Conversations with my liberal friend, 6

I agree, they wash each other out.  What is left then is the ideology that one prefers as the model for America.

Having first hand experience with Socialism and Capitalism, I chose the second before historically had shown more respect for individual rights and freedom, and they basically leave me alone 'more' to live my life as I decide.

The National Socialism Party (Nazi Party), the Soviets, and closer to home, California (with big differences but the same ideology of Social Engineering through redistribution, the concept that a few at the top should decide what is best for the many, all the regulation and intrusion in people's lives because "is for the common good and the compassionate thing to do" always, invariably, resulted in failures (California is broke, going the way of Greece) and many times in tyranny.

Fox has many different programs, some are hard news, others are commentary.  I would check on Factcheck if they caught any newscast of Fox telling lies.  Clearly Steward is not an impartial arbiter, so I don't see a point on relying on him to decide who is telling the truth.  In Fox I really watch only one program consistently, and that is Special Report with Bret Baier, especially the panel segment which always includes at least one liberal and I do listen to his/her points.  The best opinion there for me is that Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post, hardly a right-leaning paper.   Hard news in the morning, I watch while getting dressed a few minutes, is Fox and Friends.  

By far the source of information (and opinion) I rely on is the Wall Street Journal.  If you find anywhere proof that they tell lies, I would like to see that evidence because I would be very disappointed of that paper.

I understand that all States with Right to Work are improving year after year, while all the Union states are getting worst.  Democrats push for unionization, and it was JFK who allowed Federal Workers to unionize, and since then they have been in bed.  Unions are bankrupting us, not just California (4 cities already and soon the State in full).  Dems promote putting people on the public dough as dependents, as they honestly believe that big government is the solution.

Obama on a famous commencement speech said 'some of you chose to become -i think he said engineers, lawyers, doctors, but i could be wrong- but some of you heard a higher calling:  public service" Well, that is the essence of his speech, I can find it if you want.  The point here is that he truly believes that Government is the source of wealth and the solution.  When he talks about task cuts, he talks about 'giving' that money to the people, as if he owns all the money and they allow you to keep some of it, as a favor or sorts.  That is very telling and dramatic.  It is a concept that Socialists have, not Capitalists.   What sat America apart, allowing it to become the world leader, is Capitalism with smaller government.  He and the Dems want to destroy Capitalism in favor of Socialism, whether they know it or not.

Bob, Socialism is a great idea.  I was a Socialist for a decade.  If Socialism would work in the real wold, that would be great!   But it does not, I never did and to think that we 'know' better than all the previous experiments in Socialism, and that we are going to do it 'right' for the first time, is frankly delusional.  

Look a California, look at cities across America going broke because of dealing between Dems politicians and unions, look at Europe (with the exception of the least Socialist countries there: Germany, Sweden and Norway -floating on oil-).  Sweden was a Socialist paradise till about a decade ago when they were going broke and radically changed course.   It just does not work once we put the human factor on the mix.  WE are not build to contribute equally and receive equally.  When the common farm, etc. is proposed, we all take more and work less.  This was true with the first immigrants to America when starved to death by having common farms and animals.  Only after they divided the parcels into smaller, individual farms, they prospered and had enough product to trade to the indians, etc.   I can find you the historical chapter if you want.  We tried Socialism in these shores, that was the first form of social organization, and people eat the sole of their shoes before starving.

I don't think Obama and his friends are bad people, I think they honestly believe they found the way to a better, more just and compassionate society.  I also believe they refuse to learn from history and that they strongly believe that their cause is so just, so important that it justifies using whatever means are necessary to impose their ideology on the rest of us (and probably the rest of the world).  That is quite dangerous, as other similarly arrogant (and narcissists) social planners have done in the past.  Their cause is so important in their views that dissenters are dealt with severely.   Don't think it can't happen here, they all thought that way.

Just thoughts, and I appreciate and value different optics and discussion.  

It would probably by naïve not to believe that the PACs and the campaigns and spokespersons do not coordinate the messages, on both sides, in my opinion.  In the case of Mr. Soptic, page 4 of the article you made reference makes reference to the WH knowing about the fake story of Soptic, although later they claim ignorance.  That was a blatant lie.  When Reid (quite effectively) diverts the debate from the record of this President to the ‘evidence’ that Romney ‘did not pay taxes for 10 years’ because ‘somebody told him’, that is as low as it gets and (again IMHO) Romney does well not to accept to bring the political dialogue to whatever Reid happens to want.  When Pelosi later says it is a “fact’ that Romney did not pay taxes because ‘somebody told Reid’, it goes even lower.

For me, when somebody lies they lose credibility and I have no interest in further explanations or statements from them. First, because why waste time listening to a liar, and second because if they have a legitimate story to tell or something genuine to sell, why are they lying?

I found that through their campaign, the Democrats lied a lot, with the above being two examples.  I have not yet found a blatant, conclusive lie on the other side.  I will read now the two links you sent me, and if they show to me clearly that ‘this side’ is also lying, I will be very disappointed and frankly, stop trusting them too.

So far, I only read about half the opinion pages of the WSJ because I don’t have enough time to read more.  I found them to be very well written (I learn new words and ways to use them each time) and to be consistent with my existing understanding of what is going on.  I don’t find there cheap shots, like Reid’s claim above or other patently unsubstantiated allegations or gimmicks that defy logic.  I don’t read also NYT, Washington Post because… again, I don’t trust them and frankly I have a hard time reading through an article that I find is based on ideology and not facts.  NYT used to praise Stalin, Castro and Chaves, btw.  I can google those articles if you think that is unbelievable.  

OK, now I go read the articles you sent me and another you sent me a week or so ago and I had no time to read.  Thank you for sending them.