BuckSwope

Ok, this one made me laugh.

No, that's not quite what people are saying, at least I am not. IMO if you do things like say you won't support a company that runs an ad like that, or a company that supports trannies and other things you are against promoting, and only do that for one thing and not dozens of others, you are being hypocritical. Especially when it's something as easy as not buying something you rarely use or there is an easy brand replacement for. Like the above examples - it's important enough to ban Bud Light from your house but not Maybelline? It's a bit a of a no-win situation when you spend so much time hyping it up. A bit of a hypocrite for doing one over the other since both are very easy boycotts, or admitting they largely didn't know about the Maybelline ad which then goes down the road of just caring about the trendy one on right SM/not being important enough to you to do some mild research (despite coming on message boards near daily and ranting about trannies and people that support them). Some portion of this is largely performative as people are suggesting.

You used to be able to have decent back and forth, Jon. You've gone off the deep end too. You old farts need to get off your damn phones. :lmao: You win- "the left" is evil.

The most suprising thing to me from that article is that Netflix is doing well. I can't seem to find a damn thing to watch on there most of the time.

I think it's fair to judge him and his actions, but I think what you mean is people shouldn't be assuming that made it's way into the movie, they should watch it and form their own opinion about the movie - if so, I agree. I don't think it was JUST Jimmy C, it was because the guy the movie was about also seems to hold similar views. I think some people assumed that it had some of that and/or some religious flavor based on previous works and the people behind the movie. I don't do it, but I understand people not watching something because they don't like an actor or they want to not put money in their pockets for whatever reason. I just find the reaction to this one to be really funny, because the people who also largely do this (not go to things and speak out about movies they think are too woke, liberal, whatever), but for some reason this time it's because the people not going have conspriratorial aspirations to molest kids kids and support child trafficking. :lmao:

Done. What's LinkedIn?

It's probably why Biden is so weak and falling down. They have the spotlight on him now, so he can't harvest the blood of the kids as all the Dems do. Shocking some people don't want to give money to people who think this bizzare . It's not possible to do a good movie about the topic without that stink attached to the project?

I know you like to play this silly victim card and others here do too. Take an honest look at what is said and more importantly how it's said. IMO more what is happening is grown adults largely have moved away from how many people who do the most complaining about this talk and think. NOT because it's conservative thinking, but largely because it's grown ass men how still act like they are in college and more just want a little corner of the internet where they can call each other phags and retards, call out family, ridicule others for their careers - things like that. What goes on around here very much reminds me of annoying gaming culture, but again - they are probably 30 years younger. My first interactions here were basically - nobody gives a f0ck about my family or me, I must me one of those pedo libs who takes showers with their kids, etc. Yes, it happens on both sides, and yes I have participated in some. But I would say on these boards largely you encounter people want to talk about some politics, but it doesn't drive their lives and it's not worth all the b.s. I described above. So continue to post that people aren't tolerating the right or banning people because they voted for Trump or support him. I will continue to think it's largely because people are acting like immature assh0les and it's not worth the headache.

I didn't say I had them, I said I (and I am guessing Hawks) find that line of "ads" to be weird and a bit nonsensical. Hence my question why that was your line vs a company that, say, contributes to a gay pride parade or contributes to an lgbtq cause. If I was opposed to trannies as much as you seem to be, I probably wouldn't stop at just whoever shows me an ad and makes it obvious. That's why I find it weird and a bit hypocritical. It's also why I largely don't stop using products over b.s. like this because it never ends when you start pulling on that string.

I'm not saying a thing about the movie itself- I haven't seen it yet. I just thought the ops comment about hearing it was the most phenomenal movie ever made funny. What I am disparaging is the rights reaction to things that have happened many times, sometimes from their side of the aisle. I'm also laughing at you trying to throw any lib under the bus after admitting you didn't give a crap about the kids getting poached south of the border.

There doesn't seem to be that many critic reviews. I didn't look, but wonder if it's one that wasn't screened for critics. ETA: for reference, I looked up the new MI on rotten tomatoes and it has 341 critic reviews and 2.5K audience reviews. Sound of freedom has 36 and 10K+.

You are right - it's not normal. He's a creepy old dude.

Sure, you do you. Hawks' point is about the dozens of other companies and products people use that also promotes, contributes to, and supports transexual and gay lifestyles. Why aren't people boycotting them or calling them out. I am guessing like me, he finds the line in the sand of only reacting with a boycott of a product if an ad features a tranny. What about companies that support a gay pride parade that feature those lovely picks LC shares? You still buy their product, just not any that use a tranny in an ad? Arbitrary and weird, but again - you do you. I'll just choose to believe it's largely because it was already a crap product that didn't require that much of a sacrifice to stop using, and was easy to pass around on SM because it was an ad.

..and acting like snowflakes wanting an apology (and it better be using the right wording!) - that part is just like the left you hate, which is what I was pointing out. Yes, I will give you that they call for the CEO to lose their jobs (they are just cheering about the person who did lose their job). BUT - largely your side didn't act like the first part a few years ago, so I will give it a few more years to fully catch up with their sh1tty behavior on that last front.

Do you really not understand what he is saying is hypocritical?

Again, this is behavior we saw from the left that bothered them so much, like you have been point out. It's not enough to make a choice to buy it or not, now it's not being happy until they offending party apologizes!! The person also has to say something to them whether they believe it or not.

Do you read movie reviews? I've seen many that think it's a great movie because finally there is a movie about child trafficking to "educate" people about the important topic. Not sure why that makes it a great movie, and I find it amusing.

Evidently just being about child trafficking also means it's a great movie as well.

No, that's not what I am advocating, but keep trying. I am just truthful enough to admit that some of these policies have consequences like that, and they might be at odds with other goals. You don't seem to like that for some reason. I don't want open borders, so nothing I've said has been hypocritical. Just pointing out there were negative consequence of Remain in Mexico that were in direct odds with being anti-trafficking. I didn't like Remain in Mexico for that reason, said as much, but now I'm pro- child trafficking?

It's such a dumb position. Like I said to Eternal - I'd bet a decent amount of money they aren't doing anything more about it than the rest of us - voting, maybe donating some money, calling libs pedos online, probably more likely just talking about it online (while accusing others of being high and mighty). The hypcrocites tag was the funniest of all - while admitting he didn't care about THOSE people being subjected to more harm from traffickers in the thread trying to pimp how much the right cares about child trafficking. I guess it only applies to the small % of children on our side of the border.

Yes, in a way. I am being a tad hyperbolic for effect, but IMO we do have that choice as a country setting the policies. So we chose to make them wait on the other side of the border and as a result - made them more susceptible to the cartels and traffickers. OMG - no, I am not housing them, and I live in WI - just like you. We are in the exact same position on that front. What are you doing to combat this issue that is evidently so important to you that you felt the need to call me out like I am not doing anything compared to you? My guess is chatting about it online, voting R to save the kids!!, and maybe going to see Sound of Freedom?

"F0ck em, they shouldnt be at the border" is a stance to take to be ok with a policy that hands them back to the cartels and traffickers. I will continue to laugh at you guys puffing up your chests on the topic of trafficking then.

You are welcome. I always enjoy our interactions.

I'm going to watch the movie, but not in the theater. Now I am talking about the border and trafficking in general as the conversation morphed to that. Is that OK?

Polices that started in the 70s and continued on. You truly are an idiot.