There was someone that tried to make the following argument

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 35
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is the same as legalizing corruption.  Corporation's free speech drowns out everyone else's free speech.  I prefer we the people's free speech to we the globalist's free speech.
The "Hillary: The Movie" was a 2008 documentary film produced by Citizens United, a conservative non-profit. The film was critical of Hillary Clinton and led to the landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC

in other words

should it be illegal to make a movie critical of a politician during an election ?
Topic's author
#32
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
should it be illegal to make a movie critical of a politician during an election ?
No; but if the movie is produced, then that movie's production should be required to be funded by small dollar donors (we the people) and not we the globalists.

Do you think corruption should be legal?
#33
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL

also, in the united states, the lawmakers are all funded by millionaires and billionaires,
I guess the difference is that you think that's a good thing and others don't.
holy jesus, jump to conclusions much ?
The conclusion that you were defending the Citizens United decision required no jumping on my part.
#34
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The conclusion that you were defending the Citizens United decision required no jumping on my part.
simply stating facts

is not the same

as "defending"
#35
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly, see? no jumping required.