Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:04 pm You clearly need validation jfish. You commented in a separate thread begging me to check this thread and look at your post. Lol

I just figured that someone deeply concerned about child abuse would want to be apprised of developments like this.

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:56 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:10 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:02 am Just brings up a lot of weird questions. How closely was this guy connected to the movie? One of a group of people funding is the closest I could connect him. Not like he was closely tied to it. But why was he helping fund this movie while being a weirdo at the same time?

Was it just an investment?
Guilty conscious?
Was he trying to throw people off his trail?
Make it make sense lol

You have tried to tell us that anyone who says anything negative about this movie is pro child sex trafficking. I and others here have pointed out that there are serious issues with the movie - who is behind it and why, and what people on the right are using it for, and what can and does happen in real life because of fear porn like this.

This piece of data suggests those concerns we have raised - which you have repeatedly minimized and deflected - are quite warranted. I would be surprised if this is the only wart on the movie’s ass.

No it doesn't. You're just searching for validation.

The movie isn't even the point. The point is the left pretends to care about so many issues, yet child sex trafficking is never one. They almost take the opposite approach of trying to hide the issue and normalize grooming children

Derp. You're just saying that because you want it to be true when there is nothing that actually supports it. Dems do just as much to prevent sex trafficking as republicans do.

Who were the 20 members of the House of Reps that voted against the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022?

All were Republicans.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 167082002/

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:23 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:06 pm And you realize that movie got funding from a lot of sources right? Not like this one guy played a huge role in it. Hollywood refused to make forward with the movie if that tells you enough. Hollywood is rumored to be a huge pedo ring. Ask any former child actor

I would encourage you to actually read the primary source material.

This guy - who is an established, comfortably-public promoter of "Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby" parties - involved himself quite intentionally. In the MOST charitable read of things, the producers failed to do even basic due diligence as to where this money was coming from.

Is it possible that this guy was a one-off, and that no one else involved had intentions and motivations anything less than pure?

Sure, it's possible.

But life experience - and basic reasoning, given the other folks involved - tells me that's highly unlikely.

You're ranting about nothing. You'd be absolutely disgusted when you found out where some of the money funding your favorite politicians comes from then

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 1:04 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:23 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:06 pm And you realize that movie got funding from a lot of sources right? Not like this one guy played a huge role in it. Hollywood refused to make forward with the movie if that tells you enough. Hollywood is rumored to be a huge pedo ring. Ask any former child actor

I would encourage you to actually read the primary source material.

This guy - who is an established, comfortably-public promoter of "Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby" parties - involved himself quite intentionally. In the MOST charitable read of things, the producers failed to do even basic due diligence as to where this money was coming from.

Is it possible that this guy was a one-off, and that no one else involved had intentions and motivations anything less than pure?

Sure, it's possible.

But life experience - and basic reasoning, given the other folks involved - tells me that's highly unlikely.

You're ranting about nothing. You'd be absolutely disgusted when you found out where some of the money funding your favorite politicians comes from then

If you are aware of funding that it is coming from child sex traffickers then please share that evidence so that I can stop supporting those politicians.

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 1:04 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:23 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:06 pm And you realize that movie got funding from a lot of sources right? Not like this one guy played a huge role in it. Hollywood refused to make forward with the movie if that tells you enough. Hollywood is rumored to be a huge pedo ring. Ask any former child actor

I would encourage you to actually read the primary source material.

This guy - who is an established, comfortably-public promoter of "Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby" parties - involved himself quite intentionally. In the MOST charitable read of things, the producers failed to do even basic due diligence as to where this money was coming from.

Is it possible that this guy was a one-off, and that no one else involved had intentions and motivations anything less than pure?

Sure, it's possible.

But life experience - and basic reasoning, given the other folks involved - tells me that's highly unlikely.

You're ranting about nothing. You'd be absolutely disgusted when you found out where some of the money funding your favorite politicians comes from then

Your insecurity shows when you try to find the “let’s talk about something else” escape hatch.

Liberty University graduate:

Way to go dumbass. Your big reveal wasn't even accurate

I don't hold the fund raising responsible. But not something that should be exploited for money pr politics

Jfish is the dumbass. He begged me in a separate thread to look at his post about Fabian marta. And his info wasn't even accurate. Lol. Dumbass

His whole trump card was bullshit. Guess you libs will have to find another reason to argue against bringing awareness to child sex trafficking

Child trafficking has no business on a political thread. And yet Randy continues to trivialize it and make it into something of a joke.

Sparko wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:53 pm Child trafficking has no business on a political thread. And yet Randy continues to trivialize it and make it into something of a joke.

That's literally the opposite of what's happening here. You and your lib gang were desperately trying to find flaws with a movie that brings awareness to child sex trafficking

Again. Take it away from here. You are driven by something pretty dark. I am ignoring you.

randylahey wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:54 pm

Sparko wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:53 pm Child trafficking has no business on a political thread. And yet Randy continues to trivialize it and make it into something of a joke.

That's literally the opposite of what's happening here. You and your lib gang were desperately trying to find flaws with a movie that brings awareness to child sex trafficking

Yeah, gotta put you on foe. I feel bad for you. Not sure why others engage.

Foe’d as well.
This site has definitely gone to shit

Me too. Please, anyone who replies to him, don't quote him.

Randy shoulda been gone before he ran off PhD.

All the liberal crybabies foeing me. When their argument is going nowhere. Lol. Love it. Liberal meltdown

randylahey wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:30 pm Jfish is the dumbass. He begged me in a separate thread to look at his post about Fabian marta. And his info wasn't even accurate. Lol. Dumbass

Much/most of the shit you post isn't "accurate".

Being that I am a dumbass, can/will you please explain to me what "info" fish posted that wasn't "accurate"?

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 9:49 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:30 pm Jfish is the dumbass. He begged me in a separate thread to look at his post about Fabian marta. And his info wasn't even accurate. Lol. Dumbass

Much/most of the shit you post isn't "accurate".

Being that I am a dumbass, can/will you please explain to me what "info" fish posted that wasn't "accurate"?

Evidently he considers it a win that a funder of his pet child sex trafficking awareness project, who is known to host social events that sure seem trafficking- and/or exploitation-adjacent, was arrested for and charged with felony "child kidnapping" as opposed to "sex trafficking."

Randy also seems to think he wins where because the movie studio disavows knowledge of this funder's personal background or activities. That's not the win Randy thinks, because it sort of makes everyone's point: even taking the studio at its word (which: ok), this fear porn obviously and inevitably attracts bad actors.

We've seen it over and over and over again. But, as usual, what seems to matter is not the actual dangers to or abuses of children, but the sensationalism of all of it, and how that sensationalism can be used.