Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Honest Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (2530)	5/18/2019 6:16:08 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3350

I am not endorsing Cuba's regime.. just saying lots got a leg up.. that could not have under Batista.. Cuba was a cesspool of US crime syndicates before that.. Hard for me to see JFK as the hero many do.. I was in class.. Grade 3.. 7 years old.. and the nuns came and told us of the tragedy of Kennedy History is an open book eventually Sadly the Who said it well I like your thread.. I think you are true to your header..

To: sense who wrote (2530)	5/18/2019 6:30:36 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 3350

"communist governments are really typically fascist.. in many ways"... I agree that is true... and must be. But, WHY is it true ? And, what else does it require that must also be true, given it is true ? First, though, as a matter of logic : How can it be true... given the claimed divergence in the basis between them (communism and fascism), which poses them as diametric opposites ? Are they not diametric opposites ? What are the points of agreement and disagreement in the fundamentals that distinguish them properly ? Keeping the focus uncluttered... try to answer that question honestly, as intended... ? My purpose, of course, is in questioning the truth value in the "claimed divergence"... as I think it is not fundamentally real. They are essentially the same thing... with only minor variation in the practical in implementation. First though, let me short circuit the most obvious "out" that I see employed in the argument... Academic historians will often engage freshmen with the practical tautology that "you must become like that which you seek to destroy"... employing that as a "What, Me Worry" element in encouraging ignorance in adoption of, or at least the tolerance of, opposites in ideas as they conflict with fundamental belief. Tactically, it is an obvious truth. Take your army, designed to fight a European war, to America (circa 1776) or to French Indochina / Vietnam (circa mid-1900s) ... and the obvious truth of the requirement in adapting to local conditions will impose itself in short order. Conflict must allow you to adapt to the environment... both physical and ideological. But if, in the process, you ignore the boundary in the language... ignoring that a "likeness" is not "the same thing as"... error can easily lead to "you must become what you seek to destroy"... Not shockingly... that often happens... that the champions of an idea... exceed in excess in the opposite. However, that fact doesn't inform the question I've asked with an out... as I've closed that door.