has the citizen's united ruling backfired on republcans

Every ideology supports these things and a liberal thinks the best way to do it is with force (thus larger government) . Other's don't.

You are like straight out of 1984. Who could be against the ministry of love?

 

So, tell me how the Tea Party policies support these universal ideals?
providing them through the Free Market?

I'm not necessarily a larger government proponent. There are lots of collective things that need to be done and populations do keep rising. I would like government to work smarter and it kills me that it runs on cronyism and lowest bidders instead of getting the cutting edge technologies and most competent employees but that is just a pipe dream.
But that's no reason to kill it off and leave things to the whims of markets.

 

We should go back to private education system, get rid of medicare,medicaid, and SSN, stop funding for the national high way systems, oh and bring back child labor. After all these are done, US will be on its way to continued prosperity for the next century! Go tea party!

 

Markets are a mechanism for voluntary exchange. People collaborating and cooperating and providing value to each other, fulfilling the wants and desires of others.

Nothing about it is a whim.

 

well you have already derailed this thread and if I answer, it will surely derail it more. but sure wtf.

education - voucher system. Let parents have a choice in the education their kid gets, no matter how poor. Let schools get better by competing for that voucher money. watch 'waiting for superman'.

healthcare - There are lots of conservative plans that restrict individual liberty less than Obamacare. Here's Bobby Jindal's which he talked about yesterday.

equitable wages - you and I have a different definition of equitable. To me, whatever a person's skill set is worth on the open market is equitable and the application of force to change that is not equitable.

workplace safety - when you hear about someone working in a bad workplace environment, your response is to condemn the employer for the bad conditions. My response would be to wonder why the employee is so desperate as to desire to work for a place with such bad work conditions. The answer to your question is simply to improve the economy.

environment that will support our children's children - balanced budget amendment.

yes you are. you are a self described liberal. That means you believe in large government. Liberalism is on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

You, of all people, do not get to define what it means to be a liberal.

And your stance on workplace safety is lacking complete awareness of labor history.

 

Blah blah blah slippery slope blah blah blah. Ye gods, is there any argument the modern american libertarian makes against liberalism that doesn't invoke the slippery slope fallacy or false dichotomies? It's like fallacy soup.

"Hi, I have an ideal guided by principle which doesn't have positive outcomes in the real world due to externalities that my neat little principles don't take into account. However, diverging in any way from my principle results inevitably in a dystopain fascist state, because magic.

Trying to find any actual real world solutions to real world problems that don't conform to the most extreme expression of my principles will result in the exact opposite of my principles, because magic."

 

It's not my definition.

No it doesn't. If it did, you would of bothered to tell me what I am lacking.

 

It's not a definition at all. It's a neo-con talking point. Linking to Wikipedia doesn't alter that.

There is no point in telling you anything. You don't live in reality.

 

beautiful, repped

 

fracked.

 

Well if that's so, then pull up one of those irrefutable 100 articles.

Compromised law IS THE ENTIRE FRACKING POINT OF THIS REPUBLIC, GENIUS!

 

http://goo.gl/CZ0Rpu

 

a response:

http://www.thegreenprogressive.com/2014/04/an-open-letter-response-to-charles-koch.html

 

It's funny and sad and silly and annoying that people who hold themselves out as legal/business/economic experts and comment on corporate, such as the monkeys who inhabit the WSJ online dumpster fire, don't really seem to grasp basic principles about what a corporation or corporate entity actually is.

As explained before - a corporation is not "a collection[] of individuals. if a corporation were a "collection of individuals" - there would be no reason to have a corporation in the first place.

A corporation is explicitly set up to not be a collection of individuals - rather it's its own separate fictitious legal entity, created for the purposes of being able to enter into contracts and incur liability - insulating the collection of individuals from the same.

When you form a corporation, you are specifically paying the state for a license NOT to be treated as a collection of individuals.

None of your liabilities or duties as an individual (or group therof) transfer to the corporation, nor do any of its devolve upon you.

That's the very raison d'etre of a corporation.

 

The whole idea that corporations are made of people so should have the same rights is just silly.

The govt. is also made of people. Should they have the same rights as well?

 

I agree the concept of corporations as a means of removing liability is a problem. But it doesn't mean you give up your free speech rights.

By this reasoning, freedom of the press can also be curtailed because most press outlets are corporations.

 

You can't give up what you never ever had in the first place.

Corporations no more "have" a right to free speech upon creation than they "have" the right to vote or anything else. They are expressly created with a limited body of rights and duties - political speech int erms of actual speech has generally been one of them, though taking it away and assigning to the individuals isn't really problematic, if that's what you want to say or do, because it's a joint right.

Unfettered "speech" in the form of funneling money into the political process has never been one of them until Roberts created it out of thin air in 2010.

 

"money doesn't talk, it swears."

Bob Dylan

 

Hey! I have a stupid question.

If money is speech (or the exercise of freedom of expression) then why is bribery illegal? Isn't that just another form of expression?