TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying psychosocial1's 10 most recent comments.

• ‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense

  January 24, 2013 at 9:25pm

  In reply to RolandofGilead.

  Mr. Tully has gotten to THE foundational problem present in our country today. The fundamental issue of “us vs. them” or “with us or against us”. Ideological rigidity, based in part on a hyper-focus on individualism, is tearing down this nation. First of all, we are ALL a part of American society. None of us are an island unto ourselves. Adam Smith understood this concept 300 years ago. Why can’t we? Secondly, one only has to look at these message boards to see the evidence of this. Otherwise likeminded individuals, anonymously arguing over the minute details of inconsequential topics. Many on these message boards will claim that the current administration is waging “class warfare” with the “rich vs. poor” narrative yet completely miss the fact that Beck (and other talking heads) are using the exact same type of rhetoric to attack unions. Specifically, these pundits promote the idea that union members get pay and benefits not given to non-union workers. This is done to create a sense of envy and unfairness. Instead of thinking critically about the situation, listeners adopt the rhetoric of the speaker and perpetuate the meme.
  By the way, (I know it’s off topic) “right to work” is the quintessential example of freeloading. I would think that conservative-minded people would be against this, but it is cheered loudly in these circles. Non-union members receive the same pay, benefits, and protections provided by the unions without paying a dime for th

• Move Over GM, Toyota Retakes Spot as ‘Top-Selling’ Automaker

  January 14, 2013 at 9:29pm

  In reply to Cavallo.

  Great example of a misleading headline and the typical glee demonstrated by low-information, conservative “thinkers”. There is NO mention of cutting production in the American plants that produce Jeeps, but rather this is an expansion of the business into a new market. Romney tried to roll out this false talking point during the election.

• What Steps Is This Fla. Restaurateur Taking to Offset the Cost of Obamacare? Hint: It Will Cost You

  November 15, 2012 at 11:47pm

  In reply to BlackCrow.

  The evil boss makes money because of the labor of his employees, get it? Metz is yet another crybaby millionaire. I’m sure most people of your mindset think this guy should be worshipped. Perhaps you should broaden your own viewpoint to consider the fact that the equation has two sides.

• What Steps Is This Fla. Restaurateur Taking to Offset the Cost of Obamacare? Hint: It Will Cost You

  November 15, 2012 at 11:42pm

  In reply to RaydocX.

  All of the comments being made here seem to leave out one very important factor in this equation. The employees. The individuals doing the actual work that brings in the revenue. I am quite sure Mr. Metz is not a poor man, and I am even more sure that he isn’t the one cooking the food or serving it. His employees are a large part of the reason this man has the income he does. How about recognizing the fact that there are two sides to the equation? The ownership/labor relationship is symbiotic in nature, neither one surviving without the other. I realize this concept is a bit too tough for some to understand. Quite frankly, I am getting a bit tired of the “poor old downtrodden millionaires” meme.

• Bill Kristol: ‘It Won’t Kill the Country if We Raise Taxes a Little Bit on Millionaires’

  November 12, 2012 at 1:49pm

  In reply to BlackCrow.

  @git
  Thank you for making my point. You know nothing of my beliefs or ideology and yet you hurl the typical vitriolic rhetoric simply because I say something you might be against. Ad hominem attacks do not further your own position. Yes, I understand the tax issues involved with the Clinton administration. The personal tax increase was imposed in 1993. 9% points. Capital gains cuts came in 1997. Gingrich made the statement that this increase would stall the recovery and cause a downturn. No such downturn ever occurred. I have the facts on my side and clear historical precedent as evidence.

• Bill Kristol: ‘It Won’t Kill the Country if We Raise Taxes a Little Bit on Millionaires’

  November 11, 2012 at 9:16pm

  In reply to BlackCrow.

  @Publius
  I admire your efforts, but they are largely wasted here. I rarely find that I can have an intelligent, well-reasoned debate on this (or any other) message board. If an individual makes any statement that goes against the accepted “conservative” platform he/she is automatically labeled a “socialist,marxist,etc…”. The problem with this medium specifically, and the overall political opinion arena generally, is this “you’re either with us or you’re against us” mentality. Too many people only see the black and white extremes of the spectrum; they cannot identify the fact that there is a huge gray area in between. Small government, free-market, personal liberty conservatives constantly seek government intervention to deny liberty to entire groups of individuals who live a lifestyle they don’t agree with. These same conservatives also seek government intervention in business by seeking incentives for development (hardly free-market is it?). I would suggest researching the subjects of confirmation bias and group polarization. These two concepts explain a great deal of behavior. As to the specific issue of taxes, Gingrich made the claim that the Clinton tax hike would stall the recovery and cause recession. Clinton’s tax increase caused no such recession. Kristol is only pointing out a fact that can be supported by historical precedent.

• Is Capitalism Heartless? President of the Ayn Rand Institute Talks Economic Policy (And How to Fix the Economy) With TheBlaze

  November 2, 2012 at 10:05am

  In reply to Psychosis.

  @galtline
  I apologize for any dizziness I may have caused. I was simply trying to give a thorough explanation of my position. Sometimes we must go beyond what should be necessary to compensate for ambiguity due to the nature of the forum. The bottom line is that both are necessary. In my opinion Rand fails to address this fact. It is a cyclical system where both entities support the other. I am not attempting to put one above the other, but rather I am simply illustrating this fact.

• Is Capitalism Heartless? President of the Ayn Rand Institute Talks Economic Policy (And How to Fix the Economy) With TheBlaze

  November 2, 2012 at 2:07am

  In reply to SovereignSoul.

  The scenario proposed by Factor is nonsensical. It is completely outside the context of what is understood to be “helping”. I would think that most reasonable individuals could agree with that point. Social programs and bureaucracy are much more relevant to any discussion of this subject. Brook should have refrained from giving an answer to that particular example and instead shifted focus to the broader scope of government largesse. It is was he was referring to.

• Is Capitalism Heartless? President of the Ayn Rand Institute Talks Economic Policy (And How to Fix the Economy) With TheBlaze

  November 2, 2012 at 1:56am

  In reply to psychosocial1.

  @rsanchez

  You make decent points, but you miss the big picture. I’ll use your example as an illustration. The corporation has private property rights. Without regulations to govern the conduct of the corporation it is free to do as it pleases within the boundary of its property. If this company chooses to pollute there is little recourse for those living in the surrounding community. The scenario can quickly become very convoluted. One could use game theory to map out all of the different outcomes. My original point is simply refuting Brooks statement that the suffering of one is not the responsibility of another especially when the latter causes the suffering of the former.

• Is Capitalism Heartless? President of the Ayn Rand Institute Talks Economic Policy (And How to Fix the Economy) With TheBlaze

  November 2, 2012 at 1:43am

  In reply to psychosocial1.

  @justangry

  I will agree with most of what you say, but will make one caveat. I strongly believe that those in power, both in Congress and the boardrooms, are still seeking the protections of the rules of incorporation while freeing themselves from the “burdensome” regulations that raise the costs of operation. Would you not agree with that?