you're literally the only other person I've seen say anything about this. I've been telling people for quite a while about this as to the reason(s) the MSM is doing what they're doing: Because Obutthead stripped the Smith-Mundt to do exactly the opposite of its original purpose.
Never said or implied it didn't...that's 100% your snarky take on it. The point made is that it was MADE LEGAL TO DO by the 2012 "revision". They were at least somewhat subtle beforehand, but after 2012 it was just in your face.
From the OP: “One of the amendments within the NDAA sanctions the US government, without restriction, the use of any mode of message to control how we perceive our world”
So not going to get into a pseudo-intellectuals world view on things. Yes, I read the bill. The Revision of the Smith-Mundt was an obstacle in the way of the NDAA's directives, thus LEGALLY it could be fought in court. The revision removed that obstacle.
Now, go play with the rest of the kids...adults are adulting here.
It doesn't mention anything about the Smith-Mundt act in any way, shape or form, nor does it touch on anything close to your original claim of "One of the amendments within the NDAA sanctions the US government, without restriction, the use of any mode of message to control how we perceive our world"
I think what you're referring to is HR 5736, which was introduced 6 months later
That was cosponsored by a D from WA and a R from CA and appears at first glace to be sketchy but appears to just add a department - "Broadcasting Board of Governors" to establish protocol for dissemination of official information we produce to foreign counties.
Would be happy to look at any provision of either bill you think supports your claim
Literally, "States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency."
The Smith-mundt orginally prohibited everything it says "shall not prohibit:. What are you missing?
I'll take it you're conceding the point that you completely misrepresented the NDAA you first cited.
1.) Your first bolded statement gives the Board of Governors the right to label and give out information that they put out to foreign markets to the American public. It doesn't give the right to put propaganda out to the American public.
2.) Yes, obviously giving credence to online propaganda directed at other nationals that may be viewed by Americans.
Context is extremely important. You give none and don't seem to understand the bill at all..
SO let me understand your position: You genuinely believe your first point (1), which ties into (2) isn't an conflict of thought? Giving out "information" by the Government is often more than JUST information...it is, in fact, propaganda; e.g. gun control statistics belched by Democrats as only one of near infinite examples they engage in. Global Warming is another hot favorite. All bullshit/propaganda.
Read the original Smith-Mundt and compare to the entire revised version. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation. Context, that you seem to puff your chest on, is obvious and in our faces every single day.
As for the NDAA, yes I erred in which (so many) bill to cite. Mea Culpa. Might have been thinking the Patriot act or some such. I know it exists, the point I was attempting to make on the fore-running bill the Smith-mundt finished off. Maybe it was the Patriot Act. In any case, the obvious is there and manifests through several outlets meant to make us submit by covering the gullible in a soft blanket of lies. No ones forcing you to see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Listen man, my point was that your initial post was wrong and you don't understand the context to which the amended bill was written.
I'm not saying you don't have a valid concern about government over-reach and abuse of power/tricking the public. You should always be weary of this to a certain extent. I'm just saying you should know context of things you're going to present to others. This is where a lot of undue fear comes in.
I think most of the fear that radiates out of this amended bill is people like yourself not understanding it just transferred power to a different subset of government and was their way of telling the public to be weary of the internet age..and that's where the irony with you comes in. There isn't a whole lot of difference between a fear-monger incorrectly putting information out in a thread and another country putting out propaganda. That's why it's so much more important to see what's in the actual bill and read it and not get information directly from threads on sites like these unless you're able to discern information correctly.
Well, it seems to me everyone understands it just fine except you. Everyone understands what the Smith-Mundt was for back when it was written and why, as well as the reasons for the revision. Everyone understands that after the 2012 revision, the MSM went hogg-wild with in your face lies instead of being more subtle about it. It's measureable, trackable, and completely true.
Problem with people like yourself is you get hung up on the literal sense of what you see instead of connecting all the dots that surround it that they use constantly against us. Some of the examples I already have and there's countless more. These are things that can be argued in a court with "legalese" thrown at it to convince a Judge or Jury...similar to what you're attempting to do with me: i.e. instead of seeing the issue, you argue non-points...while technically correct at some level, completely wrong when applied to the case at hand. But it sounds good.
I don't know how long you've been on this planet but I've been around long enough to have seen conjured lies first-hand where the actual truth was covered up. People believed the lies because it was "reported" through "credible" channels but was 100% utter BS created to save someone's ass. I know what to look for, how to read between the lines, and how to apply what I read "in context" toward what or who it was meant to influence. It's unfortunate you do not, but there are many like you: full of legalese and fire but very little ability to see the bigger picture.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re connecting dots only on what you want to see.
Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
That’s exactly what you’re doing.
Of course for profit corporations will take advantage of anything to garner more $. If twitter/mass adaption of the internet was around 100 years ago, the problem would have started then.
The answer is a more well read, critical thinking electorate. Not whatever the fuck it is you think you’re doing.
view the rest of the comments →
20504830? ago
you're literally the only other person I've seen say anything about this. I've been telling people for quite a while about this as to the reason(s) the MSM is doing what they're doing: Because Obutthead stripped the Smith-Mundt to do exactly the opposite of its original purpose.
Well done, Anon.
20507856? ago
Yeah, the gubmint totally never lied before 2012 lol
20509941? ago
Never said or implied it didn't...that's 100% your snarky take on it. The point made is that it was MADE LEGAL TO DO by the 2012 "revision". They were at least somewhat subtle beforehand, but after 2012 it was just in your face.
Try to think a little next time.
20510075? ago
You’re a moron.
From the OP: “One of the amendments within the NDAA sanctions the US government, without restriction, the use of any mode of message to control how we perceive our world”
Did you actually read the bill or nah?
20513767? ago
So not going to get into a pseudo-intellectuals world view on things. Yes, I read the bill. The Revision of the Smith-Mundt was an obstacle in the way of the NDAA's directives, thus LEGALLY it could be fought in court. The revision removed that obstacle.
Now, go play with the rest of the kids...adults are adulting here.
20516042? ago
Yes yes I'm the pseudo intellectual yet you paraphrased something that isn't anywhere in the bill.
The NDAA for that year - bill HR 1540 is linked in it's entirety here - https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1540/text
It doesn't mention anything about the Smith-Mundt act in any way, shape or form, nor does it touch on anything close to your original claim of "One of the amendments within the NDAA sanctions the US government, without restriction, the use of any mode of message to control how we perceive our world"
I think what you're referring to is HR 5736, which was introduced 6 months later
H.R.5736 - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736
That was cosponsored by a D from WA and a R from CA and appears at first glace to be sketchy but appears to just add a department - "Broadcasting Board of Governors" to establish protocol for dissemination of official information we produce to foreign counties.
Would be happy to look at any provision of either bill you think supports your claim
20522293? ago
Literally, "States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency."
The Smith-mundt orginally prohibited everything it says "shall not prohibit:. What are you missing?
20522966? ago
I'll take it you're conceding the point that you completely misrepresented the NDAA you first cited.
1.) Your first bolded statement gives the Board of Governors the right to label and give out information that they put out to foreign markets to the American public. It doesn't give the right to put propaganda out to the American public.
2.) Yes, obviously giving credence to online propaganda directed at other nationals that may be viewed by Americans.
Context is extremely important. You give none and don't seem to understand the bill at all..
20531717? ago
SO let me understand your position: You genuinely believe your first point (1), which ties into (2) isn't an conflict of thought? Giving out "information" by the Government is often more than JUST information...it is, in fact, propaganda; e.g. gun control statistics belched by Democrats as only one of near infinite examples they engage in. Global Warming is another hot favorite. All bullshit/propaganda.
Read the original Smith-Mundt and compare to the entire revised version. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation. Context, that you seem to puff your chest on, is obvious and in our faces every single day.
As for the NDAA, yes I erred in which (so many) bill to cite. Mea Culpa. Might have been thinking the Patriot act or some such. I know it exists, the point I was attempting to make on the fore-running bill the Smith-mundt finished off. Maybe it was the Patriot Act. In any case, the obvious is there and manifests through several outlets meant to make us submit by covering the gullible in a soft blanket of lies. No ones forcing you to see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
20535207? ago
Listen man, my point was that your initial post was wrong and you don't understand the context to which the amended bill was written.
I'm not saying you don't have a valid concern about government over-reach and abuse of power/tricking the public. You should always be weary of this to a certain extent. I'm just saying you should know context of things you're going to present to others. This is where a lot of undue fear comes in.
I think most of the fear that radiates out of this amended bill is people like yourself not understanding it just transferred power to a different subset of government and was their way of telling the public to be weary of the internet age..and that's where the irony with you comes in. There isn't a whole lot of difference between a fear-monger incorrectly putting information out in a thread and another country putting out propaganda. That's why it's so much more important to see what's in the actual bill and read it and not get information directly from threads on sites like these unless you're able to discern information correctly.
20537749? ago
Well, it seems to me everyone understands it just fine except you. Everyone understands what the Smith-Mundt was for back when it was written and why, as well as the reasons for the revision. Everyone understands that after the 2012 revision, the MSM went hogg-wild with in your face lies instead of being more subtle about it. It's measureable, trackable, and completely true.
Problem with people like yourself is you get hung up on the literal sense of what you see instead of connecting all the dots that surround it that they use constantly against us. Some of the examples I already have and there's countless more. These are things that can be argued in a court with "legalese" thrown at it to convince a Judge or Jury...similar to what you're attempting to do with me: i.e. instead of seeing the issue, you argue non-points...while technically correct at some level, completely wrong when applied to the case at hand. But it sounds good.
I don't know how long you've been on this planet but I've been around long enough to have seen conjured lies first-hand where the actual truth was covered up. People believed the lies because it was "reported" through "credible" channels but was 100% utter BS created to save someone's ass. I know what to look for, how to read between the lines, and how to apply what I read "in context" toward what or who it was meant to influence. It's unfortunate you do not, but there are many like you: full of legalese and fire but very little ability to see the bigger picture.
20539243? ago
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re connecting dots only on what you want to see.
Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
That’s exactly what you’re doing.
Of course for profit corporations will take advantage of anything to garner more $. If twitter/mass adaption of the internet was around 100 years ago, the problem would have started then.
The answer is a more well read, critical thinking electorate. Not whatever the fuck it is you think you’re doing.
WWG1WGA