Cancel Bud Light! Maga Hissy Fit!

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Eh.  I believe certain causes are too big/complex/political for private charities to have a significant effect.  That's when the government has a role.  I donate to charities I think will make a difference - I want a good ROI and not just to throw money at something and think that's making a difference.  That's what our government does a lot of.  It's wasteful and ineffective.  But the more people aware of this and making a big deal of it will impact the government's stance on the issue.  That's where the value is for a movie like this.  And, for the record. I haven't seen this movie and don't intend to pay money at a theater to do so.  But I'm fine with other people going to see it.  Just weird that some of you have a hard on about people going to see it because you think it's "MAGA" or something.  I really don't understand the objection. 

I don't care why people see it, but I also don't know why it is controversial to say that it's largely MAGA promoting it and going to see it in groups like this.   I've seen similar with Passion of the Christ, and movies that cater even more left than typical movies do - there are certain groups of people that are more likely to see it and make a big deal about it.  It's just an observation.    My "objection" is not that people are going to see a movie.  

It also sounds to me like this is a great way that people could use this movie politically like you bolded.   I would guess your follow up would be that if you want to make a change you have to vote a certain way, and I think that is also misguided (and a great way to turn a supposedly non-political issue into one).   

[Strike 4,120]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I don't care why people see it, but I also don't know why it is controversial to say that it's largely MAGA promoting it and going to see it in groups like this.   I've seen similar with Passion of the Christ, and movies that cater even more left than typical movies do - there are certain groups of people that are more likely to see it and make a big deal about it.  It's just an observation.    My "objection" is not that people are going to see a movie.  

 

You can say whatever you like, but that's like your opinion man.  Do you have any data supporting that statement?

[Strike 4,120]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

It also sounds to me like this is a great way that people could use this movie politically like you bolded.   I would guess your follow up would be that if you want to make a change you have to vote a certain way, and I think that is also misguided (and a great way to turn a supposedly non-political issue into one).   

I never indicated that this movie could/would be used politically, or to affect voting in any way.  The government is supposed to care about the issues their constituents care about.  So, more people caring about this issue and making that clear SHOULD affect how the government feels about that issue as well.  That's not politics, or sides, or trying to change voting habits.  It's how a good government works.  But if you look at the issues THIS government cares about, the government is doing the OPPOSITE of what their constituents want on many issues.

[BuckSwope 654]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

You can say whatever you like, but that's like your opinion man.  Do you have any data supporting that statement?

Do you not have the internet?   What side of the aisle is promoting this movie and going in groups?    Hell, just read the posts in here.   Do I have a scientific study to link to, no I don't.   Yes, it's my opinion, but I think it's not a controversial one.  

I've worked in theaters and video stores many years as well - I knew the customers and this stuff is not new, and I saw it with other movies I listed.  

[BuckSwope 654]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

I never indicated that this movie could/would be used politically, or to affect voting in any way.  The government is supposed to care about the issues their constituents care about.  So, more people caring about this issue and making that clear SHOULD affect how the government feels about that issue as well.  That's not politics, or sides, or trying to change voting habits.  It's how a good government works.  But if you look at the issues THIS government cares about, the government is doing the OPPOSITE of what their constituents want on many issues.

It is though, again - look around at the reaction and rhetoric.  It's inevitable.    Both sides are doing it, and it's already political like damn near everything else.  

I don't disagree with you, I am just pushing back on this idea of "awareness".   I don't think the government gives two craps about what we care about or the border, so I think the idea that this movie is going to largely move the needle on that front misguided.    IMO it's either going to be played for political points - dems didn't see the movie because they support pedos and traffickers!  or two move the needle like you suggest it would take a more bipartisan effort and things like I posted above - also writing to politicians, or being more active that way to make them take note.   I don't think they are going to say - oh , Sound of Freedom made $300M - we better take this issue seriously! 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[jerryskids 5,442]

6 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Some libs seem to be butthurt about this, saying it should be an asterisk.  But I disagree, it’s brilliant.  Even more profit for the theaters if people with the free tickets don’t actually show up.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/23/sound-of-freedom-qanon-movie-conspiracy-theories?CMP=share_btn_tw

Why would theaters make more money if people don't show up?  I always thought the tickets were something of a loss leader to sell concessions at ridiculous prices.   

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

But politics are the reason people like your friend are giving people free tickets for this movie 

Well, conservatives give substantially more than liberals.  Even though it makes the hedonistic, selfish Left look bad, it's science, so I'm sure you won't debate it.

Quote

Are conservatives more charitable than liberals in the U.S.? A meta-analysis of political ideology and charitable giving

Yongzheng Yang ¹, Peixu Liu ²

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 34429211
•  
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102598

Abstract

Political ideology not only influences political activities, but also apolitical fields such as charitable giving. However, empirical studies regarding political ideology and charitable giving have yielded mixed results. To find out the effect size and explain the variation in effect sizes, we deploy a meta-analysis to estimate the average effect size and examine the potential moderators from four perspectives. Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios. Furthermore, meta-regression results indicate that the measure of charitable giving, the type of charitable giving, and controlling for religiosity can account for the variation in effect sizes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our meta-analysis results suggest,giving varies under different scenarios.

[avoiding injuries 1,238]

Had to scroll up to see if I was in the correct thread. 
How bout that Bud Light thing?

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Why would theaters make more money if people don't show up?  I always thought the tickets were something of a loss leader to sell concessions at ridiculous prices.   

Well, conservatives give substantially more than liberals.  Even though it makes the hedonistic, selfish Left look bad, it's science, so I'm sure you won't debate it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our meta-analysis results suggest,giving varies under different scenarios.

How much of that ties to church, and how much is just $ vs. time and contributing that way?   Does it factor income levels or % of income given?    It would be nice to have a full study here, I'm not sure what of my questions get answered.   I've seen that study and that concept posted a few times, but never seem to get to dig into it - it's an interesting idea.  

Odd that you cut off the bolding at the However, too.   

 

You are right, about the theaters not making a ton on empty seats.  Mostly what that does is just make a movie look more popular than it is when you look at ticket sales.  

 

[jerryskids 5,442]

18 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

How much of that ties to church, and how much is just $ vs. time and contributing that way?   Does it factor income levels or % of income given?    It would be nice to have a full study here, I'm not sure what of my questions get answered.   I've seen that study and that concept posted a few times, but never seem to get to dig into it - it's an interesting idea.  

Odd that you cut off the bolding at the However, too.   

 

You are right, about the theaters not making a ton on empty seats.  Mostly what that does is just make a movie look more popular than it is when you look at ticket sales.  

 

I'm confident there are correlations to religious donations, and that that is part of the part I didn't bold.  I bolded the part that said "significantly more charitable," which was my point.  But being a good poster, I didn't intentionally omit the parts which may bring up questions.  Others here sometimes do that.

Anyway, conservatives are more religious and give more to churches.  That is part of conservatives being more into family and community.  The Left is into hedonism and self -- what makes me happy today is all that matters, how I want to be treated is all that matters, my truth is reality, and I want a large government to take care of my needs while I pursue my happiness.

[seafoam1 1,910]

1 hour ago, avoiding injuries said:

Had to scroll up to see if I was in the correct thread. 
How bout that Bud Light thing?

Off the rails. Start a new thread already with a different title. 

[BuckSwope 654]

32 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm confident there are correlations to religious donations, and that that is part of the part I didn't bold.  I bolded the part that said "significantly more charitable," which was my point.  But being a good poster, I didn't intentionally omit the parts which may bring up questions.  Others here sometimes do that.

Anyway, conservatives are more religious and give more to churches.  That is part of conservatives being more into family and community.  The Left is into hedonism and self -- what makes me happy today is all that matters, how I want to be treated is all that matters, my truth is reality, and I want a large government to take care of my needs while I pursue my happiness.

Which is fine, but is also why I asked about the breakdown and if it included % of income or time, since the first sentence focuses on total $ amount.   I was curious for a deeper dive.  

 

[dogcows 1,030]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I'm confident there are correlations to religious donations, and that that is part of the part I didn't bold.  I bolded the part that said "significantly more charitable," which was my point.  But being a good poster, I didn't intentionally omit the parts which may bring up questions.  Others here sometimes do that.

Anyway, conservatives are more religious and give more to churches.  That is part of conservatives being more into family and community.  The Left is into hedonism and self -- what makes me happy today is all that matters, how I want to be treated is all that matters, my truth is reality, and I want a large government to take care of my needs while I pursue my happiness.

I read an article about this:

Political Ideology and Giving

This is just a summary of the study. They include a link to the study, but you need to buy access to read the whole thing, which I’m not gonna do.

As for family vs hedonism? I don’t think that’s an accurate generalization. After all, although Republican-heavy areas have higher charity rates, they also have higher divorce rates. It seems like there are multiple factors at play in the charity rates. The religious statement does appear to be a pretty legitimate generalization though.

[seafoam1 1,910]

51 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I read an article about this:

Political Ideology and Giving

This is just a summary of the study. They include a link to the study, but you need to buy access to read the whole thing, which I’m not gonna do.

As for family vs hedonism? I don’t think that’s an accurate generalization. After all, although Republican-heavy areas have higher charity rates, they also have higher divorce rates. It seems like there are multiple factors at play in the charity rates. The religious statement does appear to be a pretty legitimate generalization though.

What a complete dumbass. 

[Reality 2,711]

Jesus, these responses...

Y'all normal folks have to stop responding to the town focking idiots.

[TimHauck 1,890]

21 hours ago, Strike said:

What the hell do you expect moviegoers to do about child trafficking?  If the movie raises awareness about the issue that's a good thing.  But child trafficking is one of those things the government should actually be doing something about.  This is the problem a lot of us "small government" people have with the current state of things.  There are certain things the government should NOT be involved in, and certain things that they are the only ones who can really do anything.  We want them involved in things that only they can take care of, but NOT getting involved in petty things they have no right to.  Unfortunately, the current state of our government reverses those two things, which ends up focking us and taking away our rights.

Well one thing I’d say should be happening if “awareness is increasing” is more money donated to these charities.  I see you don’t think that will do anything, so as @BuckSwope mentioned, it should also at least result in more people writing their representatives.

 

20 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Yes

Why didn’t you have a problem with all of Michael Moore’s films.

that shows exactly how hypocritical the left is.

I don’t have a problem with the film.  I have a problem with people who act like it’s a documentary by saying it’s “raising awareness” when it should really just be for entertainment.  Aren’t Moore’s films actual documentaries?  I don’t really watch them.
 

 

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Why would theaters make more money if people don't show up?  I always thought the tickets were something of a loss leader to sell concessions at ridiculous prices.   

Well, conservatives give substantially more than liberals.  Even though it makes the hedonistic, selfish Left look bad, it's science, so I'm sure you won't debate it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our meta-analysis results suggest,giving varies under different scenarios.

Ok touché on the concession point, I was just thinking they wouldn’t mind making money by not doing anything.

I never said Republicans don’t donate a lot of money, in fact I specifically said “many like to donate their hard-earned money ‘for the cause’“ - that’s why I said it was great marketing to push this “pay it forward” thing.

[seafoam1 1,910]

Is the bud light brand out of business yet? I would love to see it. 

[Strike 4,120]

39 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Is the bud light brand out of business yet? I would love to see it. 

It's not going to go out of business.  Even if the 30% drop they experienced at the peak of the boycott didn't return, 30% of their peak is still one of the most successful beers in the business.  It's just not #1.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,012]

Idiot Hack thinks charities are the answer to choose trafficking.  They can only do so much.  It’s a government issue. So stupid. 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Well one thing I’d say should be happening if “awareness is increasing” is more money donated to these charities.  I see you don’t think that will do anything, so as @BuckSwope mentioned, it should also at least result in more people writing their representatives.

 

I don’t have a problem with the film.  I have a problem with people who act like it’s a documentary by saying it’s “raising awareness” when it should really just be for entertainment.  Aren’t Moore’s films actual documentaries?  I don’t really watch them.
 

 

Ok touché on the concession point, I was just thinking they wouldn’t mind making money by not doing anything.

I never said Republicans don’t donate a lot of money, in fact I specifically said “many like to donate their hard-earned money ‘for the cause’“ - that’s why I said it was great marketing to push this “pay it forward” thing.

They all seem to think that the charities and organizations do not do much on this topic, but doesn't that point to this being even more of a grift as they ask for money to their organization at the end of the movie?  

Correct, Moore's movies are documentaries.  While bias and slanted, there is still a much higher bar to clear to be a documentary vs. a "based on true events" movie.   That really doesn't mean sh1t,  and I have seen movies all over the spectrum of accuracy in that subgenre.   Hell, Texas Chainsaw Massacre used that descriptor because it was 'based" on Ed Gein.  It's largely a marketing ploy.   Usually what happens is because of flow and narrative, they will combine personalities into one person, focus on more "exciting" and cinematic things vs. reality, things like that.  You know, what some of the reviews have beeen critical of.    The issue is when the audience doesn't know or realize these things and walk away thinking the know (accurately) about the subject matter.   Especially when it's combined with movie like this getting a lot of praise and is being touted and important and "must see".  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,780]

29 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

They all seem to think that the charities and organizations do not do much on this topic, but doesn't that point to this being even more of a grift as they ask for money to their organization at the end of the movie?  

Correct, Moore's movies are documentaries.  While bias and slanted, there is still a much higher bar to clear to be a documentary vs. a "based on true events" movie.   That really doesn't mean sh1t,  and I have seen movies all over the spectrum of accuracy in that subgenre.   Hell, Texas Chainsaw Massacre used that descriptor because it was 'based" on Ed Gein.  It's largely a marketing ploy.   Usually what happens is because of flow and narrative, they will combine personalities into one person, focus on more "exciting" and cinematic things vs. reality, things like that.  You know, what some of the reviews have beeen critical of.    The issue is when the audience doesn't know or realize these things and walk away thinking the know (accurately) about the subject matter.   Especially when it's combined with movie like this getting a lot of praise and is being touted and important and "must see".  

Is Sound of Freedom being marketed as a documentary?

I can think of many movies that have been marketed as "must see" yet were not documentaries.  Why does this one movie bother you but for the last 100 years all the others ones being marketed the same you have no issue with?  That's what you need to look at.

Heck, even Barbie is being touted as "must see".  Don't you have an issue with that?  Or do you think Barbie is a "documentary"?

[TimHauck 1,890]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Is Sound of Freedom being marketed as a documentary?

I can think of many movies that have been marketed as "must see" yet were not documentaries.  Why does this one movie bother you but for the last 100 years all the others ones being marketed the same you have no issue with?  That's what you need to look at.

Heck, even Barbie is being touted as "must see".  Don't you have an issue with that?  Or do you think Barbie is a "documentary"?

Isn’t the “must see” to describe Barbie because that person thinks it’s good?  Not because you “must see it to spread awareness.”

I wouldn’t say Sound of Freedom is being “marketed as a documentary,” but some of it’s fans seem to think it is, and even the Pay it Forward program encourages “spreading the message”

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Is Sound of Freedom being marketed as a documentary?

I can think of many movies that have been marketed as "must see" yet were not documentaries.  Why does this one movie bother you but for the last 100 years all the others ones being marketed the same you have no issue with?  That's what you need to look at.

Heck, even Barbie is being touted as "must see".  Don't you have an issue with that?  Or do you think Barbie is a "documentary"?

No, it's not.  

No, my point was not that it was simply a "must see" movie.  

No, I don't have an issue with Barbie being described as "must see".  No, I don't think Barbie is a documentary. 

[Engorgeous George 1,325]

Lost my favorite popper, a rapala ultralight with a black/brown back and an orange and yellow belly.  That lure has been very successful for me in antagonizing bass to strike.  Today it got a northern to rise in a reservior from which they have tried to eliminate the transplanted northern and tiger muskies.  I was told they are all gone.  Well at leat one remains and it has my lure and it snapped my 8 lb test line.  That ended my fishing for the day as i did not carry any extras out with me today, though I generally do in the event i want to change up and go for perch or walleye or trout. 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Isn’t the “must see” to describe Barbie because that person thinks it’s good?  Not because you “must see it to spread awareness.”

I wouldn’t say Sound of Freedom is being “marketed as a documentary,” but some of it’s fans seem to think it is, and even the Pay it Forward program encourages “spreading the message”

Correct, my point is simply average movie watcher overestimate the accuracy of "based on true events" movies.  I've seen it for countless movies.  

Most of the time it's not a big deal, but when people are talking about donating $ because of it, being important to for voting, etc.    Little different than say Ford vs Ferrari or countless other movies based on something in RL. 

[Cdub100 3,468]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Isn’t the “must see” to describe Barbie because that person thinks it’s good?  Not because you “must see it to spread awareness.”

I wouldn’t say Sound of Freedom is being “marketed as a documentary,” but some of it’s fans seem to think it is, and even the Pay it Forward program encourages “spreading the message”

Is "spreading the message" a bad thing Tim? 

[seafoam1 1,910]

18 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Is "spreading the message" a bad thing Tim? 

Yes if you don't agree with the message. 

[Cdub100 3,468]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

Yes if you don't agree with the message. 

I haven't seen the movie. I assume the message is, child trafficking is wrong and it hurts kids.

 

[seafoam1 1,910]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

I haven't seen the movie. I assume the message is, child trafficking is wrong and it hurts kids.

 

Liberals like open borders. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,780]

5 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

They all seem to think that the charities and organizations do not do much on this topic, but doesn't that point to this being even more of a grift as they ask for money to their organization at the end of the movie?  

Correct, Moore's movies are documentaries.  While bias and slanted, there is still a much higher bar to clear to be a documentary vs. a "based on true events" movie.   That really doesn't mean sh1t,  and I have seen movies all over the spectrum of accuracy in that subgenre.   Hell, Texas Chainsaw Massacre used that descriptor because it was 'based" on Ed Gein.  It's largely a marketing ploy.   Usually what happens is because of flow and narrative, they will combine personalities into one person, focus on more "exciting" and cinematic things vs. reality, things like that.  You know, what some of the reviews have beeen critical of.    The issue is when the audience doesn't know or realize these things and walk away thinking the know (accurately) about the subject matter.   Especially when it's combined with movie like this getting a lot of praise and is being touted and important and "must see".  

That's your disconnect.  Moore's movies are NOT documentaries - they are liberal propaganda to the core.  He had no bar to clear other than "make something that advances the agenda".

Sound of Freedom's "based on true events" is no different than any other movie that is "based on true events" - the directory is at liberty to change whatever he wants.  Propaganda (Moore's "movies") is far, far worse because, y'know, it's propaganda to deliberately lie, mislead and fool people.

 

[BuckSwope 654]

21 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

That's your disconnect.  Moore's movies are NOT documentaries - they are liberal propaganda to the core.  He had no bar to clear other than "make something that advances the agenda".

Sound of Freedom's "based on true events" is no different than any other movie that is "based on true events" - the directory is at liberty to change whatever he wants.  Propaganda (Moore's "movies") is far, far worse because, y'know, it's propaganda to deliberately lie, mislead and fool people.

 

Yes, they are - as I said, they are biased and slanted.  It just means it uses real footage, interviews, etc.    A documentary can be straight down the middle or politically biased.  

You are right, technically it's no different than any other movie that uses it "based on true events" as a label.  The director and writer pretty much have free reign.   See we basically agree.   

 

Where I seem to lose you is that what makes this slightly different than most is that it's actively asking for $ at the end of it, and people are talking about the importance of the message/info in the movie and how that should influence your government and your vote.   If you read my posts, I also made that distinction above.   So that's what makes it different than most of the other dumb examples you can throw at me.    Can't we even agree that if that's the case we should at least look into where that $ is going, and that the people are getting good info to base their vote on.   Me, I think it's idiotic to suggest people base decisions in life on a fictional movie, but that's just me.  

 

[seafoam1 1,910]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yes, they are - as I said, they are biased and slanted.  It just means it uses real footage, interviews, etc.    A documentary can be straight down the middle or politically biased.  

You are right, technically it's no different than any other movie that uses it "based on true events" as a label.  The director and writer pretty much have free reign.   See we basically agree.   

 

Where I seem to lose you is that what makes this slightly different than most is that it's actively asking for $ at the end of it, and people are talking about the importance of the message/info in the movie and how that should influence your government and your vote.   If you read my posts, I also made that distinction above.   So that's what makes it different than most of the other dumb examples you can throw at me.    Can't we even agree that if that's the case we should at least look into where that $ is going, and that the people are getting good info to base their vote on.   Me, I think it's idiotic to suggest people base decisions in life on a fictional movie, but that's just me.  

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,780]

8 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yes, they are - as I said, they are biased and slanted.  It just means it uses real footage, interviews, etc.    A documentary can be straight down the middle or politically biased.  

You are right, technically it's no different than any other movie that uses it "based on true events" as a label.  The director and writer pretty much have free reign.   See we basically agree.   

 

Where I seem to lose you is that what makes this slightly different than most is that it's actively asking for $ at the end of it, and people are talking about the importance of the message/info in the movie and how that should influence your government and your vote.   If you read my posts, I also made that distinction above.   So that's what makes it different than most of the other dumb examples you can throw at me.    Can't we even agree that if that's the case we should at least look into where that $ is going, and that the people are getting good info to base their vote on.   Me, I think it's idiotic to suggest people base decisions in life on a fictional movie, but that's just me.  

 

Sure, we can agree. 

But, just for the record, other movies have also asked for $$$ at the end too.  This isn't a new thing with Sound of Freedom.  The difference here, this time, is that it's a conservative "cause" whereas 99.8% of the other times it's all liberal causes but no one ever has any beef with that.  Just sayin', that's all.  Let's keep it real: the problem isn't that they are asking for $$$, the problem is they are asking for $$$ for a cause/message the left doesn't like.

But, yes, in general, we can agree.

[Reality 2,711]

1 hour ago, Cdub100 said:

I haven't seen the movie. I assume the message is, child trafficking is wrong and it hurts kids.

 

Yeah but, somebody said it's must see. Can you believe that? Unacceptable... 

This thread has some of the dumbest focking back and forth I've ever seen. I have no idea why normal people respond to the liberal dipshlts that post here. This thread alone proves how focking pathetic they are.

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sure, we can agree. 

But, just for the record, other movies have also asked for $$$ at the end too.  This isn't a new thing with Sound of Freedom.  The difference here, this time, is that it's a conservative "cause" whereas 99.8% of the other times it's all liberal causes but no one ever has any beef with that.  Just sayin', that's all.  Let's keep it real: the problem isn't that they are asking for $$$, the problem is they are asking for $$$ for a cause/message the left doesn't like.

But, yes, in general, we can agree.

No, it's not a new thing - it's a rare thing.   It's not the only movie to ever do it.   I think it would take us quite a while to name any others though, and we could start rattling off "based on.." moives.  They are incredibly common.  

Like above, you are close.  It's not because it's a right "cause" it's because the people behind it far right views and open Q ties.   So you are correct - the liberals largely avoided that.   Not because they just love the pedos like you dorks like to claim, because (like you all do with movies) they voted with their wallet and didn't go or trashed the movie.   You are correct, more times than not it's not the liberals reacting like this because most movies lean that way.  Most of the time it's the right acting like this.  

[Hardcore troubadour 13,012]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

No, it's not a new thing - it's a rare thing.   It's not the only movie to ever do it.   I think it would take us quite a while to name any others though, and we could start rattling off "based on.." moives.  They are incredibly common.  

Like above, you are close.  It's not because it's a right "cause" it's because the people behind it far right views and open Q ties.   So you are correct - the liberals largely avoided that.   Not because they just love the pedos like you dorks like to claim, because (like you all do with movies) they voted with their wallet and didn't go or trashed the movie.   You are correct, more times than not it's not the liberals reacting like this because most movies lean that way.  Most of the time it's the right acting like this.  

Stfu, would ya? How many times are you going to say the same exact thing? 

[Reality 2,711]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Stfu, would ya? How many times are you going to say the same exact thing? 

He scared to death you didn't see it the first 635 focking times he said the same dumb shlt...

 

[DonS 3,097]

41 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yes, they are - as I said, they are biased and slanted. 

It's a kung fu movie???. 

[TimHauck 1,890]

2 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Is "spreading the message" a bad thing Tim? 

If it results in people buying tickets to a fictional movie instead of spending that money to actually fight child trafficking, possibly.  It’s great if people think it’s the best movie ever, but it’s silly if people think they’re “doing good” by going to see it when all they’re doing is lining the pockets of the people that made it.

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sure, we can agree. 

But, just for the record, other movies have also asked for $$$ at the end too.  This isn't a new thing with Sound of Freedom.  The difference here, this time, is that it's a conservative "cause" whereas 99.8% of the other times it's all liberal causes but no one ever has any beef with that.  Just sayin', that's all.  Let's keep it real: the problem isn't that they are asking for $$$, the problem is they are asking for $$$ for a cause/message the left doesn't like.

But, yes, in general, we can agree.

What are some examples of some other “based on true events” movies that ask for money at the end?