Enlil said:

You do realize that neither of those bills were passed, right?

---

Quote:

The bipartisan bill was written in March 2016 by U.S. Senators Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Chris Murphy.[1] It was introduced by Senator Portman under its initial name Countering Information Warfare Act, on 16 March 2016 as S.2692.[2] It was introduced as the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act in the United States House of Representatives on 10 May 2016 as H.R.5181, co-sponsored by Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger along with Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu.[3][4] The bill was introduced as the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act in the United States Senate on 14 July 2016 sponsored by Senator Rob Portman as S.3274.[5]

On 30 November 2016, legislators approved a measure within the National Defense Authorization Act to ask the U.S. State Department to take action through an interagency panel.[1][6] The legislation authorized funding of $160 million over a two-year-period.[1][7] Portman urged more U.S. government action to counter disinformation and propaganda.[1] Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Washington Post: "There is definitely bipartisan concern about the Russian government engaging in covert influence activities of this nature."[1]

The bill advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives on 2 December 2016, when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 conference report to S. 2943 passed in that chamber including the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act.[4]

In a speech to lawmakers on 8 December 2016, Hillary Clinton called attention to the issue, saying pending legislation before the U.S. Congress would "boost the government's response to foreign propaganda."[8] She called on trendsetters in society to work together on the problem: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."[8]

On 8 December 2016, the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act passed a vote in the U.S. Senate by a wide margin.[9] It was included together with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report for fiscal year 2017, which passed in the U.S. Senate with a final tally of 92 to 7.[9]

In the version of the bill incorporated into the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Congress would ask the United States Secretary of State to collaborate with the United States Secretary of Defense and other relevant Federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center to fight against propaganda from foreign governments, and publicize the nature of ongoing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations against the U.S. and other countries.[10] The bill said this inter-agency effort should: "counter foreign propaganda and disinformation directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests."[7]

On 23 December 2016, President Obama signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act into law.[11] Supporters of the resolution inside the Defense Department have publicly expressed their desire to weaken the interpretation of domestic propaganda protections, laws which prevent the US State Department from gathering information necessary to develop targeted propaganda messaging and prevent them from explicitly attempting to influence opinions.[7]

---

Quote:

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012[35] was introduced by U.S. Congressman Mac Thornberry on May 10, 2012 in the House of Representatives.[35] The bill purpose is "to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences"[35] The act was added to the 2013 NDAA bill as section of 1078 to amend certain passages of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.[36] The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012.[36] Amendments made to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 allow for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within US borders.[37][38][39] U.S. Congressmen Adam Smith stated with the respect to the bill's purpose that al-Qaeda was infiltrating the Internet in order to promote anti-American sentiments and that with passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 the US government would be able disseminate public diplomacy information by the State department to counter that in the Arabic language abroad.[40][41]

---

Quote:

That law simply requires private Russian ownership of its media channels, so the West doesn't take over Russian media.  Its purpose is to defend Russian national sovereignty.

---

Quote:

I'm not sure why anyone would want to go to Columbia 8 times.  But I've never been there, so I won't judge Columbia.

---

  Family , I don't have to pay for a place to stay , and this .



g][/url]



  Colombia is warm , all the time ,  I don't need pants or shirts with sleeves .
  What do you do in Russia ? At least 90 % of the YouTube vids from Russia I've seen have snow .
    Closest I've been in Italy , I don't really want to go back , you need a good reason to spend the money it takes to travel that far to to see the same place again .

Psilynut2 said:

""The government controls Channel One and Russia One - two of the three main federal channels - while state-controlled energy giant Gazprom owns NTV.""

---

So Government controls 3 out of over a hundred Russian channels, and you think "...Putin basically controls what Russian media says and does"??? 
Many Western counties also have at least one state run channel.

Psilynut2 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

That law simply requires private Russian ownership of its media channels, so the West doesn't take over Russian media.  Its purpose is to defend Russian national sovereignty.

---

  Free to hear news from the most popular state run tv program of your choosing , or watever happens to be available to you , got it .
    Most Russians get their news from tv , so I've read . Major networks seem to be controlled by the kremlin .

---

Again, only 3 channels are state owned according to your sources.  People can also watch any of a hundred other channels that aren't state owned/controlled.

Psilynut2 said:

    It would be like trump owning CNN ,NBC MSNBC , cbs , the Washington post , the huffington post and some others and directly controlling what they say .
 
  I think I might prefer the establishment  , whoever they are .

---

As I already said, here in the US 90% of the media is owned by only six corporations.  That's how shitty establishment politicians like Hillary can beat populist candidates like Bernie.  I personally wouldn't mind some kind of law to prevent that level of control here in the US.
   

Psilynut2 said:

""Television is the most powerful sector of the Russian media industry. The main national networks are either run directly by the state or owned by companies with close links to the Kremlin.""
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17840134

---

And again, "the main national networks" are 3 of the over 100 channels available. 

Psilynut2 said:

  What do you do in Russia ? At least 90 % of the YouTube vids from Russia I've seen have snow .

---

I travel there in the summer when the weather is beautiful.  I've visited St Petersburg, Moscow, the Kremlin, and this year I plan to visit the beautiful vacation destination of Crimea.


Sudak beach, Crimea


Edit:  Also check out Fox Bay, Crimea (I'm posting from work so I'll skip the images)  . 

DividedQuantum said:

It seems to me that this hysteria over Russian matters, and the Russian government specifically, can only lead us in a bad direction. Putin is not a model citizen, to put it politely, but he is not unreasonable, either. It occurs to me that he is probably a Machiavellian, and he sees the three most important nations in the world as the U.S., Russia and China. He has made it very clear that he would much rather work with the United States in a businesslike way than be bitter enemies with us. After all, we don't have to like those with whom we interact -- our relationship with China is a purely business transaction, and we both leave ideology at the doorstep. Why can't it be the same with the Russians?

I find it utterly sanctimonious and hypocritical that the government and the media engage in all these antics as if the U.S. is innocent in all of this. We have been more the aggressor in the U.S.-Russia relationship than they have, especially with respect to our crippling sanctions on them, which only really hurt the Russian people, for whom I have the utmost respect.

Should we demonize Russia? Should we retaliate? Should we try to be more diplomatic? Is there anything we can do, or shall we just continue our nosedive into another quagmire and another Cold War?

What are your thoughts?

---

SomeOldGuy said:

...use your brain homeslice and read from more than one source, even one's you think are bullshit, then follow the evidence, Brietbart is way more honest and reliable than any of the Mostly Slime Media, aka the alphabet networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN etc, etc.

...and what do you mean, 'reigning strawman king'?

---

demiu5 said:

SomeOldGuy said:

...use your brain homeslice and read from more than one source, even one's you think are bullshit, then follow the evidence, Brietbart is way more honest and reliable than any of the Mostly Slime Media, aka the alphabet networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN etc, etc.

...and what do you mean, 'reigning strawman king'?

---

seeing as how Brietbart is composed of letters of the alphabet, it would also be considered an "alphabet network"

---

SomeOldGuy said:

demiu5 said:

SomeOldGuy said:

...use your brain homeslice and read from more than one source, even one's you think are bullshit, then follow the evidence, Brietbart is way more honest and reliable than any of the Mostly Slime Media, aka the alphabet networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN etc, etc.

...and what do you mean, 'reigning strawman king'?

---

seeing as how Brietbart is composed of letters of the alphabet, it would also be considered an "alphabet network"

---

...how clever of you to figure that out, too bad you didn't make the connection that all the other's are acronyms, Brietbart is actually a proper name from an actual person.

SOG

---

you said "alphabet networks" not acronym networks

Enlil said:

You know what I mean.

---

SomeOldGuy said:

Enlil said:

You know what I mean.

---

...no homey, i don't know what you mean.

---