Can You Handle These Terrifying Stories?

[Townsend]

'ignorant masses' (a term I truly resent and would not choose to use myself),

I feel the same.

This is just what James Madison intended, of course.

Well did you realize that After Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who supported the constitution, became the president that James Madison changed his views about faction being the most harmful to individual liberty? Hamilton wanted a strong central government and James Madison saw this and then realized that too much power held by the few was the greater danger. Also note that it was Hamilton who started the first National Bank, an idea that Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to.

So it seems that history disagrees with what you're trying to suggest. Now if you said Alexander Hamilton, I might be inclined to agree with you to some extent but not entirely.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

To the extent that the general public is not truly informed of the real facts, it is not suited to govern itself directly.

I disagree with this as well...

Faction will try to take control of power and oppress the rights of the individual. The general public being aware of the facts does not change that and nothing ever will.

Regards,

 

[Archon]

I disagree with this as well...

Faction will try to take control of power and oppress the rights of the individual. The general public being aware of the facts does not change that and nothing ever will.

Regards,

The presumption is that if the public is informed (accurately) of all the facts, it should be able to come to an enlightened and informed decision which is to the benefit of as much of the population as possible. I agree that this is kind of unlikely, but there you go. As an extension, though: I think that unless "the people" are adequately informed, they can't very well establish and maintain even an indirectly democratic government.

 

[Townsend]

The presumption is that if the public is informed (accurately) of all the facts, it should be able to come to an enlightened and informed decision which is to the benefit of as much of the population as possible. I agree that this is kind of unlikely, but there you go. As an extension, though: I think that unless "the people" are adequately informed, they can't very well establish and maintain even an indirectly democratic government.

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

 

[MaxS]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

I would not call the american public informed. Rather misinformed by a never ending slew of propagandized media in all forms.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

Informed with what and when though.

Informed before the fact with lies disproved after the fact with facts?

I think you need to take a look at was fed to the prople as information which was in reality a fiction created to justify a course of action ... Propaganda, in other words.

 

[Townsend]

I would not call the american public informed. Rather misinformed by a never ending slew of propagandized media in all forms.

I am not calling them informed. I am saying that we all agree that they are better informed today than ever before in history. Well, you certainly are agreeing with me so at least I have your vote that they are not informed.

 

[Townsend]

Disinformation is still information...The fact that the public will believe something to be true when it is false only serves to reaffirm what James Madison feared the most. Faction!

Regards,

 

[MaxS]

WOW SEMANTICS AGAIN YAY!

Obviously when I am talking about an INFORMED VOTER I mean one that has the information he needs to make a good judgement (in other words the CORRECT information).

Isn't this just a tad self-evident?

And in this regard I totally disagree with you that the American People are better informed today than they ever have been.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Disinformation is still information...The fact that the public will believe something to be true when it is false only serves to reaffirm what James Madison feared the most. Faction!

And when the source of that disinformation is shown to be the organization partially designed by Maddison, we can only make the observation that it was he who erred and that they have no business being in control of heavy machinery much less the guradians of 'Truth, Justice and the American way' which is starting to sound more and more like an effort in creative writing than a government.

 

[Townsend]

And when the source of that disinformation is shown to be the organization partially designed by Maddison, we can only make the observation that it was he who erred and that they have no business being in control of heavy machinery much less the guradians of 'Truth, Justice and the American way' which is starting to sound more and more like an effort in creative writing than a government.

What government does not give out bad information? Find me one...

If you cannot then why are you condemning the American government? The American government takes into account that government can become corrupt and that is the purpose of checks and balances.

Your diatribe is getting to the point where any future discourse is futile.

 

[Archon]

Well how do you explain the United States then?

I think that the average American is better informed today then ever before. I think that most informed people will agree that the average American is not adequately informed even today. And yet America has, I believe, the oldest existing government that is currently still alive. Perhaps you are not correct about your assumptions.

I appreciate your views, I honestly do, but I still think James Madison knew what he was talking about.

Regards,

My last sentance wasn't very clear. I was aiming at the fact that unless they have a sufficient amount of accurate information, the American voters won't be able to elect the representatives who are best able to run the country. This is my problem with what you were saying earlier: while it's true in theory that our government should prevent horrible mistakes from being made, this isn't necessarily the case in reality. The voters can't control the government directly, but they are responsible for electing the people who do, and these people can do a great deal of damage with the support of the voters.

When the voters are uninformed (about the candidates, important issues, the principles of democracy, etc), then the very thing you were talking about could happen: if the country fills all three branches of the government with members of a single party, then the rights of the minority will certainly suffer. After all, a government consisting of, for all intents and purposes, one party cannot be expected to police itself.

I agree with Madison's general ideas: I just believe they have to be adapted to modern times. Remember: when the Constitution was written, Democracy was still a rather novel idea, and, as is the case with Capitalism, 200 years of history has taught us that the original ideas aren't all perfect (i.e. the danger of trusts and monopolies in a purely Capitalistic system).

 

[Townsend]

I agree with Madison's general ideas: I just believe they have to be adapted to modern times. Remember: when the Constitution was written, Democracy was still a rather novel idea, and, as is the case with Capitalism, 200 years of history has taught us that the original ideas aren't all perfect (i.e. the danger of trusts and monopolies in a purely Capitalistic system).

I see, well I agree with you. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, I think, said that the constitution is for the living. In other words, it is meant to be changed and to be interpreted by each new generation.

 

[danAlwyn]

A good analysis dan, but I have three issues with it: one, it fails to account for the aircraft on the carrier. Two (related to one), it assumes several hundred gunboats and planes could get themselves into a position to launch such an attack. And three, it assumes strategic as well as tactical surprise - ie, if tensions were higher, we'd certainly have beefier task forces than that, probably more than one, and a signficant number of other ships not necessarily assigned to the carrier task force.

True. I purposefully did not count the airplanes aboard the carrier, because actually factoring airpower into the calculations makes them a lot harder. I also admit that being surprised by China's missile boats at once is unlikely. But notice that I also did not account for Chinese decoy deployment, or the possibility of launching a feint to draw off some of the Combat Air Patrol. We'll get bogged down in the details at this rate.

More worrisome is the possibility that, in the next twenty years, it may become possible to build extremely cheap cruise missiles. In that case, China won't need the missile boats to deny the US access to the Strait of Formosa.

Strategic surprise may not be unreasonable in this situation. Spats between the PRC and the ROC tend to flare over sudden events, sometimes within a matter of hours. Given current policy I can see the US Navy deploying a standard task force from the Seventh Fleet to Taiwanese waters to show the flag at the beginning of what might be seen as a simple flare-up. I can also see them being unwilling to turn and run away if things look like they're getting more serious-which would be what a withdrawal of over a hundred miles might look like.

The other thing I anticipated was that in a sudden attack that achieved tactical surprise, US aircraft might not be able to kill missile boats until after the boats had launched. I'm not sure how well air-to-air missiles work against other missiles-I've never seen it tested. It would be interesting to ask the Navy, but I expect missiles might have some problems targeting each other.

What I don't like is those times when the Navy seems to assume that their carrier groups are unsinkable and invincible to conventional attack. In an age of increasing proliferation of high-tech conventional weapons that is just asking for trouble.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What government does not give out bad information? Find me one...

If you cannot then why are you condemning the American government? The American government takes into account that government can become corrupt and that is the purpose of checks and balances.

Your diatribe is getting to the point where any future discourse is futile.

And you think that the people of the opposing opinion to you don't feel this way Townsend?

What we are saying is that the last time that these tactics were used by a government in power against its own people to lie to them and lead them to war, they were tried and executed by the Americans in Tokyo.

It is know as a 'Class A War Crime' or 'Crime Against Peace'.

 

[Townsend]

What we are saying is that the last time that these tactics were used by a government in power against its own people to lie to them and lead them to war, they were tried and executed by the Americans in Tokyo.

Are you sure about that?...I am just asking because I want to be certain you mean exactly what you're saying. I don't have anything ready to pounce on you with but I am sure I can find things to contradict you with a little effort.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Are you sure about that?...I am just asking because I want to be certain you mean exactly what you're saying. I don't have anything ready to pounce on you with but I am sure I can find things to contradict you with a little effort.

To do that, you will have to prove how the USA followed Kellog-Briand then wouldn't you? Now taken in light of the Downing Street Memo, you will find that very hard to do.