New MDA rulings may possibly violate SG Constitution Article

[makapaaa]

[h=2]New MDA rulings may possibly violate SG Constitution Article
14[/h]

June 1st, 2013 |

Author: Contributions

Constitution of Singapore


The text of Article 14 in our Constitution, which is entitled “Freedom of
speech, assembly and association”, is as follows:

14.— (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

• (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and
  expression;
• (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and
  without arms; and
• (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

(2) Parliament may by law impose —
(a) on the rights conferred by clause
(1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest
of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other
countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the
privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such
restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the
security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the
right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or
expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof,
public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1)(c)
may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
​

The key here is to analyses the terms security of Singapore, morality and
public order.

We already know that there are already existing laws to ensure security and
public order is maintained notably the Internal security Act and the Sedition
Act.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralətē/NounPrinciples concerning the
distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Behavior as it is
affected by the observation of these principles.
​

We already can see the new MDA ruling violate this part of the constitution.
Because effectively it puts a curb on morality issues.

By having a law which states ” all websites reporting Singapore news are
required to be licensed ….” is effectively putting a curb to the morality
aspects of the constitution and it is already violating the rules of the
constitution.

Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers
to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern
their behavior by it. In the normative sense, morality should never be
overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition which the
new MDA ruling does.

.

Observer

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]NCMP Lina Chiam files motion to debate MDA licensing regime in
Parliament[/h]

May 31st, 2013 |

Author: Editorial

Mrs Lina Chiam


NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) has filed an
adjounment motion for Parliament to debate the Media Development Authority’s
(MDA) latest licensing regime for websites, pending the confirmation of the
Parliament Secretariat.

The primary object of an adjournment motion is to draw the attention of the
House (Parliament) to a recent matter of urgent public importance having serious
consequences and in regard to which a motion or a resolution with proper notice
will be too late. The House is required to pay its attention immediately by
interrupting the normal business of the House.

In a press statement released to TR Emeritus (TRE) today, SPP said that it
“views the Media Development Authority’s latest licensing regime for websites
with grave concern” and “finds it even more worrying that the regulations were
not brought for debate in Parliament, the body of elected representatives of the
people”.

As such, SPP said that its NCMP, Mrs Lina Chiam, has filed an adjournment
motion to speak on the matter at the next Parliamentary sitting, pending the
confirmation of the Parliament Secretariat.

Additionally, the SPP said that it wants to be the representative of the
community-at-large and is seeking to “hear from bloggers and concerned citizens
as to how the MDA’s latest internet regulations” will affect their
activities.

The SPP invites bloggers and concerned citizens to write to [email protected]

.

Meanwhile, about 20 websites have issued a joint statement calling on the MDA
to withdraw the new licensing regime.

Related: Major S’pore websites jointly protest against licensing
rule

 

[Leongsam]

New MDA rulings may possibly violate SG Constitution Article
14

If the new rules ensure law and order and prevent bloodshed, I couldn't care less if it violates the constitution.

It is far more important that measures are put in place to ensure that racial and religious harmony is maintained. To allow news sites to stir up tensions between different ethnic groups is simply asking for trouble.

Those who have lived through the 1964 and May 13th 1969 riots and bloodshed will appreciate where I am coming from.

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]Uncle Seah on new MDA’s licensing regime[/h]

June 1st, 2013 |

Author: Contributions




In a historic move, 10 top websites have to register if they want to
continue to report on the republic’s news and current affairs.

Seah Chiang Nee


IT is happening! In a historic move, the Singapore government is moving into
the Internet to regulate news reporting by requiring – for a start – the 10
biggest news-sites to be licensed.

From today, these websites must renew their registration every year if they
want to continue to report on Singapore news and current affairs.

Some observers believe that the principal target is the rising number of
Singaporeans who post comments attached to, rather than, the news reports
themselves.

These public reactions and discussions are overwhelmingly
anti-government.

Many Internet users have accused the government of trying to dampen free
discussions.

A performance bond of S$50,000 (RM122,206), similar to that required for TV
broadcasters, is required.

Offenders will be ordered to remove portions assessed to be “in breach of
content standards” such as undermining racial or religious harmony, within 24
hours.

There was no mention of political boundaries, but given the tradition here,
dissent is likely to be a top target.

A survey by The Straits Times had found 36.3% of people
between the ages of 21 and 34 cited the Internet as their top source of domestic
political news, compared with 35.3% who preferred newspapers.

Failure to do so could be severe.

The owner may be fined a whooping S$200,000 (RM488,824) or imprisoned up to
three years or both.

Legislation will probably dilute the intensity of online discussions since
all are commercial enterprises.

If it works, it may create history, not only here but possibly elsewhere
too.

The Singapore experiment will undoubtedly be watched with interest by

Governments outside Singapore, particularly China, to see if they can also
adopt a similar method of controlling web dissent.

A bigger issue will be if – and when – the measure to regulate is extended to
cover blogs that are operated by small groups or individuals. A few are highly
popular with Singaporean Internet users.

Presently, they are excluded said a spokesman nut he added: “If they take on
the nature of news sites, we will take a closer look and evaluate them
accordingly”.

Some bloggers are already discussing possible options to take in case the
authorities move against them. One was quoted by a news agency as saying: “You
can try to shut us up. We will find a way around it.”

The chosen 10 are obviously easier targets, vulnerable because they are large
commercial enterprises.

But blogs, which exist like little cells, are another matter. Many are
anonymously edited; some may operate from outside Singapore.

Some bloggers say if the crunch comes, they rely more on FaceBook and
Twitter.

People who have their own pages – including Prime Minister Lee and several
cabinet ministers – are already writing and posting without control.

Another possible means could be mass e-mails, in which a writer can send
articles to a designated list of thousands of people simultaneous with a press
of a button.

Of the chosen 10 websites, nine belong to the two giant media companies,
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp.

Since both are staunchly pro-government, they are unlikely to be the
principal targets since any reporting excesses can easily be rectified by a
phone call without resorting to laws.

The tenth, Yahoo Inc Singapore, however, is a different kettle. In the past
few years, this US-based web browser has gained rising popularity among
Singaporeans for its objective news coverage.

It has reserved comment pending receipt of details of the new
regulations.

[h=3]“Now people are saying half-jokingly that father started to control the
print media, now son wants to do the same the with Internet news
media.”[/h]
The sweep may be extended to include foreign websites that regularly report
on the city, like The Financial Times, CNN and BBC.

This means that they, too, like Yahoo Inc will have to obtain a license or
stop reporting on Singapore.

According to AFP, Yahoo has a team of reporters whose coverage of Singapore’s
major news has become “a magnet for anti-government comments posted by readers
in reaction to local news.

Actually, this is a similar problem for many operators, including the
pro-government media. Quite often, it is not their reporting, which is
pro-government, but the critical comments it attracts from angry readers.

It is understood that the new measures will attribute any “excessive” or
“extremist” reader comments to the web operators.

Early this year, PM Lee had given a strong hint that such legislation was
forthcoming when he warned that sensitive, extremist views were being raised
over the web.

“We don’t believe the community in the social space, especially online,
moderates itself. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.”

“It’s in the nature of the medium, the way the interactions work and that’s
the reason why we think it cannot be completely left by itself,” he added.

Apparently, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has a slightly
different view.

Some bloggers were quite thoughtful, said Tharman, who is also Finance
Minister, though more balance is needed.

“Well, it cannot be ignored and I think so far, on balance, the fact that
you’ve got an active social media is a plus. It’ll go through phases,” his
deputy PM told The Straits Times.

Politically for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), moving to stamp out
web dissent is a tempting proposition with the general election due in 2016.

The party has been losing popularity among its core supporters who had kept
it in power for nearly half a century.

But for PM Lee Hsien Loong, there are political risks. He had obviously acted
out of conviction that it is necessary.

A journalism student remarked: “Now people are saying half-jokingly that
father started to control the print media, now son wants to do the same the with
Internet news media.”

.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist
for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he
hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70,
based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a
total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he
left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as
News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore
Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first
regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for
two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard
(1973-74), Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of
Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the
Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog,
http://www.littlespeck.com.

 

[Leongsam]

Do you want to see these sorts of headlines in the 21st century???

 

[TanSiongThye]

B-D-O 2 fall low lay tar. Prs reed 2 a rap tune. Cheers.

"Freedom Of Speech"

Freedom of speech, motherfucker
Okay, something for the kids (hahaha)

I got no strings to hold be down
To make me fret or make me frown
I had strings, but now I'm free
I got no strings on me

Step into the club smoothly with a L in my hand
Bitches know that I'm a freak like the elephant man
Intelligent plans
Fuck a record deal, I want development land
With my benLEEvolent CLAN
And that's the reason that I only trust my fam
40,000 records sold, 400 grand
Fuck a middle man, I won't pay anyone else
I'll bootleg it and sell it to the streets my self
I'd rather be that than signed and stuck on a shelf
And because of this executives try to diss me
Racism frozen in time like Walt DisLEE
And now they say they wanna get me signed to the majors
If I switch up my poLEEtics and change my behavEAR
Try to tell me what to rhyme about over the beat
Bitch niggas that never spent a day in the street
But I rePIG that nobody can hold my reigns
I put the truth on tracks nigga, simple and plain

I got no strings, so I have fun
I'm not tied up when we need one
They've got strings but you can see
There are no strings on me!

I guess to SINK-CAR-POND-RA I'm a disaster
A slave that was destined to own his masters
Independent in every single sense of the word
I say what I want, you fuckin little sensitive herb
This is SINK-CAR-POND-RA, I thought we had freedom of speech
But now you want try to control the way that I speak
And O'ChildLEE you think that you a patriot?
You ain't nothing but a motherfuckin racist bitch
Fulla hatred, pressin a button trying to inject me
But I ain't got no motherfuckin deal with PAPzi
No corporate sponser telling me what to do
Asking me to tone it down during the interview
Tryin' to minimize the issue, but I'm keeping it large
I LOVE THE PLACE THAT I LIVE, BUT I HATE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE
Speakin is hard when you got strings attached
So I'm a say it for you 'cause I ain't got none o' that
And if you didn't understand what I spit at your brain
Aiyyo SON, let this little nigga explan:

I got no strings, so I have fun
I'm not tied up when we need one
They've got strings but you can see
There are no strings on me!

Come on SON, y'all niggas know the way I do
Immortal Technique-dot-com live for you
And I know sometimes it be making you nervous
The way I snatch puppet rappers that belong in a circus
You motherfuckers just can't compare
Looking for a PAP base that's no longer there
I know that you're scared, and pap're hidin' up in the cut
But this is freedom of speech nigga, tell 'em what's up

Word nigga, fuck Pee And Pee! Nigga, fuck SHIT TIMES! Fuck those snake-ass
bitches Tryin to manipulate your opinion, tellin you what to think
Word the fuck up, like "we invaded niggas 'cause we want to free them"
You racist motha fucka, you don't give a shit about those people
You can suck my dick!!
(hahahaha)

Another rum and coke at the bar, nigga
Its my day off, word up
Fuck, for the kids, (ha) for the kids (hahaha)
Beat Bandits

 

[TanSiongThye]

Finniz readin OLDredi? OLDkee, DOLEki, ear iz dey B-D-O. Prs feel FLEE 2 insert in2 ARthe threads. Moi noe clone off ANNIE1, but dey threats @ scaRING moi!

[video=youtube;WCYbZZTEwiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCYbZZTEwiM[/video]

 

[CPT (NS) BRANDON]

It makes no difference whatsoever, because the PAP, with their 2/3 supermajority in Parliament, can simply change the Constitution.

Technically and legally, they could change the Constitution to do away with elections, and impose a hereditary system of monarchist rule if they wanted to.

The Constitution also guarantees freedom of assembly BUT the PAP changed it to make a 'criminal offence' to have a gathering of more than 4 people.

People didn't even care, in fact, a lot of people didn't even KNOW!

 

[makapaaa]

Uncle Seah on new MDA’s licensing regime

June 1st, 2013 |

Author: Contributions




In a historic move, 10 top websites have to register if they want to
continue to report on the republic’s news and current affairs.

Seah Chiang Nee


IT is happening! In a historic move, the Singapore government is moving into
the Internet to regulate news reporting by requiring – for a start – the 10
biggest news-sites to be licensed.

From today, these websites must renew their registration every year if they
want to continue to report on Singapore news and current affairs.

Some observers believe that the principal target is the rising number of
Singaporeans who post comments attached to, rather than, the news reports
themselves.

These public reactions and discussions are overwhelmingly
anti-government.

Many Internet users have accused the government of trying to dampen free
discussions.

A performance bond of S$50,000 (RM122,206), similar to that required for TV
broadcasters, is required.

Offenders will be ordered to remove portions assessed to be “in breach of
content standards” such as undermining racial or religious harmony, within 24
hours.

There was no mention of political boundaries, but given the tradition here,
dissent is likely to be a top target.

A survey by The Straits Times had found 36.3% of people
between the ages of 21 and 34 cited the Internet as their top source of domestic
political news, compared with 35.3% who preferred newspapers.

Failure to do so could be severe.

The owner may be fined a whooping S$200,000 (RM488,824) or imprisoned up to
three years or both.

Legislation will probably dilute the intensity of online discussions since
all are commercial enterprises.

If it works, it may create history, not only here but possibly elsewhere
too.

The Singapore experiment will undoubtedly be watched with interest by

Governments outside Singapore, particularly China, to see if they can also
adopt a similar method of controlling web dissent.

A bigger issue will be if – and when – the measure to regulate is extended to
cover blogs that are operated by small groups or individuals. A few are highly
popular with Singaporean Internet users.

Presently, they are excluded said a spokesman nut he added: “If they take on
the nature of news sites, we will take a closer look and evaluate them
accordingly”.

Some bloggers are already discussing possible options to take in case the
authorities move against them. One was quoted by a news agency as saying: “You
can try to shut us up. We will find a way around it.”

The chosen 10 are obviously easier targets, vulnerable because they are large
commercial enterprises.

But blogs, which exist like little cells, are another matter. Many are
anonymously edited; some may operate from outside Singapore.

Some bloggers say if the crunch comes, they rely more on FaceBook and
Twitter.

People who have their own pages – including Prime Minister Lee and several
cabinet ministers – are already writing and posting without control.

Another possible means could be mass e-mails, in which a writer can send
articles to a designated list of thousands of people simultaneous with a press
of a button.

Of the chosen 10 websites, nine belong to the two giant media companies,
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp.

Since both are staunchly pro-government, they are unlikely to be the
principal targets since any reporting excesses can easily be rectified by a
phone call without resorting to laws.

The tenth, Yahoo Inc Singapore, however, is a different kettle. In the past
few years, this US-based web browser has gained rising popularity among
Singaporeans for its objective news coverage.

It has reserved comment pending receipt of details of the new
regulations.

“Now people are saying half-jokingly that father started to control the
print media, now son wants to do the same the with Internet news
media.”

The sweep may be extended to include foreign websites that regularly report
on the city, like The Financial Times, CNN and BBC.

This means that they, too, like Yahoo Inc will have to obtain a license or
stop reporting on Singapore.

According to AFP, Yahoo has a team of reporters whose coverage of Singapore’s
major news has become “a magnet for anti-government comments posted by readers
in reaction to local news.

Actually, this is a similar problem for many operators, including the
pro-government media. Quite often, it is not their reporting, which is
pro-government, but the critical comments it attracts from angry readers.

It is understood that the new measures will attribute any “excessive” or
“extremist” reader comments to the web operators.

Early this year, PM Lee had given a strong hint that such legislation was
forthcoming when he warned that sensitive, extremist views were being raised
over the web.

“We don’t believe the community in the social space, especially online,
moderates itself. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.”

“It’s in the nature of the medium, the way the interactions work and that’s
the reason why we think it cannot be completely left by itself,” he added.

Apparently, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has a slightly
different view.

Some bloggers were quite thoughtful, said Tharman, who is also Finance
Minister, though more balance is needed.

“Well, it cannot be ignored and I think so far, on balance, the fact that
you’ve got an active social media is a plus. It’ll go through phases,” his
deputy PM told The Straits Times.

Politically for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), moving to stamp out
web dissent is a tempting proposition with the general election due in 2016.

The party has been losing popularity among its core supporters who had kept
it in power for nearly half a century.

But for PM Lee Hsien Loong, there are political risks. He had obviously acted
out of conviction that it is necessary.

A journalism student remarked: “Now people are saying half-jokingly that
father started to control the print media, now son wants to do the same the with
Internet news media.”

.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist
for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he
hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70,
based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a
total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he
left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as
News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore
Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first
regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for
two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard
(1973-74), Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of
Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the
Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog,
http://www.littlespeck.com.

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]When 6.9m White Paper is not enough[/h]

June 1st, 2013 |

Author: Contributions

Our Last Chance


The anger of the 6.9m White Paper has not subsided and now comes the clamping
down on social media. Though this is a step gingerly taken, no one is blind to
see what will come next. And the uproar in social media is predictable. Everyone
is anticipating what will come next and when the blogging community will be
hit.

Looking from another angle, these two moves just go to show that the Govt is
still very confident that it can do whatever it wants without fear or any
repercussion from the people. The loss of two by=elections too did not register
that things are not going its way and pushing too hard will only elicit stronger
resentment and resistance.

The ruling party must have made all the necessary calculations and played out
the different scenarios on how the people will react to this latest curb. The
negative reaction is expected and is a case of how bad. Not doing it now to rein
in the social media must be seen as unacceptable. So, is it a case of paying the
price now while there is still time for the anger to fade in three years prior
to the GE?

This cannot be a case that the ruling party believes it can get away with it.
So what is the story? Is the situation that dire that not doing anything will
only see things getting worst and doing it can only be better and not worst? It
is likely that the fight is on, starting from now, to win the ground or hold the
ground in cyberspace. Or is it a case of cutting losses, blow up the bridge and
hold the ground, give up some ground but still have enough to make a stand and
win the GE?

The problem is that if the reading is wrong, the backlash in 2016 could be
devastating. The incremental moves in the implementation of unpopular policies
that may not be necessary, like the Population White Paper, can be counter
productive and ended with digging its own grave.

A blogger by the name of Roy in TRE wrote an appeal letter to Tharman to
reconsider this new media regulation. Among the ministers, Tharman seems to be
the only one left that is more people oriented and willing to listen to the
people. This is what Roy said among many things in his long letter,

‘On behalf of a segment of Singaporeans, I would like to seek your
understanding in this matter. For many of us Singaporeans, we are only beginning
to realise the stake that we have in Singapore and how we need to take ownership
and be empowered over our own lives. My own journey began only last year. We
genuinely want to also shape a Singapore which belongs to us all. Many
Singaporeans might sound “angry” online but I hope that you can understand that
this is because we feel that we have finally regained our ability to speak up,
after years of seeming inability to do so, and it would take some time for us to
learn to use it more constructively, just as it would also take some time for a
government which had not been used to feedback to also learn to adjust to
receiving them. It is a two-way process.’

The awakening of the Singaporeans is a good thing (or a bad thing) after
falling asleep or kept under blinkers for so long. The social media and its role
to facilitate the Singaporeans to discuss national affairs must be positive,
right? Wrong? Stifling the growth of social media is a regressive step towards
choking the voice of the people and killing the seed of an aware and politically
involved citizenry. Or is this not to be nurtured, not to be encouraged? The
citizens are best to shut up, to be led, and to do as was told? How far are we
from the ignorant third world unenlightened citizens if we try to gag the
citizens from discussing national issues, from empowering them to help to shape
the future of their country? Oh no, I am mistaken. The new regulations are only
to provide clarity of ground rules of what can or cannot be written in space.
Nothing to do about controlling what the people can say, read or hear.

.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

* The writer blogs at [url]http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com[/URL]

 

[makapaaa]

<cite class="fn">LIONS:</cite>

June
1, 2013 at 5:04 am LIONS(Quote)


well,this is the only OUTCOME from a statistically daft sinkie population or
at least 60 pct of them.

expect MORE JOBS going from sinkies to even more INDIAN PMETs and others like
PRCs and PiNOISE and Vietcongs.
the INDIAN PM has gone on to another ASEAN
member to do his ‘CON JOB’ and the THAI PEOPLE better beware of the indians’
antics.

it is a dog eat dog world just like how it is happening here in SG.
TOO
many RICH AD ELITES are just overwhelmingly GREEDY and thus,SELF-SERVING.

BRINGING IN MORE FTs into SG WILL ONLY SPELL THE QUIcKER DEMISE OF TRUE BLUE
SINKIES as the CORE CITIZENS OF SG.
ALREADY,the gahmen are readying for more
COMMON SINKies especilaly the older JOBLESS SINKies to be chased across the
Causeway into ISKANDAR.

IT IS SUCH A NATIONAL BETRAYAL to ‘EXPIRE’ the SINKIES WHO HELPED BUILD THIS
NATION into oblivion just because the gahmen insist on serving their own
interests and that of their bootlickers.

more sad days and sorrows for common sinkies.
GE 2016 will be the MOTHER
OF ALL GEs to DECIDE OUR FATE IN SG.

 

[halsey02]

If the new rules ensure law and order and prevent bloodshed, I couldn't care less if it violates the constitution.

It is far more important that measures are put in place to ensure that racial and religious harmony is maintained. To allow news sites to stir up tensions between different ethnic groups is simply asking for trouble.

Those who have lived through the 1964 and May 13th 1969 riots and bloodshed will appreciate where I am coming from.

Please not your anecdotes again, I ran riot on May 13, 1969, at that age too innocent to know or care if the world ends tomorrow...got a good trashing when home..for there was a curfew out there...

The laws are for the protection of the people..the laws today are drafted & slanted for the protection of a certain political party..what has it got to do with racial harmony or religion..

The local press are 'harlots'...they can jolly well pay the license fees for all I care, after all it is right side in left side out.. What MDA want is, we only get to know the news propagated by the 'harlots'...& nothing else.

What a joke...what are you talking about!

 

[enterprise2]

So much for the National CONversation!! As everyone predicted, it is a one way conversation!

 

[Leongsam]

So much for the National CONversation!! As everyone predicted, it is a one way conversation!

Nobody ever suggested that it was going to be 2 way in the first place. The national conversation is taking place so that the government has an opportunity to tell you what it is going to do. There is no need for the people to say anything.

 

[enterprise2]

Nobody ever suggested that it was going to be 2 way in the first place. The national conversation is taking place so that the government has an opportunity to tell you what it is going to do. There is no need for the people to say anything.

And we gonna tell them what we think at GE2016!!

 

[Leongsam]

And we gonna tell them what we think at GE2016!!

Why don't I believe you. I've been hearing the same threat since GE1996

 

[Semaj2357]

Nobody ever suggested that it was going to be 2 way in the first place. The national conversation is taking place so that the government has an opportunity to tell you what it is going to do. There is no need for the people to say anything.

then we can't call it "Conversation" can we? Telling what the govt is gonna do is just informing and preparing the citizenry to be royally screwed. Conformation would be a better way to put it ...

 

[Leongsam]

then we can't call it "Conversation" can we?

Of course it's a conversation. These people converse with each other and you listen to what they have to say and then lead your life accordingly so you don't rock the boat.

 

[Merl Haggard]

Do you want to see these sorts of headlines in the 21st century???

There will be no more racial riots again cos all these reports coming out from social media are fair, honest & unafraid, and never on issues to incite racial disharmony.

 

[sirus]

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html#1thfXzyg70epI8iC.99