Obama Signs Act - Fake News Is Now Illegal Just Deem It Foreign Propaganda

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Greggers

What does it do that they havent been doing all along?

If they've been doing it all along, who cares?

According to the Washington Post, what's new is this: www.washingtonpost.com... 52_story.html?utm_term=.d1b5326f09c5



The effort would expand the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which focuses on combating propaganda and recruitment by the Islamic State and other violent extremist groups, and would draw support from the Defense Department, intelligence agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

The measure also would create a grant program to help foster civil society and independent journalism in countries targeted with propaganda campaigns by Russia and other foreign powers, including China.

Greggers -no offence- you should change your avatar or whatever from "TRUST NO ONE" to "TRUST THE MSM and ME". Every comment I read from you is spent defending shady crap the Feds are trying to push down our throats. I think you are of the MSM and paid to comment here or something.

a reply to: Greggers

Since you people cant seem to grasp how to interpret reality via mere words, I made this just for you:


Now that is what they've done just recently doing all the things that you guys are acting like all this new PROPAGANDA bill means. Said methods were ILLEGAL then by the way.

Now they've legitimized it.

And the out and open excuse is to counter "propaganda" that tries to expose all of that mess, that kind of foreign policy.

Now what do you think comes next?

Obama Signs Act - Fake News Is Now Illegal Just Deem It Foreign Propaganda

Translation.

The only fake news your suppose to believe is what they tell you.

Meaning the state.

Obama does Mao proud.

a reply to: gmoneystuntwow all the email stuff from wikileaks about the purely traitorous stuff hillary supposedly done and mothing was done . the possible hit on justice scalia implied from podestia emails and nothing was done. some one sees an ad for a fast food restaurant and possible links to illegal activity and OH MY GOD THE INTERNET ABOUT MELTS DOWN OBAMA MUST DO SOMETHING FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS. as arsenio hall used to say things that make you say hmmm! truly all that other stuff the president glossed over but something that should have been glossed over to and he targets it with a nuke so to speak.

a reply to: neo96

Did you miss the part where a Republican (Rep. Adam Kinzinger) sponsored the bill in question? "H.R. 5181: Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016" is a Republican measure (HERE) & this entire bill was passed by a Republican controlled Congress before it even reached Pres Obama's desk. So of course you blame Obama for not vetoing your side's own legislation. (facepalm)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Did you miss the past 6 weeks here Obama campaigned for it, and then signed it?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So the Republican who got it into the bill in the first place and the Republican-controlled Congress that passed it are excused??? This wouldn't even exist if Republicans throughout Congress didn't make sure it was placed in it. ETA: This is the same Republican controlled Congress that consistently blocked Obama's policies and appointees, including his pick for the Supreme Court. But we're supposed to believe they passed this to help the lame duck Obama?

This is just like NAFTA, where more Republicans voted for it than Democrats, yet Democrats are the only ones who get blamed for it. And I guess this is how the next 2 years will also be, where Repubs will control the Presidency & Executive Branch, Congress, and have the majority in the Supreme Court. But somehow, any legislation that passes will still be blamed on Democrats and the Left.

(note: I said the next 2 years because I'm firmly expecting them to lose control of Congress in 2018.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

No one said they do, but to you, as usual, if any GOP are in the loop then you shift the whole blame away from Obama THE BOSS.

Obama campaigned for it. Obama signed it. Whoever that congressman is is small potatoes. And the rest of them (which were MOSTLY Dem's by the way). And it was the Liberal media ALL-IN. And the people online fighting for every single aspect of it including the censorship are all Dem's that I've noticed.

Isn't liberalism supposed to have some big premise of liberty behind the meaning of the phrase? That sure was how you guys marched about 10 years ago.

And NAFTA is funny too because regardless of what went down in Congress the Clinton's (that's plural) campaigned for it, and Bill signed it. Aside from Newt & Teddy how many congressman from 1995 can anyone ever remember? How many are still there? Who's legacy was the 90's?

Does crap roll uphill, or downhill?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Then clearly you don't know how Congress works. Funding bills can only be started in the House of Representatives. The President can't do that and neither can a Senator. It has to be someone in the House of Representatives. And guess who did it? A House Democrat? Nope! A Republican Representative did it!

Then the appropriate House sub-committee has to accept it and the Speaker of the House has to allow it into the bill. Take a wild guess who did that? Then it has to pass in the Republican controlled House of Representatives (which it did) and pass in the Republican controlled Senate (which it also did).

If this was a Democratic policy, then why would House and Senate Republicans introduce it and pass it in the first place? The Speaker of the House could've blocked it himself if he wanted to. If you really believe the things you just posted, then why did your party voluntarily introduce, accept, and pass a supposedly Democratic policy in both Chambers of Congress? Dude even made sure to boost its chances of passing by adding it to a much more vital bill.

And are you denying that more Republicans in both the House of Reps and the Senate voted for NAFTA than congressional Democrats? Once again, treaties like these must be passed by Congress first. Bush the first negotiated NAFTA and Clinton signed it after Congresses passed it. The reason the Clinton's receive so much vitriol from the left over NAFTA is because the majority of Democrats voted against it, but Bill sided with the Republicans on it when he could've vetoed it like the Dems wanted. But clearly you don't know that.

Just man up and admit it when your side does something you don't like.

Soooo let me get this straight.
In 2014 the Obama administration and the secretary of state(HRC) repeal the Smith-Mundt Act.
Then with less than a month left in office he drops this turd into the pool?
Is this supposed to be some kind of sick parting joke from Obama or something?

Censor those you disagree with...got it.

so much for freedom of speech....

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Imagine if every time someone blasted Bush for Iraq, someone else showed up and tried to make the thread about the Democrat's who funded and voted for the various facets of that nightmare.

Wouldn't that get annoying? If we cant get justice on Bush (which we cant' thanks to furor Obama pardoning him), then what the hell are we going to do about any of the rest of it?

Just getting people to stop worshipping their primary figureheads is most of the battle.

And by the way, aren't you a Muslim? How can you defend whether directly or 'passively-defensively' or wilfull ignorantly what the Dem's have spearheaded over in the Muslim World? See my above posts, and here goes a new infographic I just threw together to help put the situation into perspective:

I know why the right has issues with this, if banned, how will the right be able to spread their propaganda?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Not really the gist at all, the bill states it will introduce "procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States."

Whose facts, exactly? Expose and refute? Why? That's the most important question, isn't it? Why do they feel it necessary to refute? Because it doesn't jibe with their narrative?

Personally I feel this will be absolutely pointless because as I've learned over the years on ATS, as well as other social media, once someone's mind is made up, that's it, there's absolutely no swaying them.

On that, we are agreed. But the information, all of it, should still be readily available, just in case someone chooses to open up a closed mind. Not information that has been "fact checked" by some bozo with an agenda.

And surely you've noticed that many CAN'T think for themselves, they parrot whatever rhetoric they have chosen to be true in their minds and that's it.

Not can't. Won't. Nothing you can do about "can't". "Won't" is fixable, if said person wants to. Which is why the information should be readily available in unsanitized versions.

Distrust the US government but loves Russian government....what a joke.

I agree. I trust no govt. Ours. Theirs. None of 'em. No govt entity has my best interests at heart. Never have, never will. Which, again, is why there should be no sort of govt involvement in the free flow of information. Good or bad. It's why I have a brain. I'll make my own decisions, thank you. I don't need some, supposedly, well intentioned bozo deciding what is fit for me to know, or read, or listen to. That's my job.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Imagine if every time someone blasted Bush for Iraq, someone else showed up and tried to make the thread about the Democrat's who funded and voted for the various facets of that nightmare.

Wouldn't that get annoying?

If people find facts to be "annoying", then that's their problems. It doesn't change the fact that Republicans introduced the measure in the OP & passed it in both chambers of Congress (that they controlled) before it even got to Pres Obama's desk. If he's to blame for this, then they're far more to blame for it.

Though I do blame Dems as well for their complicity in the "War on Terror".

If we cant get justice on Bush (which we cant' thanks to furor Obama pardoning him), then what the hell are we going to do about any of the rest of it?

What's that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Just getting people to stop worshipping their primary figureheads is most of the battle.

If you really believe this, then shouldn't that mean you want all of these figureheads to be held accountable? If so, then how can you sit back and let Congressional Republicans escape accountability for this bill which they literally introduced and passed before Obama even got to see it? Why do the members of Congress always get a pass? We have 535 people being paid a minimum of $174,000 of taxpayer money per year to write our federal laws, yet only Presidents get scrutiny?

And by the way, aren't you a Muslim? How can you defend whether directly or 'passively-defensively' or wilfull ignorantly what the Dem's have spearheaded over in the Muslim World?

WTF? Republicans AND Democrats spearheaded the chaos in the Muslim world! Both "sides" have consistently backed Wahhabi paramilitaries, Gulf monarchies, & despots in Muslim countries. Both "sides" have taken turns destroying Muslim countries! You're mentioning the 2nd half of the "War on Terror" as if we're all supposed to forget the bigger 1st half. LOL

And long before 9/11, both Repubs and Dems were backing Israel against the Palestinians & Lebanon; backing Saddam against Iran; backing the Wahhabis in the Balkans; getting Gaddafi to disarm while planning his fall; backing the Afghans and foreign Wahhabi fighters that would eventually become Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Afghan warlords; etc. But I guess I'm supposed to ignore the fact that Muslims make up the vast majority of victims for all of those groups & regimes that our political parties constantly back?

Did you know the US supported General Musharraf after his coup to take out Pakistan's Muslim female Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto? And the US still supported General Sisi after his coup in Egypt against their democratically elected leader Morsi, which killed thousands of protesters? Do you even know who Mohammad Mosaddegh is or how he relates to this discussion?

For the record, I voted for both Nader and Stein precisely because I hate both the Dems' and Repubs' policies on the Muslim world. I voted against Bush in 2004 for many reasons, including because I thought he was going to invade Iran next. And I voted for Obama in 2008 because I got duped into thinking he was an actual progressive who would fix some of this crap.

So perhaps you got me mixed up with someone else?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wouldn't that get annoying? If we cant get justice on Bush (which we cant' thanks to furor Obama pardoning him)

Please explain. Do you live in an alternate universe where Obama pardoned Bush for something?

a reply to: DJW001

Aide: Obama Won't Prosecute Bush Officials
President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

Obama last week authorized the release of a series of memos detailing the methods approved under President George W. Bush. In an accompanying statement, he said "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, that they will not be subject to prosecution." He did not specifically address the policymakers.

Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" about the fate of those officials, Emanuel said the president believes they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go."

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War
In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

“The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers
The Obama administration's aggressive, full-scale whitewashing of the "war on terror" crimes committed by Bush officials is now complete. Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the closing without charges of the only two cases under investigation relating to the US torture program: one that resulted in the 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at a secret CIA prison near Kabul, and the other the 2003 death of an Iraqi citizen while in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. This decision, says the New York Times Friday, "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA".

US justice department rules out prosecutions over CIA prison deaths
The decision in the inquiries of the deaths of two terrorist suspects marks the end of a wide-ranging criminal investigation by federal prosecutor John Durham into interrogation practices during the presidency of George Bush.

Durham has looked into the treatment of 101 detainees in US custody since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Durham's inquiry into another episode involving the CIA began in January 2008 when the justice department chose him to conduct a criminal investigation into the agency's destruction of videotapes it had made of its interrogations of terrorist suspects.

In August 2009, attorney general Eric Holder expanded Durham's mandate to include a preliminary review of the CIA's interrogation of specific detainees overseas. In June 2011, Holder approved Durham's request to move into a full criminal investigation of the two deaths.

The 2009 expansion followed the public release of an internal CIA inspector general's report that revealed agency interrogators once threatened to kill a 9/11 suspect's children, and suggested another would be forced to watch his mother be sexually assaulted. The report said some CIA interrogators went beyond Bush administration restrictions that gave them wide latitude to use severe tactics such as waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
Blah blah dude. Seriously, I've seen you come in and deflect the heat off Obama on numerous issues now via these means (Syria, American Imperialism, War On Drugs, and surely just about every other issue following this same talking point pattern I observe you wield when the subject of Obama in the hot seat comes up). OBAMA IS CURRENTLY THE BOSS. It happens on his watch yet we're going to let him skate by with a pass, he goes on being worshipped, because some mostly no-name no-fame douches in Congress helped push through HIS AGENDA'S?????

He promised change and all we got was PC and a busted ass Obamacare that they told everyone we were racists if we criticized it.

And you know what that is on topic because to advance any cause now first we have to get thru the minefield of PC self-censorship your team has embittered our nation with, and then other caveats such as if we try to hold Obama to his CHANGE pledges then oh quick blame the Republicans (WHEN IM NOT A REPUBLICAN), and now to top it all off the precedent now is the Internet is bent on being scrubbed via AI automation via Facebook & Google (whom are essentially part of the Obama admin), with counter-imperialist propaganda to be branded as "foreign propaganda" that needs to be traced, cataloged and "countered".

I know you're far from the worst of the resident liberal demogogues, but damn dude you still sure do show up with your own style of passive-defensive schtick that is helping give this guy AND Hillary a pass. He and Hillary deserve to go down in the flames of SHAME just as bad as Bush ever did and you guys are propping Him up either directly or passive-defensively. And that's just counting the foreign policy discussion. That duo trumped Dubya's domestic quazi-crimes/crimes/travesties in all new ways including the very same stuff Bush did.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Blah blah dude. Seriously, I've seen you come in and deflect the heat off Obama on numerous issues now

And I've seen you crucifying Democrats with highly questionable rhetoric and sometimes outright fake news (like the term or not, it fits a huge percentage of the crap you posted about Hillary).

So I'd say you and this other guy are probably even.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Blah blah dude. Seriously, I've seen you come in and deflect the heat off Obama on numerous issues now via these means (Syria, American Imperialism, War On Drugs, and surely just about every other issue following this same talking point pattern I observe you wield when the subject of Obama in the hot seat comes up).

Then you need to get your eyes checked. I only "take the heat" off someone when you guys are blatantly lying or conveniently leaving out crucial details to fit your narratives. I've been crystal clear where I stand on him, Hillary, Trump, Bush, Bernie, and many others. But you act like we have to 100% love or hate these people, which is preposterous to me. I criticize and acknowledge when I feel they're deserved.

OBAMA IS CURRENTLY THE BOSS. It happens on his watch yet we're going to let him skate by with a pass, he goes on being worshipped, because some mostly no-name no-fame douches in Congress helped push through HIS AGENDA'S?????

LOL The President is only the boss of the Executive Branch! Please tell me you understand that the 3 branches of government are independent (facepalm). The federal Legislative Branch (Congress) does NOT answer to the President, and neither does the federal Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court).

Not to mention, the separation of powers also includes numerous "checks & balances" so that a branch can undermine the others (like the President being able to veto Congress, Congress being able to fund and defund the agencies in Executive Branch, the Supreme Court being able to nullify any of Congress' laws, etc). This is literally Government 101.

And you're contradicting yourself here. If you truly believe the President alone is responsible for everything Congress and the Supreme Court do "on his watch", then you're implying that Bush alone is responsible for everything that happened on his watch regardless of the Dems who voted along with "his" policies. So which is it?

And who's worshiping him? You just brought up that I'm a Muslim, yet you don't know that worshiping anyone other than God is the only unforgivable sin in Islam? You either don't know what the word "worship" means or you're blatantly lying again to fit your narrative. I'm noticing a pattern.

He promised change and all we got was PC and a busted ass Obamacare that they told everyone we were racists if we criticized it.

"PC" existed before Sen. Obama was elected President. And I've criticized Obamacare right here on this very site (like HERE). So what's your point here? I'm racist now too?

And you know what that is on topic because to advance any cause now first we have to get thru the minefield of PC self-censorship your team has embittered our nation with, and then other caveats such as if we try to hold Obama to his CHANGE pledges then oh quick blame the Republicans (WHEN IM NOT A REPUBLICAN), and now to top it all off the precedent now is the Internet is bent on being scrubbed via AI automation via Facebook & Google (whom are essentially part of the Obama admin), with counter-imperialist propaganda to be branded as "foreign propaganda" that needs to be traced, cataloged and "countered".

O_O
Uhh, yeah...

Though if you're not a Republican, why can't you just acknowledge that Republicans introduced and passed the bill referred to in the OP? Say it with me: "The Republican controlled Legislative Branch introduced this bill, allowed it to be added to a very important bill in order to get it passed, and then voted to pass it in both Chambers of Congress. All of this happened before President Obama had a chance to sign it into law or veto it." See, much better right?

I know you're far from the worst of the resident liberal demogogues, but damn dude you still sure do show up with your own style of passive-defensive schtick that is helping give this guy AND Hillary a pass. He and Hillary deserve to go down in the flames of SHAME just as bad as Bush ever did and you guys are propping Him up either directly or passive-defensively.

You can go screw yourself with that. I've been consistent with my views on Hillary since before the primaries. Show me a single post where I said I like her or that she should be given a pass. Even one. And I've openly criticized Obama on numerous occasions, particularly w/his attacks on at least 7 Muslim countries.

But you keep whining because you seem to expect people to have the zero-sum, all or nothing viewpoint that you have. You act like you've been trapped in a safe space where no one disagreed with your views. So when you meet people who have differing views from what you've consistently heard, you freak out.