Posted on 05/20/2012 10:40:55 AM PDT by thouworm
“I just don’t want to see something this significant – whatever the pros and cons – go through without anyone noticing,” “ says one source on the Hill, who is disturbed by the law. According to this source, the law would allow "U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population."
The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”
Decimation would not even put a dent in the problem.
I copied/pasted from M-W and thought that the whole copy would paste. It didn’t. It left out two words:
“Student Definition”.
Should have been paying attention. The point was that students get a different definition.
Also, as with many other words, that particular word has become “contaminated” and “twisted”. “Propaganda” at one point in time decades ago, was defined as, “news”, period.
My best guess ... someone forgot to tell someone is the best defense the main lame media has. Have U.S. Marshals been dispatched?
The non-Communists died off and were replaced by ...
So the new law gives us new protections when the protections which were in the old law failed. Makes as much sense as anything else. Government protection or government protectionism?
We’re lucky the government doesn’t use propaganda on American audiences...
Should have been paying attention. The point was that students get a different definition.
Well...that certainly is interesting! Thank you for reply.
Can you provide a link because I still don't see it on the source I cited for Merriam-Webster. Is it a completely separate dictionary?
Suspected such, and there it is in writing. Congress loves U.S. citizens and have decided to protect us.
do I really need a sarcasm tag?
My apology ... should have combined the three comments into one comment.
In other words, the new law would create additional sweeping powers for the Executive branch.
How can Congress grant powers to the Executive that exceed those provided for within the Constitution? I think this is overreach -it may be okay to treat foreigners this way but NOT citizens.
This makes it sound like it was illegal when SecState Clinton lied about Honduras.
So what exactly does Obama's "Hope and Change" mean? Hope for a socialist victory? Change from success? The fundamental alteration of the American political landscape? An even less credible government than the embarrassment we have now?
Makes one wonder if too many lies are being caught (by people looking for truth who are ordinary citizens) and now is the time to make lying legal before high crimes and misdemeanors mean high crimes and misdemeanors? Both parties would have had to have voted to pass this monstrosity. Congress by this amendment is saying those people looking for the truth are getting too close? Make it legal for us (congress, the media, the executive branch) to be illegal? Every arm and branch of government would become legally able to be illegal? A new chapter in America has begun.
I assume this was introduced by the republicans.
first drones and now this...
How will it be different than NY Times, WashPost, AP, CBS, NBC,CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS etc??
Well, I don’t like the lack of red, white and blue patriotism. This is a ‘peace, love, dope’ crowd take on the US. Party, inhale, express your inner self stuff. The outdoorsy part’s OK, but I truly object to a couple of things. Romance should not equal homosexual. Gatherings shoud not look like a bunch of LSD addled children masquerading as adults. Our colors are red, white and blue, not red and yellow on white.
Good example! Is there a grandfather clause in the new amendment? lol/sarc
How would lies to the citizens be prosecuted before the amendment. Why is this needed now?
Why is this amendment only being publicized advertised (with spin) on the leftist websites (and on the sponsors' govt websites----"The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mark Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State")?
I see your point. I’ll admit I wasn’t watching the video intensely and missed the gay thing but I thought the video was folks but wouldn’t watch as Cash is just odd. might be a nice girl but something about her is just weird.
mis-pinged. Meant to ping you to this article/thread.
Talk about overwhelming the court system. We'd need to triple the size of it at least.
Our Govt. wants to remove the tiny bit of embarrassment they have to endure when we catch them lying to us. With this new law, lying to us will become a game amongst them in which those who tell the biggest whopper to the people will be rewarded among their own.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.