Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 8:13:02 PM #101:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] LOL compare Confused's "The guy who funded..." to the actual fact of the matter, "one guy out of 6600..." Pretty obvious the dishonest picture being painted here but you get it already. You get it. Lokarin posted... I think its funny that the right wingers take the 'added context' as an insult but everyone else appreciates the added context Why do you think right wingers take the context that (ostensibly) defends them as an insult? <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975294614] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> LOL compare Confused's "The guy who funded..." to the actual fact of the matter, "one guy out of 6600..."Pretty obvious the dishonest picture being painted here but you get it already. You get it.Lokarin posted... </cite><quote>I think its funny that the right wingers take the 'added context' as an insult but everyone else appreciates the added context</quote>Why do you think right wingers take the context that (ostensibly) defends them as an insult?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
[deleted] 08/06/23 9:01:06 PM #118:	[deleted] <cite>[deleted] posted [p:975298297] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>[deleted]</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 08/06/23 9:56:15 PM #102:	Twitter's fact checking is really solid. Too bad the site got failson'd. <cite>Yellow posted [p:975296345] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>Twitter's fact checking is really solid. Too bad the site got failson'd.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 10:52:54 PM #103:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... LOL compare Confused's "The guy who funded..." to the actual fact of the matter, "one guy out of 6600..." Pretty obvious the dishonest picture being painted here but you get it already. You get it. what dishonest picture the guy who funded the movie about child trafficking got arrested for child trafficking that's the entire picture and it happened, the mans court date is Aug 28th. i need to know why you're trying to defend a garbage bag of a person. --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975297404] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>LOL compare Confused's "The guy who funded..." to the actual fact of the matter, "one guy out of 6600..."Pretty obvious the dishonest picture being painted here but you get it already. You get it.</quote>what dishonest picturethe guy who funded the movie about child trafficking got arrested for child traffickingthat's the entire picture and it happened, the mans court date is Aug 28th. i need to know why you're trying to defend a garbage bag of a person. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 10:57:12 PM #104:	ConfusedTorchic posted... what dishonest picture the guy who funded the movie about child trafficking got arrested for child trafficking that's the entire picture and it happened, the mans court date is Aug 28th. i need to know why you're trying to defend a garbage bag of a person. "The guy who funded the movie" lol You're trying too hard, no one will fall for this when you try so hard. Ease back. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297457] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>what dishonest picturethe guy who funded the movie about child trafficking got arrested for child traffickingthat's the entire picture and it happened, the mans court date is Aug 28th. i need to know why you're trying to defend a garbage bag of a person.</quote>"The guy who funded the movie" lolYou're trying too hard, no one will fall for this when you try so hard. Ease back.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#105	Post #105 was unavailable or deleted.
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 10:58:47 PM #106:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... "The guy who funded the movie" lol You're trying too hard, no one will fall for this when you try so hard. Ease back. yes, the guy who funded the movie why are you trying to defend a child trafficker though. you didn't answer that part --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975297481] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>"The guy who funded the movie" lolYou're trying too hard, no one will fall for this when you try so hard. Ease back.</quote>yes, the guy who funded the moviewhy are you trying to defend a child trafficker though. you didn't answer that part </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:03:46 PM #107:	ConfusedTorchic posted... yes, the guy who funded the movie why are you trying to defend a child trafficker though. you didn't answer that part He's not "the guy", that implies there's one. There were 6600. You want there to be one because you know you can't paint a group of 6600 people with the actions of one, and that breaks the narrative we're spinning here that these people are all scum. And let's start by seeing you point out the exact sentence wherein I did that so I can tell you why you're wrong. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297560] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>yes, the guy who funded the moviewhy are you trying to defend a child trafficker though. you didn't answer that part</quote>He's not "the guy", that implies there's one. There were 6600. You want there to be one because you know you can't paint a group of 6600 people with the actions of one, and that breaks the narrative we're spinning here that these people are all scum.And let's start by seeing you point out the exact sentence wherein I did that so I can tell you why you're wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 11:06:59 PM #108:	ok i will as soon as you tell me why you keep avoiding the question --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975297614] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>oki will as soon as you tell me why you keep avoiding the question </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:08:27 PM #109:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Cognitive dissonance taking its toll? <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297638] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Cognitive dissonance taking its toll?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:09:22 PM #110:	ConfusedTorchic posted... ok i will as soon as you tell me why you keep avoiding the question Point it out or you're making it up whole cloth. Failure to do so will be taken as a concession that I never defended him. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297657] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>oki will as soon as you tell me why you keep avoiding the question</quote>Point it out or you're making it up whole cloth. Failure to do so will be taken as a concession that I never defended him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#111	Post #111 was unavailable or deleted.
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 11:12:33 PM #112:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... Point it out or you're making it up whole cloth. Failure to do so will be taken as a concession that I never defended him. okay and i will, as soon as you answer my question. i did ask first, after all. failure to do so will be taken as concession that you are defending him. what a stupid attempt you made to try and avoid answering a rather simple question. furthermore, LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... He's not "the guy", that implies there's one i never said he was the only one, did I for some reason you really fixated on that in your defense of the indefensible any day now you'll answer the question, im sure of it. --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975297702] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>Point it out or you're making it up whole cloth. Failure to do so will be taken as a concession that I never defended him.</quote>okayand i will, as soon as you answer my question. i did ask first, after all. failure to do so will be taken as concession that you are defending him.what a stupid attempt you made to try and avoid answering a rather simple question. furthermore,LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>He's not "the guy", that implies there's one</quote>i never said he was the only one, did Ifor some reason you really fixated on that in your defense of the indefensible any day now you'll answer the question, im sure of it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:13:32 PM #113:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] You should try sometime. Something other than embarrassing yourself, I mean. That's automatic for you, it looks like. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297720] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> You should try sometime. Something other than embarrassing yourself, I mean. That's automatic for you, it looks like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:27:57 PM #114:	ConfusedTorchic posted... and i will, as soon as you answer my question. I already did though, can you read? I said in post 110 that I never defended him. That's an answer to your loaded question of why I'm defending him. Now point out where I did. Can you? Or can't you? Spoiler: ~~no you can't and I accept your concession in advance~~ ConfusedTorchic posted... i never said he was the only one, did I When you say "the guy", yes, that's you trying to trick people into thinking there's one guy behind funding the movie. Or at the very least, one major one. Hence the context added to the tweet to dispel the trickery, and hence my calling attention to it to expose yours as well. Dave: "There was a car crash on the road here yesterday and the person got hurt bad" Sal: "What'd they crash into?" Dave: "Another vehicle" Sal: "Like a parked one?" Dave: "No, a bus with kids in it" Sal: "Why the fuck did you say "the person" then?" Language is a powerful tool if you're smart enough to use it. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975297920] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>and i will, as soon as you answer my question.</quote>I already did though, can you read? I said in post 110 that I never defended him. That's an answer to your loaded question of why I'm defending him. Now point out where I did. Can you? Or can't you?Spoiler: no you can't and I accept your concession in advanceConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>i never said he was the only one, did I</quote>When you say "the guy", yes, that's you trying to trick people into thinking there's one guy behind funding the movie. Or at the very least, one major one. Hence the context added to the tweet to dispel the trickery, and hence my calling attention to it to expose yours as well. Dave: "There was a car crash on the road here yesterday and the person got hurt bad" Sal: "What'd they crash into?"Dave: "Another vehicle" Sal: "Like a parked one?"Dave: "No, a bus with kids in it"Sal: "Why the fuck did you say "the person" then?"Language is a powerful tool if you're smart enough to use it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 11:34:22 PM #115:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... I already did though, can you read? I said in post 110 that I never defended him. you did not, actually. you tried making a really stupid ultimatum that doesn't apply to anything in an effort to get someone to assume you aren't defending him meanwhile nearly every post you've made has not been actually addressing the issue at hand, and instead you've been focused on trying to get us to ignore the man entirely therefore, due to your own logic, in your failure to explain why you've been defending him, you have conceded that you are defending him, a la: ConfusedTorchic posted... failure to do so will be taken as concession that you are defending him. meanwhile, LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... When you say "the guy", yes, that's you trying to trick people into thinking there's one guy behind funding the movie. Or at the very least, one major one. Hence the context added to the tweet to dispel the trickery, and hence my calling attention to it to expose yours as well. no, when i say "the guy" i mean "the guy" as in, the guy who funded the movie i'm not talking about any of the other funders, i'm talking about this specific one anything you assumed is entirely and completely on you, and makes you look even more foolish than you do trying to argue the mans defense. do you know how easy it is to just go "that guys a piece of shit lol" and nothing else? it's very easy. instead you saw that and went "i am offended at these people talking shit about this child trafficker" and the question you were asked is why you felt the need to do that. --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975298034] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>I already did though, can you read? I said in post 110 that I never defended him.</quote>you did not, actually. you tried making a really stupid ultimatum that doesn't apply to anything in an effort to get someone to assume you aren't defending himmeanwhile nearly every post you've made has not been actually addressing the issue at hand, and instead you've been focused on trying to get us to ignore the man entirelytherefore, due to your own logic, in your failure to explain why you've been defending him, you have conceded that you are defending him, a la:ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>failure to do so will be taken as concession that you are defending him.</quote>meanwhile,LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>When you say "the guy", yes, that's you trying to trick people into thinking there's one guy behind funding the movie. Or at the very least, one major one. Hence the context added to the tweet to dispel the trickery, and hence my calling attention to it to expose yours as well.</quote>no, when i say "the guy" i mean "the guy" as in, the guy who funded the moviei'm not talking about any of the other funders, i'm talking about this specific oneanything you assumed is entirely and completely on you, and makes you look even more foolish than you do trying to argue the mans defense. do you know how easy it is to just go "that guys a piece of shit lol" and nothing else? it's very easy. instead you saw that and went "i am offended at these people talking shit about this child trafficker"and the question you were askedis why you felt the need to do that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:44:52 PM #116:	ConfusedTorchic posted... you did not, actually. I did twice, actually. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. Did you get it that time? Having a tough time reading? Point out where I defended him. You can't. Concession accepted x2, let's see you give us a hat trick now. ConfusedTorchic posted... no, when i say "the guy" i mean "the guy" as in, the guy who funded the movie When you introduce a guy as "the guy" that suggests there's one or at least one main one. There were 6599 others. No one introduces one person of 6600 as "the" person. You've been exposed. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975298193] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>you did not, actually.</quote>I did twice, actually. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM.Did you get it that time? Having a tough time reading? Point out where I defended him. You can't. Concession accepted x2, let's see you give us a hat trick now.ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>no, when i say "the guy" i mean "the guy" as in, the guy who funded the movie</quote>When you introduce a guy as "the guy" that suggests there's one or at least one main one. There were 6599 others. No one introduces one person of 6600 as "the" person. You've been exposed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 11:49:08 PM #117:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... I did twice, actually. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. and yet you keep doing just that, as further proven below LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... When you introduce a guy as "the guy" that suggests there's one or at least one main one. There were 6599 others. No one introduces one person of 6600 as "the" person. You've been exposed. no, when you introduce a guy as a guy, then you've simply introduced the guy as the guy. i never claimed he was the sole funder of the movie, sorry. your defense of the guy who funded the movie was entirely constructed in your head --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975298254] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>I did twice, actually. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM.</quote>and yet you keep doing just that, as further proven belowLELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>When you introduce a guy as "the guy" that suggests there's one or at least one main one. There were 6599 others. No one introduces one person of 6600 as "the" person. You've been exposed.</quote>no, when you introduce a guy as a guy, then you've simply introduced the guy as the guy.i never claimed he was the sole funder of the movie, sorry. your defense of the guy who funded the movie was entirely constructed in your head </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:54:53 PM #119:	Oh hey you actually pointed out the statement you take issue with, finally. Well I'm happy to inform you that that wasn't actually a defense of the guy in question! I'm not sure why you'd take "there was more than one person" as a defense of one of those people, but I'm willing to hear the (surely rock-solid) logic behind it. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975298349] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>Oh hey you actually pointed out the statement you take issue with, finally. Well I'm happy to inform you that that wasn't actually a defense of the guy in question! I'm not sure why you'd take "there was more than one person" as a defense of one of those people, but I'm willing to hear the (surely rock-solid) logic behind it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/06/23 11:55:42 PM #120:	you completely misunderstood that post lmao --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975298360] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>you completely misunderstood that post lmao </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/06/23 11:57:27 PM #121:	ConfusedTorchic posted... you completely misunderstood that post lmao Care to elaborate? Looney tunes logic is hard for me to follow, sorry. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975298401] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>you completely misunderstood that post lmao</quote>Care to elaborate? Looney tunes logic is hard for me to follow, sorry.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/07/23 12:08:38 AM #122:	when i said see below, you ignored the actual quoted post and assumed, wrongly, that that was me explaining what i think you've been doing as a defense. what it instead was pointing at the quoted post. your post. it ties in nicely with what i've been pointing out this entire time: why focus your attention on pedantically arguing about the amount of funders when you could have, instead, called him a bag of shit like the rest of us. you chose to focus on the irrelevant in an attempt to dissuade from the subject. that is trying to defend him. you're attempting to use misdirection instead of actually talking about the fact that the guy who funded the movie about child trafficking has been arrested on charges of child trafficking. no one cares if he wasn't the only funder. the entire point is `guy who funded the movie about child trafficking has been arrested on charges of child trafficking` nothing more, nothing less, which is why when someone butts in flinging insults and trying to argue semantics about it comes off as having ulterior motives. if you actually didn't mean to, great. fantastic. i'm still not going to remove your tag, and it still will not change that this is, in fact, what you did and now your reputation is in the shitter. --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975298571] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>when i said see below, you ignored the actual quoted post and assumed, wrongly, that that was me explaining what i think you've been doing as a defense.what it instead was pointing at the quoted post. your post.it ties in nicely with what i've been pointing out this entire time: why focus your attention on pedantically arguing about the amount of funders when you could have, instead, called him a bag of shit like the rest of us. you chose to focus on the irrelevant in an attempt to dissuade from the subject. that is trying to defend him. you're attempting to use misdirection instead of actually talking about the fact that the guy who funded the movie about child trafficking has been arrested on charges of child trafficking.no one cares if he wasn't the only funder. the entire point is guy who funded the movie about child trafficking has been arrested on charges of child traffickingnothing more, nothing less, which is why when someone butts in flinging insults and trying to argue semantics about it comes off as having ulterior motives.if you actually didn't mean to, great. fantastic. i'm still not going to remove your tag, and it still will not change that this is, in fact, what you did and now your reputation is in the shitter. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#123	Post #123 was unavailable or deleted.
adjl 08/07/23 3:54:52 PM #124:	I am inclined to agree that saying "the guy" instead of "a guy" carries the implication that the movie was primarily funded by a child trafficker, as opposed to funded in small part by one. This would be why the movie's director wanted to clarify that point, since it reflects much more poorly to have the movie primarily funded by a child trafficker than to have a child trafficker spend $5 to get his name in the credits. Exactly how much our opinion should be coloured by this news depends on just what the magnitude of his contribution was, but we don't (and probably can't) know that, so... shrug. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:975311137] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>I am inclined to agree that saying "the guy" instead of "a guy" carries the implication that the movie was primarily funded by a child trafficker, as opposed to funded in small part by one. This would be why the movie's director wanted to clarify that point, since it reflects much more poorly to have the movie primarily funded by a child trafficker than to have a child trafficker spend $5 to get his name in the credits. Exactly how much our opinion should be coloured by this news depends on just what the magnitude of his contribution was, but we don't (and probably can't) know that, so... shrug. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/07/23 6:59:28 PM #125:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... He's not "the guy", that implies there's one. There were 6600. You want there to be one because you know you can't paint a group of 6600 people with the actions of one, and that breaks the narrative we're spinning here that these people are all scum. And let's start by seeing you point out the exact sentence wherein I did that so I can tell you why you're wrong. yeah but we can indicate their inability to call out their own do you not see this? we observe 'oh look, there are pedophiles in your groups' and all they prefer to focus on is their dumb fucking movie and calling anyone that criticizes them or the movie 'pedos'. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975314860] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>He's not "the guy", that implies there's one. There were 6600. You want there to be one because you know you can't paint a group of 6600 people with the actions of one, and that breaks the narrative we're spinning here that these people are all scum.And let's start by seeing you point out the exact sentence wherein I did that so I can tell you why you're wrong.</quote>yeah but we can indicate their inability to call out their owndo you not see this? we observe 'oh look, there are pedophiles in your groups' and all they prefer to focus on is their dumb fucking movie and calling anyone that criticizes them or the movie 'pedos'. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/07/23 10:21:36 PM #126:	Oh hell yeah. Jim Caviezel interviewing a guy that has bragged about walking in on dozens of nude underage girls in modelling competitions! https://youtu.be/7P6uu9nPzF8 --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975318773] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>Oh hell yeah. Jim Caviezel interviewing a guy that has bragged about walking in on dozens of nude underage girls in modelling competitions!https://youtu.be/7P6uu9nPzF8 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 08/08/23 1:31:05 AM #127:	I wonder if any of those kids were abducted by male babysitters <cite>Cacciato posted [p:975321427] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>I wonder if any of those kids were abducted by male babysitters</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/08/23 1:34:40 AM #128:	please don't combine the dumpster fires please *please!!!* --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975321463] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>please don't combine the dumpster fires pleaseplease!!! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 08/08/23 1:55:10 AM #129:	ConfusedTorchic posted... now your reputation is in the shitter. Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED --- What would Bligh do? <cite>Zareth posted [p:975321642] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>now your reputation is in the shitter.</quote>Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 08/08/23 2:19:53 AM #130:	ReturnOfFa posted... please don't combine the dumpster fires please *please!!!* ... <cite>Yellow posted [p:975321825] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite><quote>please don't combine the dumpster fires pleaseplease!!!</quote>...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ConfusedTorchic 08/08/23 3:19:07 AM #131:	Zareth posted... Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED i mean he seems to have went away so you're welcome --- "It's not the harm to Sony we care about. " - US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to the FTC. <cite>ConfusedTorchic posted [p:975322224] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>Zareth posted... </cite><quote>Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED</quote>i mean he seems to have went away so you're welcome </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 08/08/23 3:55:42 AM #132:	@LELuMADuRUSTLED <cite>Cacciato posted [p:975322487] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>@LELuMADuRUSTLED </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/08/23 1:20:00 PM #133:	who cares --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975329800] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>who cares </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#134	Post #134 was unavailable or deleted.
ReturnOfFa 08/08/23 5:42:16 PM #135:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] yes true, I'm being a little flippant and contradictory when I tagged another person to get them respond elsewhere. thanks --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975334951] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> yes true, I'm being a little flippant and contradictory when I tagged another person to get them respond elsewhere. thanks </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/08/23 6:37:55 PM #136:	https://thesportsgrail.com/sound-of-freedom-producer-leo-severino-grooming-allegations-explained-as-drama-controversy-goes-viral/ --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975336106] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>https://thesportsgrail.com/sound-of-freedom-producer-leo-severino-grooming-allegations-explained-as-drama-controversy-goes-viral/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 08/08/23 11:55:17 PM #137:	ReturnOfFa posted... please don't combine the dumpster fires please *please!!!* Sounds fun though. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:975341679] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted...</cite><quote>please don't combine the dumpster fires pleaseplease!!!</quote>Sounds fun though. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/09/23 9:40:04 PM #138:	adjl posted... I am inclined to agree that saying "the guy" instead of "a guy" carries the implication that the movie was primarily funded by a child trafficker, as opposed to funded in small part by one. This would be why the movie's director wanted to clarify that point, since it reflects much more poorly to have the movie primarily funded by a child trafficker than to have a child trafficker spend $5 to get his name in the credits. Exactly how much our opinion should be coloured by this news depends on just what the magnitude of his contribution was, but we don't (and probably can't) know that, so... shrug. Hey, a reasonable person. ConfusedTorchic posted... why focus your attention on pedantically arguing about the amount of funders when you could have, instead, called him a bag of shit like the rest of us. That's pretty low hanging fruit, is it not? Pretty easy to say kidnapping is bad, we all obviously think that here and everyone who doesn't can't post anyway. I'd rather call you out instead on your BS since no one else is likely to. And I'm not really that interested in fitting in with some internet people. Zareth posted... Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED Lol ikr <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975360497] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite><quote>I am inclined to agree that saying "the guy" instead of "a guy" carries the implication that the movie was primarily funded by a child trafficker, as opposed to funded in small part by one. This would be why the movie's director wanted to clarify that point, since it reflects much more poorly to have the movie primarily funded by a child trafficker than to have a child trafficker spend $5 to get his name in the credits. Exactly how much our opinion should be coloured by this news depends on just what the magnitude of his contribution was, but we don't (and probably can't) know that, so... shrug.</quote>Hey, a reasonable person.ConfusedTorchic posted... </cite><quote>why focus your attention on pedantically arguing about the amount of funders when you could have, instead, called him a bag of shit like the rest of us.</quote>That's pretty low hanging fruit, is it not? Pretty easy to say kidnapping is bad, we all obviously think that here and everyone who doesn't can't post anyway. I'd rather call you out instead on your BS since no one else is likely to. And I'm not really that interested in fitting in with some internet people.Zareth posted... </cite><quote>Egads, not the sterling reputation of LEL u MAD u RUSTLED</quote>Lol ikr</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/09/23 9:54:47 PM #139:	@LELuMADuRUSTLED see the accusation against the producer? any comments on the silence regarding pedophiles when they're on their side? I'm pretty sure we're all not dumb enough to believe that one funder means 'everyone that likes the movie or funded it is a pedophile!'. In case you forgot, it's the fans of this movie calling anyone with any criticism a pedophile while they ignore the ones in their ranks. you parsing the difference in noting it was 'one guy of 6000' isn't the tremendous 'call out' you think it is. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975360782] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>@LELuMADuRUSTLED see the accusation against the producer? any comments on the silence regarding pedophiles when they're on their side? I'm pretty sure we're all not dumb enough to believe that one funder means 'everyone that likes the movie or funded it is a pedophile!'. In case you forgot, it's the fans of this movie calling anyone with any criticism a pedophile while they ignore the ones in their ranks. you parsing the difference in noting it was 'one guy of 6000' isn't the tremendous 'call out' you think it is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys 08/09/23 10:02:54 PM #140:	If you fUnDed sOuNd oF fReed0m your peedo --- twylite sprinkle http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2 <cite>deoxxys posted [p:975360932] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>If you fUnDed sOuNd oF fReed0m your peedo </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/09/23 10:04:25 PM #141:	deoxxys posted... If you fUnDed sOuNd oF fReed0m your peedo this my friend is called a 'strawman'. nobody is saying this. unless you're just being sarcastic or facetious, congratulations. The irony is that funding the Sound of Freedom is the kind of 'virtue signal' these dildos yell at other people for - since they don't actually seem to give a shit about pedophiles. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975360959] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>deoxxys posted... </cite><quote>If you fUnDed sOuNd oF fReed0m your peedo</quote>this my friend is called a 'strawman'. nobody is saying this. unless you're just being sarcastic or facetious, congratulations. The irony is that funding the Sound of Freedom is the kind of 'virtue signal' these dildos yell at other people for - since they don't actually seem to give a shit about pedophiles. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/10/23 12:39:24 AM #142:	ReturnOfFa posted... @LELuMADuRUSTLED see the accusation against the producer? The one I've been talking about this whole time? A quick google search only comes up with Fabian Marta, who's already been called out. Is there another that I'm supposed to know about? From the same googling, the CEO of Angel Studios has said that he hopes all perpetrators will be brought to justice no matter who they are. Post 140 basically nailed it. Not sure what else you might be driving at, or what more you want. The guy's been arrested and will be dealt with. Are the movie's supporters supposed to renounce conservatism and apologize to the relevant gamefaqs users personally or what. ReturnOfFa posted... you parsing the difference in noting it was 'one guy of 6000' isn't the tremendous 'call out' you think it is. By that same token, pointing out that some guy out of 6600 is a hypocrite isn't the tremendous 'call out' of this movies' supporters that you guys think it is. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975362996] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite><quote>@LELuMADuRUSTLED see the accusation against the producer?</quote>The one I've been talking about this whole time? A quick google search only comes up with Fabian Marta, who's already been called out. Is there another that I'm supposed to know about?From the same googling, the CEO of Angel Studios has said that he hopes all perpetrators will be brought to justice no matter who they are.Post 140 basically nailed it. Not sure what else you might be driving at, or what more you want. The guy's been arrested and will be dealt with. Are the movie's supporters supposed to renounce conservatism and apologize to the relevant gamefaqs users personally or what.ReturnOfFa posted... </cite><quote>you parsing the difference in noting it was 'one guy of 6000' isn't the tremendous 'call out' you think it is.</quote>By that same token, pointing out that some guy out of 6600 is a hypocrite isn't the tremendous 'call out' of this movies' supporters that you guys think it is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/10/23 2:14:14 AM #143:	@LELuMADuRUSTLED post #136 The co-producer Leo Severino looks like he was the youth counselor for his wife until she was out of high-school, then married her. https://twitter.com/i/status/1683480270425522177 --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975363838] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>@LELuMADuRUSTLED post #136The co-producer Leo Severino looks like he was the youth counselor for his wife until she was out of high-school, then married her.https://twitter.com/i/status/1683480270425522177 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/10/23 2:27:50 AM #144:	I also think aside from these couple of cases (sure, not a lot), my point still stands that these folks sure are quiet about politicians and people within their community that are accused or convicted. Missouri State Sen. Mike Moon defending child marriage is one of the grossest things I've seen, and none of these dudes say anything about these laws. Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the USA. The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man. According to data that looked at almost 200,000 cases of child marriage from 2000 to 2015: 67% of the children were aged 17. 29% of the children were aged 16. 4% of the children were aged 15. Less than 1% of the children were aged 14 and under. There were 51 cases of 13-year-olds getting married, and 6 cases of 12-year-olds getting married. None of these fuckers talk about this. They vote for the politicians that keep this going... --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975363935] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>I also think aside from these couple of cases (sure, not a lot), my point still stands that these folks sure are quiet about politicians and people within their community that are accused or convicted. Missouri State Sen. Mike Moon defending child marriage is one of the grossest things I've seen, and none of these dudes say anything about these laws. Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the USA. The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man.According to data that looked at almost 200,000 cases of child marriage from 2000 to 2015:67% of the children were aged 17.29% of the children were aged 16.4% of the children were aged 15.Less than 1% of the children were aged 14 and under.There were 51 cases of 13-year-olds getting married, and 6 cases of 12-year-olds getting married.None of these fuckers talk about this. They vote for the politicians that keep this going... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/10/23 2:29:28 AM #145:	https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/anton-lazzaro-sentenced-21-years-for-sex-trafficking-underage-girls/ right wing media silence --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975363953] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/anton-lazzaro-sentenced-21-years-for-sex-trafficking-underage-girls/right wing media silence </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/10/23 2:30:51 AM #146:	https://tinyurl.com/5n8evdr4 https://tinyurl.com/wactt5wj right wing media silence (I checked) --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975363965] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>https://tinyurl.com/5n8evdr4https://tinyurl.com/wactt5wjright wing media silence (I checked) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 08/10/23 2:33:01 AM #147:	https://www.wlky.com/article/indiana-david-holloway-charlestown-police-arrest-suspect-20-year-old-rape-case/44674193 where's the Fox coverage? Where's the outrage from Jim The Weasel or whatever his useless ass name is? but still, the regular media doesn't cover it well enough. let's take a closer look.... https://www.instagram.com/p/Cve4oRTOByd/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Republicans or those that offer meek defense for them rarely care for the causes they'll profess to. Keeping the conversation limited to the scope of the one disgusting pervert that contributed to the film isn't convincing me otherwise. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:975363985] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>https://www.wlky.com/article/indiana-david-holloway-charlestown-police-arrest-suspect-20-year-old-rape-case/44674193where's the Fox coverage? Where's the outrage from Jim The Weasel or whatever his useless ass name is?but still, the regular media doesn't cover it well enough. let's take a closer look....https://www.instagram.com/p/Cve4oRTOByd/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==Republicans or those that offer meek defense for them rarely care for the causes they'll profess to. Keeping the conversation limited to the scope of the one disgusting pervert that contributed to the film isn't convincing me otherwise. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/10/23 4:30:49 PM #148:	ReturnOfFa posted... @LELuMADuRUSTLED post #136 The co-producer Leo Severino looks like he was the youth counselor for his wife until she was out of high-school, then married her. https://twitter.com/i/status/1683480270425522177 She would have very likely been 18 after graduating so I'm not sure what the problem is. That he knew her as a child? Worst thing that can be said about it is that it's weird. Adults can do whatever they want, however. I agree with you that the right's silence on child marriage laws (which are basically always a republican endeavor) is conspicuous, I don't believe I've ever heard one mention of it from the right. Too distracted with drag story time I suppose. <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975375315] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite><quote>@LELuMADuRUSTLED post #136The co-producer Leo Severino looks like he was the youth counselor for his wife until she was out of high-school, then married her.https://twitter.com/i/status/1683480270425522177</quote>She would have very likely been 18 after graduating so I'm not sure what the problem is. That he knew her as a child? Worst thing that can be said about it is that it's weird. Adults can do whatever they want, however.I agree with you that the right's silence on child marriage laws (which are basically always a republican endeavor) is conspicuous, I don't believe I've ever heard one mention of it from the right. Too distracted with drag story time I suppose.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 08/10/23 5:27:16 PM #149:	LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... She would have very likely been 18 after graduating so I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of grooming? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:975376302] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted... </cite><quote>She would have very likely been 18 after graduating so I'm not sure what the problem is.</quote>Are you unfamiliar with the concept of grooming? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LELuMADuRUSTLED 08/10/23 5:41:49 PM #150:	adjl posted... Are you unfamiliar with the concept of grooming? Familiar enough to know that you can't assume that's what happened just because he and her had interactions before she was 18. Edit: Actually it just straight up doesn't fit the term if she was over 18 when they started dating/having sex, which she seems to have been. Grooming by definition is prepping a minor for sexual abuse later on, and consensual interactions with a 18 y/o is obviously not abuse. I know these terms are sometimes used in a feelings-based way rather than a fact-based way, however <cite>LELuMADuRUSTLED posted [p:975376549] in This Sound... [t:80510356]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite><quote>Are you unfamiliar with the concept of grooming?</quote>Familiar enough to know that you can't assume that's what happened just because he and her had interactions before she was 18.Edit: Actually it just straight up doesn't fit the term if she was over 18 when they started dating/having sex, which she seems to have been. Grooming by definition is prepping a minor for sexual abuse later on, and consensual interactions with a 18 y/o is obviously not abuse. I know these terms are sometimes used in a feelings-based way rather than a fact-based way, however</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious.