it is just sheer incompetence, but could you imagine Taco Bell just continuing to make tacos when there are a hundred customers in their lobby waiting for their gordita? It makes no sense.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Let me preface, I have seen videos claiming A/C is out and other things that I consider conspiratorial. SOF is in 3,200 theaters and shown 12,000 times a day, odds are things will happen a few times everyday.

Yesterday, in Friendswood at Star Cinema Grill (Seats sold/seats offered):

Elemental - 3 showings 112/145 seats sold = 77% (it was 31% full day before, probably a summer camp)
Insidious - 5 showings 125/335 = 37%
Indiana Jones - 4 Showings 101/232 = 44%
Joy Ride - 2 Showings 28/130 = 22%
Ruby Gilman - 1 Showing 5/161 = 3%
Spiderman - 3 Showings 83/183 = 45%
Transformers - 4 Showings 83/184 = 45%

Mission Impossible - 11 Showings 336/1,434 = 23%
Sound of Freedom - 5 Showings 287/297 = 97%

Two showings added at 10:30AM yesterday when the original 3 shows were fully booked 3 days prior). This theater had shown this movie for 14 days straight, approximately 75 showings, and everyone of them had been sold out. On Saturday 7/15, they showed it 7 times, all sold out. On Sunday 7/16 the dropped it to 3 showings per day. On Thursday 7/20 it will drop to 2 showings per day.

There are 2 reasons this theater would be limiting the supply of showings.
1. They are completely incompetent, as they have all the information that every time the show the movie it is sold out. Again, this is a restaurant style theater that makes far more revenue on the back end versus ticket sales.
2. They don't want it seen.

I am inclined to attribute someone's actions to ignorance versus malice, as that is how I try to live my life (well, they didn't know better, let's educate them). But I can promise you they have been informed, multiple times that their community would support more showings of this movie.

This movie is crossing $100M today. Everyday I hear claims of individuals and groups being "marginalized". Here is an actual example with concrete evidence. This is what marginalization actually looks like. A small budget film is relegated to the back corner theater while having incredible demand.

I understand that my community is probably supporting this stronger than most. Why doesn't the entertainment provider for this community understand that? The numbers are right there in their face every day. 287 seats sold out of 297 seats offered, and 2 of the showings were added last minute.

---

What was their response when they were informed that the community would support more showings?

---

Silence, followed by silence. Then there was the one email 5 days later that they appreciated the feedback and would pass it along to their booking agency. Followed by more silence

boy09 said:

---

A movie theater adding showings is you evidence that the movie is being suppressed?

---

So now yall are complaining that a Kraken was released?

boy09 said:

---

A movie theater adding showings is you evidence that the movie is being suppressed?

---

and just so you don't think I cherry picked the showings. 2 of these showings were added after 10AM for same day. Tell me, as a critical thinker and leader in your industry, do you look at this 16 days in a row and drop showings from 7 to 3? Do you prioritize other films getting 5% capacity, 15% capacity, 25% capacity?

Quote:

---

Yes, a few articles from the only places half of the country gets their news from is pretty significant. Tell me one liberal on TexAgs who has actually seen the film?

Conflate the movie to Donald Trump/Q Anon and make sure that 50% of America has a negative connotation attached to that movie and will never see it

---

And the other 50% will rush to see it which is better than they started with.

Also, there's no way half the nation is watching CNN. Their ratings aren't that good.

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, a few articles from the only places half of the country gets their news from is pretty significant. Tell me one liberal on TexAgs who has actually seen the film?

Conflate the movie to Donald Trump/Q Anon and make sure that 50% of America has a negative connotation attached to that movie and will never see it

---

And the other 50% will rush to see it which is better than they started with.

Also, there's no way half the nation is watching CNN. Their ratings aren't that good.

---

Absolutely agree, noone watches CNN. Without looking, I would bet there is an article sullying this movie and Ballard/Caviezel in NYT, LA times, Vice, Guardian, and whatever else you can name that we all know is left of center.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

boy09 said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Again, maybe it is just sheer incompetence, but could you imagine Taco Bell just continuing to make tacos when there are a hundred customers in their lobby waiting for their gordita? It makes no sense.

---

The Taco Bell analogy is not great, because they discontinue their most popular items all the time..

---

R.I.P. double decker taco.

---

They just took the enchrito off the menu again, which is a travesty.

---

can we all agree this will suffice for covering the beans/no beans chili portion of the discussion?!?!?!?!

Let's check NYT to see if you're right. Looks like they've posted two articles about the movie with one being a straight up review and the other discusses the films success and the controversy around it but does it in a very middle of the road kind of way.

Review


Article A Film About Child Trafficking Takes on Summer Blockbusters

And I'm not sure that the LA Times has written anything about it at all: Search for "Sound of Freedom"

Wow. What horrible suppression. Truly the liberal establishment has done this movie wrong.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

Thank you for verifying everything I said in my reply. Once again you're going with vibes.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

Thank you for verifying everything I said in my reply. Once again you're going with vibes.

---

You're the master of this...troll.

And no, he's going with very basic logic.

Rocag said:

---

Let's check NYT to see if you're right. Looks like they've posted two articles about the movie with one being a straight up review and the other discusses the films success and the controversy around it but does it in a very middle of the road kind of way.

Review


Article A Film About Child Trafficking Takes on Summer Blockbusters

And I'm not sure that the LA Times has written anything about it at all: Search for "Sound of Freedom"

Wow. What horrible suppression. Truly the liberal establishment has done this movie wrong.

---

I don't have a subscription to NYT so I can't read the articles. I would note that the only thing I can read on second article is, " Sound of Freedom, a film championed by the right, was only behind Insidious and…"

But I am sure that it is very neutral in tone for the rest of the article outside of the very first phrase used that sends any liberal running for the hills in 2023. I will admit, if I read an article about a movie that says in line one, a film championed by AOC, I would stop reading and never watch it, no more words needed.

I agree, I would have lost my bet since LA Times hasn't weighed in on the movie, and I will spare all of us the tediousness of linking dozens of articles from left leaning sources conflating this movie with conspiracies. The slant was effective, all the correct people got the message media intended as apparent in this thread. If you are on the right you must see this movie. If you are on the left you will be a conspiracy theorist if you see this movie.

It is a solid movie, shining a light on a horrible industry and everything else is just noise.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I'm curious what good in the world is accomplished from someone who does nothing except insult and criticize others while sitting behind a keyboard.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

Thank you for verifying everything I said in my reply. Once again you're going with vibes.

---

So common sense is "vibes" to you? That makes sense given your positions on everything is contrary to the world we live in.

Macarthur said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

And this is where I think your position is shallow and very myopic.

Yes, looking at an individual raid and the people it rescues is a net positive. Even one rescue is a positive when looking at that instance in a silo. But you have to be really obtuse to not, at least try to understand why some organizations have some issues with the bigger picture of some of these tactics. These folks have dedicated their life to this issue and I think they deserve the respect of at least listening to their perspective. For you to call it laughably stupid shows a real deficiency on your part.

And again, this shines a light on just one small part of this issue. I hope you have the same energy for reforming the foster care system. Drug treatment infrastructure. The other drivers such as educational and economic opportunities. These are all (among others) drivers that fuel human trafficking.

---

You guys have given it your best shot. So far, all you people can come up with is raids are supposedly "harmful" because some victims go back. And again, that is a failure in therapy, not in the concept of performing raids itself. Some slaves went back to their original masters after slavery was abolished. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth it to the rest of the slaves? Hell no.

The other laughable "point" is that the majority of victims aren't kidnapped like shown in the movie. Well guess, what, most soldiers aren't Medal of Honor recipients either, does that mean movies about them are not worth making or watching? Hell no. This movie was about a particular event. That event was compelling and therefore movie worthy. That's the way movies are supposed to work.

You guys haven't actually brought any argument that is worth a damn this entire time. It's not my fault they are so easy to shoot down.

aTmAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

And this is where I think your position is shallow and very myopic.

Yes, looking at an individual raid and the people it rescues is a net positive. Even one rescue is a positive when looking at that instance in a silo. But you have to be really obtuse to not, at least try to understand why some organizations have some issues with the bigger picture of some of these tactics. These folks have dedicated their life to this issue and I think they deserve the respect of at least listening to their perspective. For you to call it laughably stupid shows a real deficiency on your part.

And again, this shines a light on just one small part of this issue. I hope you have the same energy for reforming the foster care system. Drug treatment infrastructure. The other drivers such as educational and economic opportunities. These are all (among others) drivers that fuel human trafficking.

---

You guys have given it your best shot. So far, all you people can come up with is raids are supposedly "harmful" because some victims go back. And again, that is a failure in therapy, not in the concept of performing raids itself. Some slaves went back to their original masters after slavery was abolished. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth it to the rest of the slaves? Hell no.

The other laughable "point" is that the majority of victims aren't kidnapped like shown in the movie. Well guess, what, most soldiers aren't Medal of Honor recipients either, does that mean movies about them are not worth making or watching? Hell no. This movie was about a particular event. That event was compelling and therefore movie worthy. That's the way movies are supposed to work.

You guys haven't actually brought any argument that is worth a damn this entire time. It's not my fault they are so easy to shoot down.

---

Look, just trust the science ok?

Macarthur said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

I've addressed the "concerns" as laughably stupid. Anybody who claims that raids aren't worth it because some of the victims go back into sex work should be mocked for being idiotic jackasses.

Some battered women go back to their husbands too, does that mean we should stop trying to getting them all out of those homes? To anybody with half a brain, the answer to that is: hell no.

---

And this is where I think your position is shallow and very myopic.

Yes, looking at an individual raid and the people it rescues is a net positive. Even one rescue is a positive when looking at that instance in a silo. But you have to be really obtuse to not, at least try to understand why some organizations have some issues with the bigger picture of some of these tactics. These folks have dedicated their life to this issue and I think they deserve the respect of at least listening to their perspective. For you to call it laughably stupid shows a real deficiency on your part.

And again, this shines a light on just one small part of this issue. I hope you have the same energy for reforming the foster care system. Drug treatment infrastructure. The other drivers such as educational and economic opportunities. These are all (among others) drivers that fuel human trafficking.

---

I agree whole heartedly about root cause analysis and a total approach. Treating the symptoms of a problem is no long term solution.

Freeing slaves and punishing the offenders is a very important component to stemming human trafficking. Not the only component but an important one.

A man has dedicated his career to human trafficking and starts a foundation to be more effective (his opinion) than he was in government service. He is doing what he is experienced in.

Like you said, why question the expert?

American, British, Canadian, French, and Russian soldiers, freed jews and other ethnic minorities from concentration camps in 1944 and 1945. And they did so violently. Way to go soldiers!

Barely any of them of them had absolutely anything to do with what happened next to them. Nothing. So I guess the soldiers sucked and everything they did should be scrutinized.

That's pretty much the logic on display here. It's really weird.

It's really not.

It's like criticizing a cop that responds to a domestic violence call because he didn't have anything do with what happened after took the abuser to jail.

Human trafficking is in fact a complex issue. But you guys keep obfuscating one of the most simple parts of it. It's weird.

Macarthur said:

---

I do not want to imply that there is no place for someone that goes in and rescues. I just think, as some of those that know this have said, you have to be careful that you have all the information and intelligence to be the most effective.

---

Guess, what? Tim Ballard is somebody who knows.

Macarthur said:

---

No doubt he has a lot of experience in some of these places. I'm just talking about the fact that with him not being a part of the government anymore, he may not always have the most up to date geopolitical information on the ground in some of these places. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that it makes it higher risk, i would think.

---

Didn't he leave the government because they sucked and weren't doing enough?

Government is incompetent at nearly everything it endeavors to do.

aTmAg said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

No doubt he has a lot of experience in some of these places. I'm just talking about the fact that with him not being a part of the government anymore, he may not always have the most up to date geopolitical information on the ground in some of these places. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, just that it makes it higher risk, i would think.

---

Didn't he leave the government because they sucked and weren't doing enough?

Government is incompetent at nearly everything it endeavors to do.

---

You're talking to a progressive. This is pretty much considered blasphemy to them. Please be more respectful.