If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Amendment to a defense authorization bill seeks to overturn a longstanding ban on the US government using propaganda on its own people. In sports, President Obama has won Wimbledon for a 6th time   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 120
    More: Scary, authorization bill, military base, checks and balances, legislative committee, public affairs, Adam Smith, information ages, Department of Defense  
•       •       •

2256 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2012 at 1:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-19 11:20:51 AM  
bipartisan? what the fark? i expect this kind of fascist bullshiat from republicans, but a dem? jaysus.
 
2012-05-19 11:25:58 AM  
Uproar. Virulent uproar
 
2012-05-19 11:35:05 AM  
How will we be able to tell the newly authorized bullshiat from the currently disseminated bullshiat?

/I weep for my country
 
2012-05-19 11:52:08 AM  
If congressional approval ratings are anything to go by, I can see why the House thinks Americans are a hostile population.
Can any foreigners share some amusing propoganda our State Department has foisted on you? Can it be any sillier than our own news media provide?
 
2012-05-19 12:05:20 PM  

FlashHarry: bipartisan? what the fark? i expect this kind of fascist bullshiat from republicans, but a dem? jaysus.


They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.
 
2012-05-19 12:31:54 PM  

GAT_00: They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.


Adam Smith, WA-9 (D).
 
2012-05-19 12:32:33 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If congressional approval ratings are anything to go by, I can see why the House thinks Americans are a hostile population.
Can any foreigners share some amusing propoganda our State Department has foisted on you? Can it be any sillier than our own news media provide?


I second this. My favorite was the State Department PSA about how illegal immigration is illegal... in Israel.

GAT_00: FlashHarry: bipartisan? what the fark? i expect this kind of fascist bullshiat from republicans, but a dem? jaysus.

They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.


Both sides do it. We were sold out by both parties long ago.
 
2012-05-19 12:42:24 PM  
I guess that Congress figures everything coming out of their mouths is total crapola, so why not extend that to the rest of the federal government?
 
2012-05-19 12:47:56 PM  
lh3.googleusercontent.com

Seriously, kids...
 
2012-05-19 12:51:37 PM  
Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.



true enough - that's why we've got Fox News.
 
2012-05-19 01:23:57 PM  

abb3w: GAT_00: They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.

Adam Smith, WA-9 (D).


Oh, crap. That's my congressman.

Although, honestly, if the ban were overturned how would we tell?
 
2012-05-19 01:25:39 PM  

FlashHarry: bipartisan? what the fark? i expect this kind of fascist bullshiat from republicans, but a dem? jaysus.


In before blame on GOP... never mind. Do you really need me to link to you the voting roles for the Patriot Act and Re-Authorization?
 
2012-05-19 01:27:08 PM  
Oh, just lovely.
 
2012-05-19 01:27:27 PM  
So does this assume the US government doesn't use propaganda on its citizens already?
 
2012-05-19 01:28:14 PM  
All we have to do is nationalize Fox News.
 
2012-05-19 01:31:15 PM  
I was going to mention Fox News.

//I guess our taxes will now fund Fox News. How nice.

///get me off this planet, I'm feeling sick
 
2012-05-19 01:31:16 PM  
How very un-American.
 
2012-05-19 01:31:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: So does this assume the US government doesn't use propaganda on its citizens already?


we outsourced our at home propaganda.
 
2012-05-19 01:31:33 PM  
What if this had been attempted during the Bush years instead of the Obama years?
www.zombietime.com

I wonder if the outraged defenders of liberty will raise a similar outcry.
 
2012-05-19 01:31:43 PM  

Kittypie070: All we have to do is nationalize Fox News.


We don't need the government handling propaganda when we have hard working, free enterprising, capitalistic companies like Fox News who give us all the propaganda we need!
 
2012-05-19 01:32:12 PM  
www.louisville.com
THE AMERICAN CONGRESSMAN IS YOUR FRIEND
 
2012-05-19 01:37:18 PM  
This is the darkest timeline.
 
2012-05-19 01:40:35 PM  
NNNNNNNNNNNRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I just wanna bite bite bite that turtle dude right on his nose

bite chew destroy meow
 
2012-05-19 01:42:17 PM  
Propaganda ban?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-19 01:44:40 PM  

GilRuiz1: I wonder if the outraged defenders of liberty will raise a similar outcry.


Somehow I think the Tea Party Express isn't going to rise to the occasion. That would be far too principaled of them. Even though descent is the highest form of patriotic.
 
2012-05-19 01:45:39 PM  
2010.newsweek.com

www.boston.com

upload.wikimedia.org

yeah heaven forbid that should ever happen...
 
2012-05-19 01:46:08 PM  

ultraholland: Propaganda ban?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x363]


North America is best America
 
2012-05-19 01:47:17 PM  
Sounds very Karl Rovian to me.
 
2012-05-19 01:51:05 PM  
Both of them were also responsible for the amendment to allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Fark both of them, regardless of party.
 
2012-05-19 01:52:17 PM  

FlashHarry: i expect this kind of fascist bullshiat from republicans, but a dem?


i.imgur.com

Statists gonna State
 
2012-05-19 01:53:04 PM  

Fart_Machine: So does this assume the US government doesn't use propaganda on its citizens already?


We're talking about a very specific type of propaganda developed by state department and military professionals aimed at influencing public opinion abroad. In the sense that say, Obama manipulating the press through conventionally accepted means to obtain positive media coverage is "propaganda," the answer is yes, the government uses propaganda on its own citizens. But there are norms which limit that type of propaganda, which don't limit the military psy-op propaganda at issue here.

I'm not saying our defenses against propaganda of all kinds is adequate. I've zero doubt that, for example, former military psy-ops people go to work for public relations firms employed by the political parties. I also have little doubt that when employed in a private capacity, they use many of the same techniques against the American people they used to manipulate foreign audiences. That troubles me a lot, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

What I am sure of is that I do not want to give official sanction for the state department and the military to use its propaganda techniques on the American people. Obviously, they feel that the existing restrictions limit their ability to manipulate American public opinion to their will. That is a GOOD thing, and we should absolutely strive to keep it that way.

If anyone lives in either of these two assholes' districts, now is the time, and this alone is an appropriate issue to justify taking all legally permissible action to end their political careers. This transcends partisanship. This is moral treason against the American people, and it is everyone's civic duty to take all efforts to make every American a single issue voter on this issue alone. Liberals: if Obama or any other Democrat comes out in favor of this bullsh*t, vote them down. Conservatives: likewise with Romney and the Republicans.

It isn't often you can make this kind of statement, and not have it be hyperbole. This is one of them:

Repeal of this law ends what semblance of a democratic-republic we still have.
 
2012-05-19 01:53:29 PM  
www.talkleft.com

www.maximsnews.com
 
2012-05-19 01:55:13 PM  

Chameleon: abb3w: GAT_00: They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.

Adam Smith, WA-9 (D).

Oh, crap. That's my congressman.

Although, honestly, if the ban were overturned how would we tell?


nothing to see here. All is well. Eat your vegetables.

/that is all
 
2012-05-19 01:56:11 PM  
In reality the govt doesn't have to do it itself. there are more than willing toadies in the "news" business willing to disseminate it for them.
 
2012-05-19 01:56:29 PM  

GilRuiz1: I wonder if the outraged defenders of liberty will raise a similar outcry.


How about looking at EVERY farkING COMMENT BEFORE YOURS?!
 
2012-05-19 01:57:55 PM  
disposablewisdom.com



cdn1.alexanderhiggins.com
 
2012-05-19 01:57:56 PM  

abb3w: GAT_00: They always manage to find one retard for this shiat to call it bipartisan. Probably a Blue Dog.

Adam Smith, WA-9 (D).


He probably has his invisible hand in this.
 
2012-05-19 01:59:35 PM  
Well I'm at least encouraged to hear up until now the government hasn't been using propaganda on us.....

/eyeroll
 
2012-05-19 02:02:53 PM  
so what are the repercussions of the govt lying to the public?

we were told for absolute sure that Iraq had WMDs. That they had an active nuclear program
that they had chemical and biological weapons ready to deploy.
did anyone get prosecuted for that?
for all the lies that Curveball and Chalabi were paid so well to tell?
For the Niger Yellowcake lie?
For the lies about ties between AQ and Hussein?
Dough Feith and the rest had a whole dept in the pentagon dedicated to manufacturing propaganda to give the American people.
No one was ever charged.
 
2012-05-19 02:05:06 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Well I'm at least encouraged to hear up until now the government hasn't been using propaganda on us.....

/eyeroll


Okay, in the early 2000s, it was something of a scandal when the New York Times picked up a state department propaganda story about WMDs in Iraq reported in the foreign press, and reported it here. But that wasn't the scandal. The scandal was when Dick Cheney then used the New York Times story to argue for the Iraq War.

Now, that incident produced public outcry, angered many in the press, and the Bush administration paid at least a small political price for doing it. Obviously, it wasn't enough to save America from the Iraq debacle.

But what if there was no scandal at all, because the New York Times reported the state department's story directly given to them through disguised channels, and it was all perfectly legal?

We're talking about the difference between a government restricted at least a little bit in its ability to lie to the American people, and a government restricted not at all. Eventually, the Bush administration's Iraq bullsh*t was exposed. In the world proposed here, it never would be, because the government could manufacture all the evidence it needed to support whatever narrative it preferred utterly without restriction. This issue matters.
 
2012-05-19 02:05:17 PM  
Wait, this was banned? Since when?
 
2012-05-19 02:07:36 PM  

LincolnLogolas: Both of them were also responsible for the amendment to allow indefinite detention of US citizens. Fark both of them, regardless of party.


Why does Adam Smith hate America? Did the Invisible Hand touch him somewhere inappropriate?

weblog.sinteur.com

Show us on the doll where the invisible hand touched you...
 
2012-05-19 02:09:47 PM  
FTA: The defense bill passed the House Friday afternoon.

Well, that's it then.

How much farther can we fall? I mean really.
 
2012-05-19 02:10:19 PM  

QU!RK1019: GilRuiz1: I wonder if the outraged defenders of liberty will raise a similar outcry.

How about looking at EVERY farkING COMMENT BEFORE YOURS?!



Did they march around with a mannequin of the President with a Hitler mustache and hanging on a noose when I wasn't looking?

I don't mean just sit around and biatch on the internet, I mean rally around the White House and demand the eeeeevil dictator step down. I mean lose their gourd like they would have if Bush had been president when this happened.

www.truthmove.org
 
2012-05-19 02:10:53 PM  

bugontherug: We're talking about the difference between a government restricted at least a little bit in its ability to lie to the American people, and a government restricted not at all.


bullshiat. they lied directly to us. I recall all of them on MTP and the other Sunday talk shows telling us that what they knew was certain and not just suspected.
Hell Rumsfeld went as far as to try to elude to where those WMDs were located.
They didn't hedge their assertions with qualifiers.
 
2012-05-19 02:12:49 PM  
Oh great, more spending
 
2012-05-19 02:12:57 PM  
Jesus Christ. How little faith do you have in your ideals that you need this shiat to cover your chickenshiat antics?
 
2012-05-19 02:13:37 PM  

Hobodeluxe: bugontherug: We're talking about the difference between a government restricted at least a little bit in its ability to lie to the American people, and a government restricted not at all.

bullshiat. they lied directly to us. I recall all of them on MTP and the other Sunday talk shows telling us that what they knew was certain and not just suspected.
Hell Rumsfeld went as far as to try to elude to where those WMDs were located.
They didn't hedge their assertions with qualifiers.


And their lies were eventually exposed. N

Now imagine if the government could permissibly manufacture whatever evidence it needed to convince the people there were WMDs in Iraq, and then permissibly manufacture propaganda and disseminate it directly to the American people This was what the Bush administration could not do, and it is why Bush will forever be remembered as the asshole he is. The system failed in the short run, but at least the lies were exposed in the long run.
 
2012-05-19 02:14:14 PM  
It's like decriminalizing blow jobs. Everybody is already walking around with cocks in their mouths anyway, so who gives a crap?
 
2012-05-19 02:15:12 PM  
The most heartbreaking thing in the world would be if this law were repealed not because the American people wanted it to be, but because they were so cynical they were convinced its repeal would not matter.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report