<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_155208</id>
	<title>FBI Files a "Secret Justification" For Gag Order</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246034520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader notes a story up at Ars on <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/fbi-compounds-mystery-with-secret-justification-of-gag-order.ars">the FBI's continuing penchant for secrecy</a>. <i>"Clearly, the FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet. ...in the case of Doe v. Holder, the FBI is carrying out a secret investigation using secret guidelines on what is and is not constitutional, and as part of that investigation they've compelled the secrecy of a service provider and are using a secret justification to argue that nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader notes a story up at Ars on the FBI 's continuing penchant for secrecy .
" Clearly , the FBI is n't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet .
...in the case of Doe v. Holder , the FBI is carrying out a secret investigation using secret guidelines on what is and is not constitutional , and as part of that investigation they 've compelled the secrecy of a service provider and are using a secret justification to argue that nobody 's First Amendment rights are being violated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader notes a story up at Ars on the FBI's continuing penchant for secrecy.
"Clearly, the FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet.
...in the case of Doe v. Holder, the FBI is carrying out a secret investigation using secret guidelines on what is and is not constitutional, and as part of that investigation they've compelled the secrecy of a service provider and are using a secret justification to argue that nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486295</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The message there is as clear as can be.  If you stand up and ask real questions that were not pre-scripted and want a real answer, an attempt will be made to dig up dirt on you and otherwise to make you pay for that.  The goal is that you will be intimidated so that others who were inclined to do the same will have a reason to sit down and shut up.</p><blockquote><div><p>THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin. The only *real* choice in the last election, the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family. Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I don't see it so much as a Left and Right issue, for both "sides" have gladly lead us down this ugly path while blaming each other the whole way.  I think Palin has caught so much flak because she's much more of a genuine person and much less of a representative of a system.  This is one of the few qualities that really does scare (and put to shame) the political-media machinery, because so much of what they do depends on demoralization (politics of fear) and dehumanization (treating the citizenry as a resource).  This observation has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like her politics, but rather, is about what kind of person she is and why she does what she does.</p><blockquote><div><p>Oh, no...Bush was never this restrictive, controlled the media, and Bush (being a dork that he was) was at least able to create jobs. The same cannot be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER. And he wants it NOW. (See Cap-and-Trade legislation).</p></div></blockquote><p>
Again I think you are artificially restricting your thinking, just as you did when you said this is about "Left" (and "Right").  The monied interests who put Bush into power are the same as the monied interests who put Obama into power.  They are all cut from the same cloth.  Bush expanded executive power and thus, he helped to pave the way for what Obama is now doing.  I would not be the least bit surprised if Obama does something similar for whoever comes after him.  The people behind all of this are in it for the long haul and have no problem executing plans that take decades or generations to complete.  Their motivation is somewhat religious in nature, so to them serving the Cause (of statism) is more important than whether their goals are realized during their own lifetimes.
<br> <br>
Much of this is possible because the kind of people who are successful in politics are not regular people who happened to achieve their positions.  We don't have that.  What we have is a ruling class, and this ruling class has studied statecraft for many decades and has been careful to learn from past mistakes.  The citizens, on the other hand, hardly ever learn anything from history and for the most part, just want to live their lives and spend time with their families.  This is a situation best described as "no contest," at least until people wake up and realize that the destination of this path that we are on is easily known in advance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask " Joe the Plumber " who asked , are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions ?
" ( Paraphrasing ) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him , ratting him out to the local union house so he ca n't get a job there , and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick .
The message there is as clear as can be .
If you stand up and ask real questions that were not pre-scripted and want a real answer , an attempt will be made to dig up dirt on you and otherwise to make you pay for that .
The goal is that you will be intimidated so that others who were inclined to do the same will have a reason to sit down and shut up.THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin .
The only * real * choice in the last election , the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she 's a stupid dork with a white trash family .
Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason .
I do n't see it so much as a Left and Right issue , for both " sides " have gladly lead us down this ugly path while blaming each other the whole way .
I think Palin has caught so much flak because she 's much more of a genuine person and much less of a representative of a system .
This is one of the few qualities that really does scare ( and put to shame ) the political-media machinery , because so much of what they do depends on demoralization ( politics of fear ) and dehumanization ( treating the citizenry as a resource ) .
This observation has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like her politics , but rather , is about what kind of person she is and why she does what she does.Oh , no...Bush was never this restrictive , controlled the media , and Bush ( being a dork that he was ) was at least able to create jobs .
The same can not be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER .
And he wants it NOW .
( See Cap-and-Trade legislation ) .
Again I think you are artificially restricting your thinking , just as you did when you said this is about " Left " ( and " Right " ) .
The monied interests who put Bush into power are the same as the monied interests who put Obama into power .
They are all cut from the same cloth .
Bush expanded executive power and thus , he helped to pave the way for what Obama is now doing .
I would not be the least bit surprised if Obama does something similar for whoever comes after him .
The people behind all of this are in it for the long haul and have no problem executing plans that take decades or generations to complete .
Their motivation is somewhat religious in nature , so to them serving the Cause ( of statism ) is more important than whether their goals are realized during their own lifetimes .
Much of this is possible because the kind of people who are successful in politics are not regular people who happened to achieve their positions .
We do n't have that .
What we have is a ruling class , and this ruling class has studied statecraft for many decades and has been careful to learn from past mistakes .
The citizens , on the other hand , hardly ever learn anything from history and for the most part , just want to live their lives and spend time with their families .
This is a situation best described as " no contest , " at least until people wake up and realize that the destination of this path that we are on is easily known in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?
" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.
The message there is as clear as can be.
If you stand up and ask real questions that were not pre-scripted and want a real answer, an attempt will be made to dig up dirt on you and otherwise to make you pay for that.
The goal is that you will be intimidated so that others who were inclined to do the same will have a reason to sit down and shut up.THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin.
The only *real* choice in the last election, the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.
Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason.
I don't see it so much as a Left and Right issue, for both "sides" have gladly lead us down this ugly path while blaming each other the whole way.
I think Palin has caught so much flak because she's much more of a genuine person and much less of a representative of a system.
This is one of the few qualities that really does scare (and put to shame) the political-media machinery, because so much of what they do depends on demoralization (politics of fear) and dehumanization (treating the citizenry as a resource).
This observation has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like her politics, but rather, is about what kind of person she is and why she does what she does.Oh, no...Bush was never this restrictive, controlled the media, and Bush (being a dork that he was) was at least able to create jobs.
The same cannot be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER.
And he wants it NOW.
(See Cap-and-Trade legislation).
Again I think you are artificially restricting your thinking, just as you did when you said this is about "Left" (and "Right").
The monied interests who put Bush into power are the same as the monied interests who put Obama into power.
They are all cut from the same cloth.
Bush expanded executive power and thus, he helped to pave the way for what Obama is now doing.
I would not be the least bit surprised if Obama does something similar for whoever comes after him.
The people behind all of this are in it for the long haul and have no problem executing plans that take decades or generations to complete.
Their motivation is somewhat religious in nature, so to them serving the Cause (of statism) is more important than whether their goals are realized during their own lifetimes.
Much of this is possible because the kind of people who are successful in politics are not regular people who happened to achieve their positions.
We don't have that.
What we have is a ruling class, and this ruling class has studied statecraft for many decades and has been careful to learn from past mistakes.
The citizens, on the other hand, hardly ever learn anything from history and for the most part, just want to live their lives and spend time with their families.
This is a situation best described as "no contest," at least until people wake up and realize that the destination of this path that we are on is easily known in advance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487599</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246007640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it.</p></div><p>Nope. Original.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers' discredited book.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-man-who-collected-dirt-j-edgar-hoover-led-the-fbi-for-50-years-and-was-given-a-state-funeral-by-a-grateful-nation-but-the-man-pledged-to-protect-america-from-the-evils-of-organised-crime-and-political-subversion-was-a-secret-homosexual-probably-blackmailed-by-the-mob-in-turn-he-kept-damaging-files-on-those-in-washington-who-might-one-day-threaten-his-power-1475899.html" title="independent.co.uk">Citation</a> [independent.co.uk].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it.Nope .
Original.Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers ' discredited book .
Citation [ independent.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it.Nope.
Original.Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers' discredited book.
Citation [independent.co.uk].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484749</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>DrLang21</author>
	<datestamp>1246038720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple.  Secret top secret meetings are being held... secretly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple .
Secret top secret meetings are being held... secretly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple.
Secret top secret meetings are being held... secretly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486893</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs' liver....in ARGENTINA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But shhhhh, it's a s33kr1t!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But shhhhh , it 's a s33kr1t !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But shhhhh, it's a s33kr1t!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484883</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Scragglykat</author>
	<datestamp>1246039200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... this post has something to do with secrecy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... this post has something to do with secrecy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this post has something to do with secrecy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486281</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OOoooOOOoOh!</p><p>It's a "Scholarly" summary!  Where are the "Cooler" heads when you need them?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I tell you what.  You get out of the library for a while and conduct a little hands on research on civil disobedience.  This isn't Iran, right?  We don't roll over and play dead because we're afraid of having something entered into our permanent record; more permanent and more public every day!</p><p>I'll "hand-pick" my unconscionable guidelines, let my genie out of the bottle and we'll all open our eyes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......Someday!  But not today.</p><p>Just a thought; if you want to compel people to action, at least talk like someone who engages in action.  Obama is calling your bluff.  I'm calling your bluff.  Your scholars are probably calling your bluff.  Who's left?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OOoooOOOoOh ! It 's a " Scholarly " summary !
Where are the " Cooler " heads when you need them ?
; ) I tell you what .
You get out of the library for a while and conduct a little hands on research on civil disobedience .
This is n't Iran , right ?
We do n't roll over and play dead because we 're afraid of having something entered into our permanent record ; more permanent and more public every day ! I 'll " hand-pick " my unconscionable guidelines , let my genie out of the bottle and we 'll all open our eyes .
......Someday ! But not today.Just a thought ; if you want to compel people to action , at least talk like someone who engages in action .
Obama is calling your bluff .
I 'm calling your bluff .
Your scholars are probably calling your bluff .
Who 's left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OOoooOOOoOh!It's a "Scholarly" summary!
Where are the "Cooler" heads when you need them?
;)I tell you what.
You get out of the library for a while and conduct a little hands on research on civil disobedience.
This isn't Iran, right?
We don't roll over and play dead because we're afraid of having something entered into our permanent record; more permanent and more public every day!I'll "hand-pick" my unconscionable guidelines, let my genie out of the bottle and we'll all open our eyes.
......Someday!  But not today.Just a thought; if you want to compel people to action, at least talk like someone who engages in action.
Obama is calling your bluff.
I'm calling your bluff.
Your scholars are probably calling your bluff.
Who's left?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691</id>
	<title>Existential rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a right is violated, and no one can talk about it,<br>then it must not have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a right is violated , and no one can talk about it,then it must not have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a right is violated, and no one can talk about it,then it must not have happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487003</id>
	<title>What's up with this compelling crap?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1246048680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they've compelled the secrecy of a service provider</p></div><p>How exactly would they accomplish this? I can understand them demanding information, hopefully with warrant in hand. But if I'm a service provider, I'm not an agent, employee or contractor of the police. I've not taken any secrecy oaths. I'm a member of the public and if I come to know something, it is already by definition in the public domain. If they want to hire me as a spook, I'm available, but the price is high. Very high.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : they 've compelled the secrecy of a service providerHow exactly would they accomplish this ?
I can understand them demanding information , hopefully with warrant in hand .
But if I 'm a service provider , I 'm not an agent , employee or contractor of the police .
I 've not taken any secrecy oaths .
I 'm a member of the public and if I come to know something , it is already by definition in the public domain .
If they want to hire me as a spook , I 'm available , but the price is high .
Very high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:they've compelled the secrecy of a service providerHow exactly would they accomplish this?
I can understand them demanding information, hopefully with warrant in hand.
But if I'm a service provider, I'm not an agent, employee or contractor of the police.
I've not taken any secrecy oaths.
I'm a member of the public and if I come to know something, it is already by definition in the public domain.
If they want to hire me as a spook, I'm available, but the price is high.
Very high.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484955</id>
	<title>Court approved, yet not good enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246039440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We heard all about how law enforcement need only conform to FISA and obtain warrants from courts.  The delays and possible compromises of security involved were pointed out they were handwaved.  No compromise to security if they just conformed to the legal bureaucracy....</p><p>This investigation has the blessing of a court.  Surprise!  That's not good enough.  No, no.  The FBI must be stopped regardless.</p><p>And BTW the FBI reports to Obama now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We heard all about how law enforcement need only conform to FISA and obtain warrants from courts .
The delays and possible compromises of security involved were pointed out they were handwaved .
No compromise to security if they just conformed to the legal bureaucracy....This investigation has the blessing of a court .
Surprise ! That 's not good enough .
No , no .
The FBI must be stopped regardless.And BTW the FBI reports to Obama now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We heard all about how law enforcement need only conform to FISA and obtain warrants from courts.
The delays and possible compromises of security involved were pointed out they were handwaved.
No compromise to security if they just conformed to the legal bureaucracy....This investigation has the blessing of a court.
Surprise!  That's not good enough.
No, no.
The FBI must be stopped regardless.And BTW the FBI reports to Obama now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</id>
	<title>What's with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext> the "FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition" bullshit?

Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush! If Obama wanted it to end it would end, right?

SSDD!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the " FBI is n't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition " bullshit ?
Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush !
If Obama wanted it to end it would end , right ?
SSDD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the "FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition" bullshit?
Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush!
If Obama wanted it to end it would end, right?
SSDD!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489311</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As to hating communists - God bless the man."</p><p>I can't bless anyone who resorted to tactics that bordered on and were occasionally illegal, even if it was in a good cause.  Spying on people and keeping a list of around 10000 people to be arrested because they were political "subversives"?  What what trying to do?  Emulate the KGB?  Look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">COINTELPRO</a> [wikipedia.org] and the Church committee.  It's truly shameful stuff.  His legacy is definitely "mixed", even without the accusations of cross-dressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As to hating communists - God bless the man .
" I ca n't bless anyone who resorted to tactics that bordered on and were occasionally illegal , even if it was in a good cause .
Spying on people and keeping a list of around 10000 people to be arrested because they were political " subversives " ?
What what trying to do ?
Emulate the KGB ?
Look up COINTELPRO [ wikipedia.org ] and the Church committee .
It 's truly shameful stuff .
His legacy is definitely " mixed " , even without the accusations of cross-dressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As to hating communists - God bless the man.
"I can't bless anyone who resorted to tactics that bordered on and were occasionally illegal, even if it was in a good cause.
Spying on people and keeping a list of around 10000 people to be arrested because they were political "subversives"?
What what trying to do?
Emulate the KGB?
Look up COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org] and the Church committee.
It's truly shameful stuff.
His legacy is definitely "mixed", even without the accusations of cross-dressing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484931</id>
	<title>Who gets to wear J Edgar Hoover's tutu?</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1246039380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....and the pink tights and boa?  Its no fun to be freaky jiggy with the hoes and bros in the light of day, ya know!  Can't a G-man enjoy a G-string without diluting the oppressive regime's value system with blatant hypocrisy?  Whats the fun in that?  Its like Halloween in the light with pants on - no tricks or treats...</htmltext>
<tokenext>....and the pink tights and boa ?
Its no fun to be freaky jiggy with the hoes and bros in the light of day , ya know !
Ca n't a G-man enjoy a G-string without diluting the oppressive regime 's value system with blatant hypocrisy ?
Whats the fun in that ?
Its like Halloween in the light with pants on - no tricks or treats.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....and the pink tights and boa?
Its no fun to be freaky jiggy with the hoes and bros in the light of day, ya know!
Can't a G-man enjoy a G-string without diluting the oppressive regime's value system with blatant hypocrisy?
Whats the fun in that?
Its like Halloween in the light with pants on - no tricks or treats...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485249</id>
	<title>Bush era?</title>
	<author>endianx</author>
	<datestamp>1246040640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet</p></div><p>"Bush-era secrecy" is what you will get if you vote for most any Democrat or Republican.  Obama isn't any different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the FBI is n't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet " Bush-era secrecy " is what you will get if you vote for most any Democrat or Republican .
Obama is n't any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition just yet"Bush-era secrecy" is what you will get if you vote for most any Democrat or Republican.
Obama isn't any different.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484617</id>
	<title>Bush-era?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1246038300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like government secrecy started and ended with Bush?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like government secrecy started and ended with Bush ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like government secrecy started and ended with Bush?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485199</id>
	<title>I can help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just remember, Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember , Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember, Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486425</id>
	<title>Re:Bush era?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>evidence says otherwise:<br>"last month the Obama administration decided not to appeal a federal court ruling that the FBI must justify these gag orders by meeting a relatively high First Amendment standard. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>evidence says otherwise : " last month the Obama administration decided not to appeal a federal court ruling that the FBI must justify these gag orders by meeting a relatively high First Amendment standard .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>evidence says otherwise:"last month the Obama administration decided not to appeal a federal court ruling that the FBI must justify these gag orders by meeting a relatively high First Amendment standard.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28492899</id>
	<title>Bush is gone, if this was Bush, Obama could fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246094820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this was the result of the Bush Policy, then Obama could just change it. Bush is gone, it's Obama's Show now.

The truth is, Obama is going to expand these powers greatly. Obama doesn't see these powers of government to be the problem, just who was in charge.

Congress granted these powers to the Administration, and the Congress has been firmly in Progressive hands for over 4 years.

Don't look now, the greatest increase in Government Power has just passed the House Today and look who is in charge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was the result of the Bush Policy , then Obama could just change it .
Bush is gone , it 's Obama 's Show now .
The truth is , Obama is going to expand these powers greatly .
Obama does n't see these powers of government to be the problem , just who was in charge .
Congress granted these powers to the Administration , and the Congress has been firmly in Progressive hands for over 4 years .
Do n't look now , the greatest increase in Government Power has just passed the House Today and look who is in charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was the result of the Bush Policy, then Obama could just change it.
Bush is gone, it's Obama's Show now.
The truth is, Obama is going to expand these powers greatly.
Obama doesn't see these powers of government to be the problem, just who was in charge.
Congress granted these powers to the Administration, and the Congress has been firmly in Progressive hands for over 4 years.
Don't look now, the greatest increase in Government Power has just passed the House Today and look who is in charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486963</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246048500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The election isn't between two major parties, it's between the established parties and the libertarians/independents/everyone else. "Are you voting Republican or Democrat?" is a yes or no question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The election is n't between two major parties , it 's between the established parties and the libertarians/independents/everyone else .
" Are you voting Republican or Democrat ?
" is a yes or no question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The election isn't between two major parties, it's between the established parties and the libertarians/independents/everyone else.
"Are you voting Republican or Democrat?
" is a yes or no question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484945</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246039440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the "FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition" bullshit? Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush!</p></div><p>Ah, well, this is simply because, up until January 2001,  the FBI was so widely renowned among government institutions for the openness and transparency of its counter-intelligence operations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the " FBI is n't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition " bullshit ?
Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush ! Ah , well , this is simply because , up until January 2001 , the FBI was so widely renowned among government institutions for the openness and transparency of its counter-intelligence operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "FBI isn't ready to give up its Bush-era secrecy addition" bullshit?
Quit blaming institutional behavior - in this case Holder - on Bush!Ah, well, this is simply because, up until January 2001,  the FBI was so widely renowned among government institutions for the openness and transparency of its counter-intelligence operations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488997</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>demigod</author>
	<datestamp>1246014300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world. Seriously - who would you compare to them?</em> <p>
Let me see now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><ul>
<li>National Security Letter (NSL) to force the cooperation</li>
<li>Gag order so you can't talk about the NSL</li>
<li>Secret justification for gag so you can't read it.</li>
</ul><p>
KGB? </p><p>

Was I right?</p><p>

This whole thing seems familiar...<br>

Oh, there it is;</p><p>
 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22" title="wikipedia.org">Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. An old woman explains: Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world .
Seriously - who would you compare to them ?
Let me see now .. . National Security Letter ( NSL ) to force the cooperation Gag order so you ca n't talk about the NSL Secret justification for gag so you ca n't read it .
KGB ? Was I right ?
This whole thing seems familiar.. . Oh , there it is ; Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating .
An old woman explains : Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we ca n't stop them from doing .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world.
Seriously - who would you compare to them?
Let me see now ...
National Security Letter (NSL) to force the cooperation
Gag order so you can't talk about the NSL
Secret justification for gag so you can't read it.
KGB? 

Was I right?
This whole thing seems familiar...

Oh, there it is;
 Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating.
An old woman explains: Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485575</id>
	<title>Re:Power once given...</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1246041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you have stated, when you give most people power, they will never relinquish it.  What do you think will happen with the bailout mentality now?  This only goes to show why George Washington was the greatest President, far-and-wide.  He didn't want power.  He gave it up at a time when relinquishing power was unheard of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you have stated , when you give most people power , they will never relinquish it .
What do you think will happen with the bailout mentality now ?
This only goes to show why George Washington was the greatest President , far-and-wide .
He did n't want power .
He gave it up at a time when relinquishing power was unheard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you have stated, when you give most people power, they will never relinquish it.
What do you think will happen with the bailout mentality now?
This only goes to show why George Washington was the greatest President, far-and-wide.
He didn't want power.
He gave it up at a time when relinquishing power was unheard of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1246043580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. That was the first thing I noticed. Mr. "Change" and "Transparency" is neither. Not that I'm surprised though. There's a reason I've never voted R or D. People say voting third party is a waste, but hell... voting for ANY of these assholes is a waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
That was the first thing I noticed .
Mr. " Change " and " Transparency " is neither .
Not that I 'm surprised though .
There 's a reason I 've never voted R or D. People say voting third party is a waste , but hell... voting for ANY of these assholes is a waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
That was the first thing I noticed.
Mr. "Change" and "Transparency" is neither.
Not that I'm surprised though.
There's a reason I've never voted R or D. People say voting third party is a waste, but hell... voting for ANY of these assholes is a waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489797</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1246019940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the kind of action that the FBI has an institutional bias in favor of, but it became much stronger under the Bushes.  The Democrats rarely push back against is, but they also don't push to increase it.  So it's fair to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats (though Teddy Rooseveldt wouldn't have been in favor of it).  OTOH, it's also not right to give the Democrats a free pass.  Their game plan seems to be to get the Republicans to do the things they don't want to be blamed for, and then take all the advantage they can of the blatantly unconstitutional laws and rules of operation that have been institutionalized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of action that the FBI has an institutional bias in favor of , but it became much stronger under the Bushes .
The Democrats rarely push back against is , but they also do n't push to increase it .
So it 's fair to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats ( though Teddy Rooseveldt would n't have been in favor of it ) .
OTOH , it 's also not right to give the Democrats a free pass .
Their game plan seems to be to get the Republicans to do the things they do n't want to be blamed for , and then take all the advantage they can of the blatantly unconstitutional laws and rules of operation that have been institutionalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of action that the FBI has an institutional bias in favor of, but it became much stronger under the Bushes.
The Democrats rarely push back against is, but they also don't push to increase it.
So it's fair to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats (though Teddy Rooseveldt wouldn't have been in favor of it).
OTOH, it's also not right to give the Democrats a free pass.
Their game plan seems to be to get the Republicans to do the things they don't want to be blamed for, and then take all the advantage they can of the blatantly unconstitutional laws and rules of operation that have been institutionalized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625</id>
	<title>SETEC Astronomy</title>
	<author>BabyDuckHat</author>
	<datestamp>1246038300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485717</id>
	<title>What were we talking about?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing to see here. Move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing to see here .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing to see here.
Move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484895</id>
	<title>Re:Existential rights</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246039200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And be sure to give your co-conspirators legal immunity. Funny how aiding and abetting the government in violating the constitution can be make legal with a rider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And be sure to give your co-conspirators legal immunity .
Funny how aiding and abetting the government in violating the constitution can be make legal with a rider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And be sure to give your co-conspirators legal immunity.
Funny how aiding and abetting the government in violating the constitution can be make legal with a rider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story just confuses me. Secret secret, secret secret secret. Secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story just confuses me .
Secret secret , secret secret secret .
Secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story just confuses me.
Secret secret, secret secret secret.
Secret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1246041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but I call bullshit right back at you. The whole mess our country finds itself in, with this any number of other threats to our Constitutional protections still ongoing, is a <b>direct result</b> of the over-reaching of neo-con ideologues like Cheney and the hand-picked to team of "reliable" lawyers who drafted the various rationales intended to support the sundering of those protections. The fact that the various agencies are still operating under heretofore unconscionable guidelines is <b>exactly</b> the kind of thing cooler heads tried to warn us about as far back as 2001. Not being able to "put the genie back in the bottle" is a weak metaphor when one considers the damage that has been done.</p><p>
If you want a real eye-opener, read Jane Mayer's <i>"The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals"</i>. It is a very well researched and scholarly summary of the horrible things that have been done to your rights as an American citizen, and it will make it chillingly clear to you, how and why that damage will be a very, very long time in being undone, if it ever is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I call bullshit right back at you .
The whole mess our country finds itself in , with this any number of other threats to our Constitutional protections still ongoing , is a direct result of the over-reaching of neo-con ideologues like Cheney and the hand-picked to team of " reliable " lawyers who drafted the various rationales intended to support the sundering of those protections .
The fact that the various agencies are still operating under heretofore unconscionable guidelines is exactly the kind of thing cooler heads tried to warn us about as far back as 2001 .
Not being able to " put the genie back in the bottle " is a weak metaphor when one considers the damage that has been done .
If you want a real eye-opener , read Jane Mayer 's " The Dark Side : The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals " .
It is a very well researched and scholarly summary of the horrible things that have been done to your rights as an American citizen , and it will make it chillingly clear to you , how and why that damage will be a very , very long time in being undone , if it ever is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I call bullshit right back at you.
The whole mess our country finds itself in, with this any number of other threats to our Constitutional protections still ongoing, is a direct result of the over-reaching of neo-con ideologues like Cheney and the hand-picked to team of "reliable" lawyers who drafted the various rationales intended to support the sundering of those protections.
The fact that the various agencies are still operating under heretofore unconscionable guidelines is exactly the kind of thing cooler heads tried to warn us about as far back as 2001.
Not being able to "put the genie back in the bottle" is a weak metaphor when one considers the damage that has been done.
If you want a real eye-opener, read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals".
It is a very well researched and scholarly summary of the horrible things that have been done to your rights as an American citizen, and it will make it chillingly clear to you, how and why that damage will be a very, very long time in being undone, if it ever is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28491179</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and other Democrats only had a problem wi</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246035240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was never really afraid of Bush's abuse. We had the press constantly nipping on his heels.</p></div><p>You have a faulty memory. It wasn't until the final couple of years of the Bush administration that the media paid any attention to his abuses. Up until then, the press were cheerleaders for the administration, who helped disseminate their misinformation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was never really afraid of Bush 's abuse .
We had the press constantly nipping on his heels.You have a faulty memory .
It was n't until the final couple of years of the Bush administration that the media paid any attention to his abuses .
Up until then , the press were cheerleaders for the administration , who helped disseminate their misinformation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was never really afraid of Bush's abuse.
We had the press constantly nipping on his heels.You have a faulty memory.
It wasn't until the final couple of years of the Bush administration that the media paid any attention to his abuses.
Up until then, the press were cheerleaders for the administration, who helped disseminate their misinformation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484755</id>
	<title>If I might quote the lord...</title>
	<author>Space cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246038780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lord Hewit: "... it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
<br> <br>
Nothing much has happened to change that, apart from government organisations wanting more power, and the governed giving it to them. RIP Justice, it was kinda cool while you were around...
<br> <br>
Simon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord Hewit : " ... it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance , that justice should not only be done , but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done .
" Nothing much has happened to change that , apart from government organisations wanting more power , and the governed giving it to them .
RIP Justice , it was kinda cool while you were around.. . Simon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord Hewit: "... it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
"
 
Nothing much has happened to change that, apart from government organisations wanting more power, and the governed giving it to them.
RIP Justice, it was kinda cool while you were around...
 
Simon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country.</p></div><p>While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world.  Seriously - who would you compare to them?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They're pumping billions into "modernization" efforts, but they still file their cases largely in paper format, use fax machines instead of e-mail, and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.</p></div><p>No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it.  But alas, it's completely wrong.  The recent Sentinel problems were an upgrade/modernization of the existing electronic case files.  The Bureau is computerized.  Not as sleekly or as efficiently as they'd like (which is why there's a big government contract working on it), but you make it sound like they're still thumbing through index cards.  And yes, they use email.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the 60s, the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who (or rather, what) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover's front porch. You might have heard of him--he had a real temper, hated communists, and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.</p></div><p>Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers' discredited book.  That's the only source for this accusation.</p><p>As to hating communists - God bless the man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country.While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world .
Seriously - who would you compare to them ? They 're pumping billions into " modernization " efforts , but they still file their cases largely in paper format , use fax machines instead of e-mail , and " IT " is what they say happens in the men 's room after 5pm.No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it .
But alas , it 's completely wrong .
The recent Sentinel problems were an upgrade/modernization of the existing electronic case files .
The Bureau is computerized .
Not as sleekly or as efficiently as they 'd like ( which is why there 's a big government contract working on it ) , but you make it sound like they 're still thumbing through index cards .
And yes , they use email.In the 60s , the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who ( or rather , what ) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover 's front porch .
You might have heard of him--he had a real temper , hated communists , and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers ' discredited book .
That 's the only source for this accusation.As to hating communists - God bless the man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country.While simultaneously being one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world.
Seriously - who would you compare to them?They're pumping billions into "modernization" efforts, but they still file their cases largely in paper format, use fax machines instead of e-mail, and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.No doubt you thought that was a cute quote and copy-pasted it.
But alas, it's completely wrong.
The recent Sentinel problems were an upgrade/modernization of the existing electronic case files.
The Bureau is computerized.
Not as sleekly or as efficiently as they'd like (which is why there's a big government contract working on it), but you make it sound like they're still thumbing through index cards.
And yes, they use email.In the 60s, the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who (or rather, what) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover's front porch.
You might have heard of him--he had a real temper, hated communists, and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.Please provide some proof that Hoover was a cross-dresser other than Anthony Summers' discredited book.
That's the only source for this accusation.As to hating communists - God bless the man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28490567</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Cross-Threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1246027320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you want knee-jerk change that could easily backfire?</p><p>Or, would you prefer controlled change that was given careful thought for the purpose of making it effective?</p><p>Barack Obama has been our president for a whopping 6 months, and has been the gleeful recipient of one of the biggest platefuls of crap to deal with in our entire nation's history, at least since Harry S. Truman took office at the tail end of World War II. I don't expect a lot of earth-shaking change right out of the gate, at least not until the plateload of crap has been dispensed with.</p><p>It is my gut feeling that most of us here would not have been able to do any better as far as implementing change than our current president has done, especially considering all the distractions he's had to deal with. I am not an apologist, I'm simply asserting what I think.</p><p>I say let's give the man a couple of years, and see where we are. How long did it take for people to begin seeing George W. Bush for the president he was? I don't remember the exact time line, but I seem to remember it took quite a while before his popularity rating began to sink to where it ended up at.</p><p>My point is simply that change does not come quickly, if it is done well.</p><p>(I believe that change encompasses transparency, so I won't address it.)</p><p>I agree with you about not voting because I agree that most of the time, the choices we get to mark on the ballot are just undesirable, and snake oil salesmen, for the most part. When there are multiple choices that reek of things you don't want to sniff, I stay away.</p><p>However, I did vote this last election, and I voted for Obama. I voted for him because, unlike the other candidates I remember (since the '76 election), this person had an air of enthusiasm, and apparent integrity. I have no idea whether voting Obama to office was a wise move, yet. The jury is still out.</p><p>Ask me how I feel about his performance in about 3-6 years, because that is when we will really begin to see the results of his first term in office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want knee-jerk change that could easily backfire ? Or , would you prefer controlled change that was given careful thought for the purpose of making it effective ? Barack Obama has been our president for a whopping 6 months , and has been the gleeful recipient of one of the biggest platefuls of crap to deal with in our entire nation 's history , at least since Harry S. Truman took office at the tail end of World War II .
I do n't expect a lot of earth-shaking change right out of the gate , at least not until the plateload of crap has been dispensed with.It is my gut feeling that most of us here would not have been able to do any better as far as implementing change than our current president has done , especially considering all the distractions he 's had to deal with .
I am not an apologist , I 'm simply asserting what I think.I say let 's give the man a couple of years , and see where we are .
How long did it take for people to begin seeing George W. Bush for the president he was ?
I do n't remember the exact time line , but I seem to remember it took quite a while before his popularity rating began to sink to where it ended up at.My point is simply that change does not come quickly , if it is done well .
( I believe that change encompasses transparency , so I wo n't address it .
) I agree with you about not voting because I agree that most of the time , the choices we get to mark on the ballot are just undesirable , and snake oil salesmen , for the most part .
When there are multiple choices that reek of things you do n't want to sniff , I stay away.However , I did vote this last election , and I voted for Obama .
I voted for him because , unlike the other candidates I remember ( since the '76 election ) , this person had an air of enthusiasm , and apparent integrity .
I have no idea whether voting Obama to office was a wise move , yet .
The jury is still out.Ask me how I feel about his performance in about 3-6 years , because that is when we will really begin to see the results of his first term in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want knee-jerk change that could easily backfire?Or, would you prefer controlled change that was given careful thought for the purpose of making it effective?Barack Obama has been our president for a whopping 6 months, and has been the gleeful recipient of one of the biggest platefuls of crap to deal with in our entire nation's history, at least since Harry S. Truman took office at the tail end of World War II.
I don't expect a lot of earth-shaking change right out of the gate, at least not until the plateload of crap has been dispensed with.It is my gut feeling that most of us here would not have been able to do any better as far as implementing change than our current president has done, especially considering all the distractions he's had to deal with.
I am not an apologist, I'm simply asserting what I think.I say let's give the man a couple of years, and see where we are.
How long did it take for people to begin seeing George W. Bush for the president he was?
I don't remember the exact time line, but I seem to remember it took quite a while before his popularity rating began to sink to where it ended up at.My point is simply that change does not come quickly, if it is done well.
(I believe that change encompasses transparency, so I won't address it.
)I agree with you about not voting because I agree that most of the time, the choices we get to mark on the ballot are just undesirable, and snake oil salesmen, for the most part.
When there are multiple choices that reek of things you don't want to sniff, I stay away.However, I did vote this last election, and I voted for Obama.
I voted for him because, unlike the other candidates I remember (since the '76 election), this person had an air of enthusiasm, and apparent integrity.
I have no idea whether voting Obama to office was a wise move, yet.
The jury is still out.Ask me how I feel about his performance in about 3-6 years, because that is when we will really begin to see the results of his first term in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485995</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1246043700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presidents treat presidential power like a ratchet.  They'll NEVER give it up willingly.  Congress has to actually do something.</p><p>God, this makes me remember how much I hated (and still hate) Richard M. Nixon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presidents treat presidential power like a ratchet .
They 'll NEVER give it up willingly .
Congress has to actually do something.God , this makes me remember how much I hated ( and still hate ) Richard M. Nixon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presidents treat presidential power like a ratchet.
They'll NEVER give it up willingly.
Congress has to actually do something.God, this makes me remember how much I hated (and still hate) Richard M. Nixon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485089</id>
	<title>It's sensationalism and garbage posts</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1246040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>like this are starting to turn me off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. If the current administration wanted change it would change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>like this are starting to turn me off / .
If the current administration wanted change it would change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like this are starting to turn me off /.
If the current administration wanted change it would change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821</id>
	<title>Power once given...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This only goes to show what everyone else already knows.  If you give the government powers, it will continue to use them no matter what party is in power at the time.</p><p>This isn't a partisan issue, except in that those who suggest that giving government more power through secret wiretaps, or special prison camps, or government bailouts or nationalized health care are making the problem worse.  It doesn't matter that this is a "Bush-era" innovation as much as it was an innovation to begin with.  We don't call Social Security a "Roosevelt-era" initiative (at least not anymore), it's just accepted that it is there.  The same thing will happen with most powers granted to the government when it tries to "help us" by taking care of things for us.  Eventually, unless this is overturned, it will go the same way, but wouldn't you think that the Obama Administration, as the Anti-Bush, wouldn't have been the best chance we had to get rid of these?  Yet we are disappointed, but I think we shouldn't be surprised.</p><p>I don't consider the government to be "the enemy" like some people do, but I think that any entity which develops too much power and gains responsibility in too many areas is bound to become grossly inefficient at best, and quite possibly dangerous to liberty.  We are abdicating our responsibilities and rights in order to have security, be it from terrorists or from being uninsured.  And we all know what people get when they trade liberty for security: neither.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This only goes to show what everyone else already knows .
If you give the government powers , it will continue to use them no matter what party is in power at the time.This is n't a partisan issue , except in that those who suggest that giving government more power through secret wiretaps , or special prison camps , or government bailouts or nationalized health care are making the problem worse .
It does n't matter that this is a " Bush-era " innovation as much as it was an innovation to begin with .
We do n't call Social Security a " Roosevelt-era " initiative ( at least not anymore ) , it 's just accepted that it is there .
The same thing will happen with most powers granted to the government when it tries to " help us " by taking care of things for us .
Eventually , unless this is overturned , it will go the same way , but would n't you think that the Obama Administration , as the Anti-Bush , would n't have been the best chance we had to get rid of these ?
Yet we are disappointed , but I think we should n't be surprised.I do n't consider the government to be " the enemy " like some people do , but I think that any entity which develops too much power and gains responsibility in too many areas is bound to become grossly inefficient at best , and quite possibly dangerous to liberty .
We are abdicating our responsibilities and rights in order to have security , be it from terrorists or from being uninsured .
And we all know what people get when they trade liberty for security : neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This only goes to show what everyone else already knows.
If you give the government powers, it will continue to use them no matter what party is in power at the time.This isn't a partisan issue, except in that those who suggest that giving government more power through secret wiretaps, or special prison camps, or government bailouts or nationalized health care are making the problem worse.
It doesn't matter that this is a "Bush-era" innovation as much as it was an innovation to begin with.
We don't call Social Security a "Roosevelt-era" initiative (at least not anymore), it's just accepted that it is there.
The same thing will happen with most powers granted to the government when it tries to "help us" by taking care of things for us.
Eventually, unless this is overturned, it will go the same way, but wouldn't you think that the Obama Administration, as the Anti-Bush, wouldn't have been the best chance we had to get rid of these?
Yet we are disappointed, but I think we shouldn't be surprised.I don't consider the government to be "the enemy" like some people do, but I think that any entity which develops too much power and gains responsibility in too many areas is bound to become grossly inefficient at best, and quite possibly dangerous to liberty.
We are abdicating our responsibilities and rights in order to have security, be it from terrorists or from being uninsured.
And we all know what people get when they trade liberty for security: neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28499847</id>
	<title>RE: Obama files "Secret Executive Order"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's America -- Alive in -- Iran</p><p>The heart-felt longings of U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama are realized in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Iran.</p><p>How could this be Porthos?</p><p>Simple, U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama is -- conflicted.</p><p>In Iran, the "Officials" have done every thing that U.S,A, President Barak Hussian Obama wants to do to all citizens of the United States of America.</p><p>Aramis, what are these things?</p><p>1)  abdication of the Bill of Rights.</p><p>2) abdication of the Constitution.</p><p>Such inconveniences!</p><p>3)  Absolute Judicial Power ordained to the President.</p><p>The Power of the Executive Trumps all others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. even the Roman Catholic Church<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. what Brazen mentality.</p><p>Under these terms the following:</p><p>All U.S.A. citizens are guilty -- of what ever charges the Executive Office wishes.</p><p>How wonderful, how economic.</p><p>Nice.</p><p>Torture, is the order of the day.  Why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. because it is "Executive."</p><p>So, Aramis and Porthos, in effect, the United States of America, is a Prison, the Bastille, no!</p><p>Yes, we are in the hell created by George Walker Bush and continued laughingly by Barak Hussian Obama, Supreme Exalted Leader of the United States of America, America's Dictator for the rest of his life.</p><p>How else to bring about a "Beautiful America."</p><p>Now Barak Hussian Obama, formerly known as "Barry," can round-up all those kids who tortured him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and kill them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. at his<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. pleasure.</p><p>How many citizens of the United States of America will Barak Hussian Obama ordered killed for his<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pleasure?</p><p>Why must millions of people in India be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... killed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pleasure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Barak Hussian Obama?</p><p>Why does Barak Hussian Obama appoint himself as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... God Obama?</p><p>Why are John McCain (closet Gay) and Sahra Palin (closet Lesbian) desperate for the thrust of the penis of Barak Hussian Obama up their anus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's America -- Alive in -- IranThe heart-felt longings of U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama are realized in ... Iran.How could this be Porthos ? Simple , U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama is -- conflicted.In Iran , the " Officials " have done every thing that U.S,A , President Barak Hussian Obama wants to do to all citizens of the United States of America.Aramis , what are these things ? 1 ) abdication of the Bill of Rights.2 ) abdication of the Constitution.Such inconveniences ! 3 ) Absolute Judicial Power ordained to the President.The Power of the Executive Trumps all others .. even the Roman Catholic Church .. what Brazen mentality.Under these terms the following : All U.S.A. citizens are guilty -- of what ever charges the Executive Office wishes.How wonderful , how economic.Nice.Torture , is the order of the day .
Why .. because it is " Executive .
" So , Aramis and Porthos , in effect , the United States of America , is a Prison , the Bastille , no ! Yes , we are in the hell created by George Walker Bush and continued laughingly by Barak Hussian Obama , Supreme Exalted Leader of the United States of America , America 's Dictator for the rest of his life.How else to bring about a " Beautiful America .
" Now Barak Hussian Obama , formerly known as " Barry , " can round-up all those kids who tortured him ... and kill them .. at his .. pleasure.How many citizens of the United States of America will Barak Hussian Obama ordered killed for his ... pleasure ? Why must millions of people in India be ... killed .. for the ... pleasure ... of ... Barak Hussian Obama ? Why does Barak Hussian Obama appoint himself as ... God Obama ? Why are John McCain ( closet Gay ) and Sahra Palin ( closet Lesbian ) desperate for the thrust of the penis of Barak Hussian Obama up their anus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's America -- Alive in -- IranThe heart-felt longings of U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama are realized in ... Iran.How could this be Porthos?Simple, U.S.A. President Barak Hussian Obama is -- conflicted.In Iran, the "Officials" have done every thing that U.S,A, President Barak Hussian Obama wants to do to all citizens of the United States of America.Aramis, what are these things?1)  abdication of the Bill of Rights.2) abdication of the Constitution.Such inconveniences!3)  Absolute Judicial Power ordained to the President.The Power of the Executive Trumps all others .. even the Roman Catholic Church .. what Brazen mentality.Under these terms the following:All U.S.A. citizens are guilty -- of what ever charges the Executive Office wishes.How wonderful, how economic.Nice.Torture, is the order of the day.
Why .. because it is "Executive.
"So, Aramis and Porthos, in effect, the United States of America, is a Prison, the Bastille, no!Yes, we are in the hell created by George Walker Bush and continued laughingly by Barak Hussian Obama, Supreme Exalted Leader of the United States of America, America's Dictator for the rest of his life.How else to bring about a "Beautiful America.
"Now Barak Hussian Obama, formerly known as "Barry," can round-up all those kids who tortured him ... and kill them .. at his .. pleasure.How many citizens of the United States of America will Barak Hussian Obama ordered killed for his ... pleasure?Why must millions of people in India be ... killed .. for the ... pleasure ... of ... Barak Hussian Obama?Why does Barak Hussian Obama appoint himself as ... God Obama?Why are John McCain (closet Gay) and Sahra Palin (closet Lesbian) desperate for the thrust of the penis of Barak Hussian Obama up their anus?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485255</id>
	<title>Bush era? Think again, all you heads in the sand.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246040700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was unprecedented transparency, unlike the Bama administration, which is why there is plenty of surveillance issues to talk about.</p><p>Obama has already demonstrated abuse of his power to silence his opposition.  He even abused his position during the campaign to silence opposition.</p><p>Speaking of abuses, do you all remember when Sandy Burgler "mishandled" national secrets of the highest security level and it was mysteriously swept aside?  If Sandy Burgler had been prosecuted he would have likely been convicted and executed but it never happened because he was in the Clinton "good ol' boys" club.</p><p>Democrats are very disturbing to me and they need to be watched closely.  If left to their on devices they will ruin this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was unprecedented transparency , unlike the Bama administration , which is why there is plenty of surveillance issues to talk about.Obama has already demonstrated abuse of his power to silence his opposition .
He even abused his position during the campaign to silence opposition.Speaking of abuses , do you all remember when Sandy Burgler " mishandled " national secrets of the highest security level and it was mysteriously swept aside ?
If Sandy Burgler had been prosecuted he would have likely been convicted and executed but it never happened because he was in the Clinton " good ol ' boys " club.Democrats are very disturbing to me and they need to be watched closely .
If left to their on devices they will ruin this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was unprecedented transparency, unlike the Bama administration, which is why there is plenty of surveillance issues to talk about.Obama has already demonstrated abuse of his power to silence his opposition.
He even abused his position during the campaign to silence opposition.Speaking of abuses, do you all remember when Sandy Burgler "mishandled" national secrets of the highest security level and it was mysteriously swept aside?
If Sandy Burgler had been prosecuted he would have likely been convicted and executed but it never happened because he was in the Clinton "good ol' boys" club.Democrats are very disturbing to me and they need to be watched closely.
If left to their on devices they will ruin this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486409</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246045740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As to hating communists - God bless the man."</p><p>Wow, you really bought the commie crap hook line and sinker<br>Seriously, if someone believes communism is a valid form of government, you think they should be hunted, lied about and jailed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As to hating communists - God bless the man .
" Wow , you really bought the commie crap hook line and sinkerSeriously , if someone believes communism is a valid form of government , you think they should be hunted , lied about and jailed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As to hating communists - God bless the man.
"Wow, you really bought the commie crap hook line and sinkerSeriously, if someone believes communism is a valid form of government, you think they should be hunted, lied about and jailed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486983</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no secret that tyranny prevails until and unless many millions of people, including some who are in positions of authority in government, the military, and industry, are literally willing to put their necks in the noose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no secret that tyranny prevails until and unless many millions of people , including some who are in positions of authority in government , the military , and industry , are literally willing to put their necks in the noose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no secret that tyranny prevails until and unless many millions of people, including some who are in positions of authority in government, the military, and industry, are literally willing to put their necks in the noose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487299</id>
	<title>Voting in California avoids that dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California was going solidly for Obama anyway, so I didn't need to consider voting for him to stop McSame.  So I was free to vote third-party; too bad the Libertarians have been taken over by quasi-Republicans, and their allegedly-Libertarian candidate doesn't really even believe in drug legalization (though at least he's strongly gung-ho about privacy and getting government out of non-gay-marriage-related parts of people's lives.)  I was tempted to vote for Nader just as a complaint against Barr, but I held my nose and voted for what's left of my party.</p><p>Now, if the elections had been between Cheney and Cthulhu, voting for the lesser evil would have been fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California was going solidly for Obama anyway , so I did n't need to consider voting for him to stop McSame .
So I was free to vote third-party ; too bad the Libertarians have been taken over by quasi-Republicans , and their allegedly-Libertarian candidate does n't really even believe in drug legalization ( though at least he 's strongly gung-ho about privacy and getting government out of non-gay-marriage-related parts of people 's lives .
) I was tempted to vote for Nader just as a complaint against Barr , but I held my nose and voted for what 's left of my party.Now , if the elections had been between Cheney and Cthulhu , voting for the lesser evil would have been fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California was going solidly for Obama anyway, so I didn't need to consider voting for him to stop McSame.
So I was free to vote third-party; too bad the Libertarians have been taken over by quasi-Republicans, and their allegedly-Libertarian candidate doesn't really even believe in drug legalization (though at least he's strongly gung-ho about privacy and getting government out of non-gay-marriage-related parts of people's lives.
)  I was tempted to vote for Nader just as a complaint against Barr, but I held my nose and voted for what's left of my party.Now, if the elections had been between Cheney and Cthulhu, voting for the lesser evil would have been fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485513</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1246041660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you may have understood it that way, and the story's poster may have meant it that way, the grammar doesn't imply what you think it does.</p><p>What the statement implies is that under the Bush-era administration, such secrecy was allowed (a well-recognized fact), and that while we expect that to be changing under the new administration, it appears not to be in all cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you may have understood it that way , and the story 's poster may have meant it that way , the grammar does n't imply what you think it does.What the statement implies is that under the Bush-era administration , such secrecy was allowed ( a well-recognized fact ) , and that while we expect that to be changing under the new administration , it appears not to be in all cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you may have understood it that way, and the story's poster may have meant it that way, the grammar doesn't imply what you think it does.What the statement implies is that under the Bush-era administration, such secrecy was allowed (a well-recognized fact), and that while we expect that to be changing under the new administration, it appears not to be in all cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28496563</id>
	<title>Time for civil disobedience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Fuck the FBI.  Secret laws, secret justifications, treat these as though they do not exist.  I know for damn sure I will not try to ordain what secret laws might exist -- they effectively DON'T exist.  The court ruled you can't be gagged regarding a NSL without justification. The receivers of the NSL have not received a justification.  SPEAK OUT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the FBI .
Secret laws , secret justifications , treat these as though they do not exist .
I know for damn sure I will not try to ordain what secret laws might exist -- they effectively DO N'T exist .
The court ruled you ca n't be gagged regarding a NSL without justification .
The receivers of the NSL have not received a justification .
SPEAK OUT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Fuck the FBI.
Secret laws, secret justifications, treat these as though they do not exist.
I know for damn sure I will not try to ordain what secret laws might exist -- they effectively DON'T exist.
The court ruled you can't be gagged regarding a NSL without justification.
The receivers of the NSL have not received a justification.
SPEAK OUT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484561</id>
	<title>Michael Jackson's Frosty Piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246038120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would have been a steaming hot mug yesterday, but he's cold now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been a steaming hot mug yesterday , but he 's cold now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been a steaming hot mug yesterday, but he's cold now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488123</id>
	<title>Welcome to Obushma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope and Change we can't talk about and won't share. If we do talk about it you will be taxed for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope and Change we ca n't talk about and wo n't share .
If we do talk about it you will be taxed for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope and Change we can't talk about and won't share.
If we do talk about it you will be taxed for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486319</id>
	<title>This hust in: Constitution now considered secret</title>
	<author>fredrated</author>
	<datestamp>1246045200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can no longer quote it.  If you have a copy you must turn it in.  The FBI will notify you of your rights when they think it is appropriate</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can no longer quote it .
If you have a copy you must turn it in .
The FBI will notify you of your rights when they think it is appropriate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can no longer quote it.
If you have a copy you must turn it in.
The FBI will notify you of your rights when they think it is appropriate
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486473</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1246046040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well damn, if that's not a justification for better funding for the techies, I don't know what is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and " IT " is what they say happens in the men 's room after 5pm.Well damn , if that 's not a justification for better funding for the techies , I do n't know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.Well damn, if that's not a justification for better funding for the techies, I don't know what is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486979</id>
	<title>Republican??</title>
	<author>jsalbre</author>
	<datestamp>1246048560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm totally non-partisan (anti-partisan actually, political parties are half of the problem in our country) and a centrist in my views, but I can't help being annoyed that this post has been tagged "Republican."  What does any of this have to do with Republicans?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm totally non-partisan ( anti-partisan actually , political parties are half of the problem in our country ) and a centrist in my views , but I ca n't help being annoyed that this post has been tagged " Republican .
" What does any of this have to do with Republicans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm totally non-partisan (anti-partisan actually, political parties are half of the problem in our country) and a centrist in my views, but I can't help being annoyed that this post has been tagged "Republican.
"  What does any of this have to do with Republicans?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485119</id>
	<title>Chicken Chicken Chicken... Chicken?</title>
	<author>cutecub</author>
	<datestamp>1246040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...the FBI is carrying out a <b>Chicken</b> investigation using <b>Chicken</b> guidelines on what is and is not constitutional, and as part of that investigation they've compelled the <b>Chicken</b> of a service provider and are using a <b>Chicken</b> justification to argue that nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Chicken, chicken chicken chicken chicken. Chicken. Chicken. <b>CHICKEN!!!</b>
</p><p>
-Chicken</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the FBI is carrying out a Chicken investigation using Chicken guidelines on what is and is not constitutional , and as part of that investigation they 've compelled the Chicken of a service provider and are using a Chicken justification to argue that nobody 's First Amendment rights are being violated .
Chicken , chicken chicken chicken chicken .
Chicken. Chicken .
CHICKEN ! ! ! -Chicken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the FBI is carrying out a Chicken investigation using Chicken guidelines on what is and is not constitutional, and as part of that investigation they've compelled the Chicken of a service provider and are using a Chicken justification to argue that nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated.
Chicken, chicken chicken chicken chicken.
Chicken. Chicken.
CHICKEN!!!

-Chicken
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503645</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246202820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Your concept is faulty, because you think Obama would have absolute power, and be the leader. While actually, he is just a strawman, like any politician for decades or ever centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Your concept is faulty , because you think Obama would have absolute power , and be the leader .
While actually , he is just a strawman , like any politician for decades or ever centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Your concept is faulty, because you think Obama would have absolute power, and be the leader.
While actually, he is just a strawman, like any politician for decades or ever centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486173</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Gunnut1124</author>
	<datestamp>1246044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.</p></div><p>Um, "freedom-loving" must mean something different to you. I personally like the freedom to sleep with whoever i want, to watch whatever movies I want, and to buy liquor on Sundays (aka the "Lord's Day"). I'm sure that both administrations are corrupt, but the idea that Palin was somehow outside of that vile ignorant corruption is absurd. <br> <br> As for freedom, you may have to look to another party.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she 's a stupid dork with a white trash family.Um , " freedom-loving " must mean something different to you .
I personally like the freedom to sleep with whoever i want , to watch whatever movies I want , and to buy liquor on Sundays ( aka the " Lord 's Day " ) .
I 'm sure that both administrations are corrupt , but the idea that Palin was somehow outside of that vile ignorant corruption is absurd .
As for freedom , you may have to look to another party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.Um, "freedom-loving" must mean something different to you.
I personally like the freedom to sleep with whoever i want, to watch whatever movies I want, and to buy liquor on Sundays (aka the "Lord's Day").
I'm sure that both administrations are corrupt, but the idea that Palin was somehow outside of that vile ignorant corruption is absurd.
As for freedom, you may have to look to another party.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488561</id>
	<title>So when are the aliens coming</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1246011840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where is Scully and mulder when i need em to do a X-file</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where is Scully and mulder when i need em to do a X-file</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where is Scully and mulder when i need em to do a X-file</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484963</id>
	<title>Re:Existential rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a right is violated, and no one can talk about it,
then it must not have happened.</p></div><p>Indeed, and it's scary how that seems to be the point.  Also from the fine summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>and as part of that investigation they've compelled the secrecy of a service provider</p></div></blockquote><p>
If that provider had any sort of decency or respect for this country, they would hold a press conference or equivalent and make sure everybody knew all about this shady deal.  That kind of courage and good priorities are unfortunately quite rare.  There's a lot of cheap talk about "patriotism" but that is what a real patriot would do.  Of course I use that definition (that I wish I could attribute right now) which goes "a patriot supports his country all of the time, and his government only when it deserves it."  These days, that would mean refusing to support the government most (or all) of the time.
<br> <br>
Makes me wonder how many cases the FBI handles that have nothing to do with an activitiy which crosses state lines or otherwise could not be handled on the local and state level<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a right is violated , and no one can talk about it , then it must not have happened.Indeed , and it 's scary how that seems to be the point .
Also from the fine summary : and as part of that investigation they 've compelled the secrecy of a service provider If that provider had any sort of decency or respect for this country , they would hold a press conference or equivalent and make sure everybody knew all about this shady deal .
That kind of courage and good priorities are unfortunately quite rare .
There 's a lot of cheap talk about " patriotism " but that is what a real patriot would do .
Of course I use that definition ( that I wish I could attribute right now ) which goes " a patriot supports his country all of the time , and his government only when it deserves it .
" These days , that would mean refusing to support the government most ( or all ) of the time .
Makes me wonder how many cases the FBI handles that have nothing to do with an activitiy which crosses state lines or otherwise could not be handled on the local and state level .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a right is violated, and no one can talk about it,
then it must not have happened.Indeed, and it's scary how that seems to be the point.
Also from the fine summary:and as part of that investigation they've compelled the secrecy of a service provider
If that provider had any sort of decency or respect for this country, they would hold a press conference or equivalent and make sure everybody knew all about this shady deal.
That kind of courage and good priorities are unfortunately quite rare.
There's a lot of cheap talk about "patriotism" but that is what a real patriot would do.
Of course I use that definition (that I wish I could attribute right now) which goes "a patriot supports his country all of the time, and his government only when it deserves it.
"  These days, that would mean refusing to support the government most (or all) of the time.
Makes me wonder how many cases the FBI handles that have nothing to do with an activitiy which crosses state lines or otherwise could not be handled on the local and state level ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486711</id>
	<title>Obama and other Democrats only had a problem with</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1246047120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the secrecy and similar government abuse because it was under a Republican Administration.</p><p>Look at all the crap Obama's group is pulling with various IG across the country.  Shutting down investigations or attempting to intimidate.  He has brought Chicago style politics with him.</p><p>I was never really afraid of Bush's abuse.  We had the press constantly nipping on his heels.  They and a adversarial Congress were are best line of defense against that Administration.  Now with ABC fighting MSNBC for the rights to sleep in the White House who do we have?  Rush?  Sean?  Oh, please.</p><p>I also cannot stand the comparisons some of those right wingers make with Obama to Carter.  At least Carter stood up to his own party, damning himself in the process.  Yet he did and he really did try to make it work.  Fortunately Reagan was able to pull off of a lot of it, yet again we had a diligent press and adversarial Congress to keep him mostly honest.  Same worked for Clinton post 94.</p><p>This guy is simply dangerous because he is getting a free pass from the expected watch dogs and worse he knows it and is using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the secrecy and similar government abuse because it was under a Republican Administration.Look at all the crap Obama 's group is pulling with various IG across the country .
Shutting down investigations or attempting to intimidate .
He has brought Chicago style politics with him.I was never really afraid of Bush 's abuse .
We had the press constantly nipping on his heels .
They and a adversarial Congress were are best line of defense against that Administration .
Now with ABC fighting MSNBC for the rights to sleep in the White House who do we have ?
Rush ? Sean ?
Oh , please.I also can not stand the comparisons some of those right wingers make with Obama to Carter .
At least Carter stood up to his own party , damning himself in the process .
Yet he did and he really did try to make it work .
Fortunately Reagan was able to pull off of a lot of it , yet again we had a diligent press and adversarial Congress to keep him mostly honest .
Same worked for Clinton post 94.This guy is simply dangerous because he is getting a free pass from the expected watch dogs and worse he knows it and is using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the secrecy and similar government abuse because it was under a Republican Administration.Look at all the crap Obama's group is pulling with various IG across the country.
Shutting down investigations or attempting to intimidate.
He has brought Chicago style politics with him.I was never really afraid of Bush's abuse.
We had the press constantly nipping on his heels.
They and a adversarial Congress were are best line of defense against that Administration.
Now with ABC fighting MSNBC for the rights to sleep in the White House who do we have?
Rush?  Sean?
Oh, please.I also cannot stand the comparisons some of those right wingers make with Obama to Carter.
At least Carter stood up to his own party, damning himself in the process.
Yet he did and he really did try to make it work.
Fortunately Reagan was able to pull off of a lot of it, yet again we had a diligent press and adversarial Congress to keep him mostly honest.
Same worked for Clinton post 94.This guy is simply dangerous because he is getting a free pass from the expected watch dogs and worse he knows it and is using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487429</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1246006860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know an FBI agent who is issued a Blackberry, so I agree they are keeping up with technology fairly well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know an FBI agent who is issued a Blackberry , so I agree they are keeping up with technology fairly well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know an FBI agent who is issued a Blackberry, so I agree they are keeping up with technology fairly well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485301</id>
	<title>Schrodinger Rights</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1246040880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until someone we talk about it, everyone's rights have been violated, and not violated, at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until someone we talk about it , everyone 's rights have been violated , and not violated , at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until someone we talk about it, everyone's rights have been violated, and not violated, at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28490097</id>
	<title>Obama Era</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1246022760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no longer the "Bush" era. It's the Obama era now and these are now "Obama Era" techniques as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no longer the " Bush " era .
It 's the Obama era now and these are now " Obama Era " techniques as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no longer the "Bush" era.
It's the Obama era now and these are now "Obama Era" techniques as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28513155</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>agbinfo</author>
	<datestamp>1246285320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not USians but I try to follow along.</p><p>I think many people realize that things weren't perfect before Bush. In general however, it seemed that liberty, before Bush, was taken seriously. Now, security is the big thing and is somehow more important than freedom. I guess different generations have different priorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not USians but I try to follow along.I think many people realize that things were n't perfect before Bush .
In general however , it seemed that liberty , before Bush , was taken seriously .
Now , security is the big thing and is somehow more important than freedom .
I guess different generations have different priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not USians but I try to follow along.I think many people realize that things weren't perfect before Bush.
In general however, it seemed that liberty, before Bush, was taken seriously.
Now, security is the big thing and is somehow more important than freedom.
I guess different generations have different priorities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485623</id>
	<title>Re:Power once given...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246042140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you say about power once granted is true, but  thing that is missing from this debate is that the executive branch has a duty to defend the constitutionality of laws in court.  If it doesn't, it gets a de facto retroactive veto on past legislation.  They get somebody to challenge a law they don't like in court, then roll over and play dead.</p><p>This doesn't mean that they are necessarily obliged to use powers they see as unconstitutional during an investigation, but once a dispute gets to court they've got to make a good faith effort to defend the law that Congress has passed, even if they don't like it.  There's nobody else to do this.  It's probably a flaw in our Constitution, but there you have it.</p><p>So we can't make many deductions about the administration's own position on this until a year or two has passed and we're wrangling over the administration's own policies.   The Doe v. Holder case, IIRC, is part of a series of legal challenges to the Patriot Act that have been going on fr several years.  I hope the Obama administration loses on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say about power once granted is true , but thing that is missing from this debate is that the executive branch has a duty to defend the constitutionality of laws in court .
If it does n't , it gets a de facto retroactive veto on past legislation .
They get somebody to challenge a law they do n't like in court , then roll over and play dead.This does n't mean that they are necessarily obliged to use powers they see as unconstitutional during an investigation , but once a dispute gets to court they 've got to make a good faith effort to defend the law that Congress has passed , even if they do n't like it .
There 's nobody else to do this .
It 's probably a flaw in our Constitution , but there you have it.So we ca n't make many deductions about the administration 's own position on this until a year or two has passed and we 're wrangling over the administration 's own policies .
The Doe v. Holder case , IIRC , is part of a series of legal challenges to the Patriot Act that have been going on fr several years .
I hope the Obama administration loses on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say about power once granted is true, but  thing that is missing from this debate is that the executive branch has a duty to defend the constitutionality of laws in court.
If it doesn't, it gets a de facto retroactive veto on past legislation.
They get somebody to challenge a law they don't like in court, then roll over and play dead.This doesn't mean that they are necessarily obliged to use powers they see as unconstitutional during an investigation, but once a dispute gets to court they've got to make a good faith effort to defend the law that Congress has passed, even if they don't like it.
There's nobody else to do this.
It's probably a flaw in our Constitution, but there you have it.So we can't make many deductions about the administration's own position on this until a year or two has passed and we're wrangling over the administration's own policies.
The Doe v. Holder case, IIRC, is part of a series of legal challenges to the Patriot Act that have been going on fr several years.
I hope the Obama administration loses on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1246043040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what's with this "Bush Era Secrecy"?  You ain't seen NOTHING yet, until you look at the Obama administration.</p><p>His reichmarchalls are hard at work at a plausible way to silence talk radio.  The first thing a dictator does upon gaining power is to quench dissent. Da!</p><p>He used that 747 for a joy ride, at around a 1/4 million dollars, supposedly to get a good photo of Air Force One, then forbids anyone to see the pictures. At any cost.</p><p>Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.</p><p>THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin. The only *real* choice in the last election, the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family. Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason.</p><p>Oh, no...Bush was never this restrictive, controlled the media, and Bush (being a dork that he was) was at least able to create jobs.  The same cannot be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER. And he wants it NOW. (See Cap-and-Trade legislation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's with this " Bush Era Secrecy " ?
You ai n't seen NOTHING yet , until you look at the Obama administration.His reichmarchalls are hard at work at a plausible way to silence talk radio .
The first thing a dictator does upon gaining power is to quench dissent .
Da ! He used that 747 for a joy ride , at around a 1/4 million dollars , supposedly to get a good photo of Air Force One , then forbids anyone to see the pictures .
At any cost.Ask " Joe the Plumber " who asked , are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions ?
" ( Paraphrasing ) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him , ratting him out to the local union house so he ca n't get a job there , and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin .
The only * real * choice in the last election , the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she 's a stupid dork with a white trash family .
Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason.Oh , no...Bush was never this restrictive , controlled the media , and Bush ( being a dork that he was ) was at least able to create jobs .
The same can not be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER .
And he wants it NOW .
( See Cap-and-Trade legislation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's with this "Bush Era Secrecy"?
You ain't seen NOTHING yet, until you look at the Obama administration.His reichmarchalls are hard at work at a plausible way to silence talk radio.
The first thing a dictator does upon gaining power is to quench dissent.
Da!He used that 747 for a joy ride, at around a 1/4 million dollars, supposedly to get a good photo of Air Force One, then forbids anyone to see the pictures.
At any cost.Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?
" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT Palin.
The only *real* choice in the last election, the Left is so afraid of her freedom-loving ways they want you to think she's a stupid dork with a white trash family.
Most of the slashdotters here believe it for that reason.Oh, no...Bush was never this restrictive, controlled the media, and Bush (being a dork that he was) was at least able to create jobs.
The same cannot be said for THIS particular dork.But this dork wants POWER.
And he wants it NOW.
(See Cap-and-Trade legislation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488313</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Skjellifetti</author>
	<datestamp>1246010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't blame the media for ratting out Joe the Plumber. The media just gave him the rope he used to hang himself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame the media for ratting out Joe the Plumber .
The media just gave him the rope he used to hang himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't blame the media for ratting out Joe the Plumber.
The media just gave him the rope he used to hang himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484633</id>
	<title>Damn</title>
	<author>Andr T.</author>
	<datestamp>1246038360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43014" title="theonion.com">They will never learn!</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will never learn !
[ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will never learn!
[theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485781</id>
	<title>Re:If I might quote the lord...</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1246042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truth, Justice.  Or the American way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth , Justice .
Or the American way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth, Justice.
Or the American way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486159</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSHHHH...</p><p>Many people here didn't even know about government pre-Bush. Don't shatter their realities. Everything started with Bush and was an idealistic paradise before that.</p><p>Now repeat after me, I will not discuss American history on Slashdot again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSHHHH...Many people here did n't even know about government pre-Bush .
Do n't shatter their realities .
Everything started with Bush and was an idealistic paradise before that.Now repeat after me , I will not discuss American history on Slashdot again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSHHHH...Many people here didn't even know about government pre-Bush.
Don't shatter their realities.
Everything started with Bush and was an idealistic paradise before that.Now repeat after me, I will not discuss American history on Slashdot again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484803</id>
	<title>Re:Bush-era?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1246038900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSL at the heart of this case was issued while Bush was in office. The Patriot Act (with the NSL provisions) was signed into law by Bush. I don't think it is unfair to mention Bush in this context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSL at the heart of this case was issued while Bush was in office .
The Patriot Act ( with the NSL provisions ) was signed into law by Bush .
I do n't think it is unfair to mention Bush in this context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSL at the heart of this case was issued while Bush was in office.
The Patriot Act (with the NSL provisions) was signed into law by Bush.
I don't think it is unfair to mention Bush in this context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485321</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1246040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no!  Not the dreaded double secret probation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Not the dreaded double secret probation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Not the dreaded double secret probation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486639</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1246046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you must be very, very young if you think the transgressions and abuses you describe started in turn of the 21st century.  You could at least go back to World War I if you're too lazy to look at events in the 19th century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you must be very , very young if you think the transgressions and abuses you describe started in turn of the 21st century .
You could at least go back to World War I if you 're too lazy to look at events in the 19th century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you must be very, very young if you think the transgressions and abuses you describe started in turn of the 21st century.
You could at least go back to World War I if you're too lazy to look at events in the 19th century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486053</id>
	<title>Never forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246043880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FBI agents called before Congress took the fifth.</p><p>Lon Horiuchi, who shot Vicky Weaver through the head as she held her baby, is still working for the FBI.  Nobody at the FBI was ever charged with any crime; there was never any investigation of Waco, either.</p><p>And that all happened on the Hypocrat's watch.  Janet Reno said "we're doing this for the children" - the day before the FBI massacred all of them.</p><p>Gestapo and KGB is exactly right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FBI agents called before Congress took the fifth.Lon Horiuchi , who shot Vicky Weaver through the head as she held her baby , is still working for the FBI .
Nobody at the FBI was ever charged with any crime ; there was never any investigation of Waco , either.And that all happened on the Hypocrat 's watch .
Janet Reno said " we 're doing this for the children " - the day before the FBI massacred all of them.Gestapo and KGB is exactly right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FBI agents called before Congress took the fifth.Lon Horiuchi, who shot Vicky Weaver through the head as she held her baby, is still working for the FBI.
Nobody at the FBI was ever charged with any crime; there was never any investigation of Waco, either.And that all happened on the Hypocrat's watch.
Janet Reno said "we're doing this for the children" - the day before the FBI massacred all of them.Gestapo and KGB is exactly right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503629</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246202700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, if the "justification" is secret, it's not really a justification, is it?<br>A justification always is from one person to another one (in this case us, but can also be the same person, if that person needs it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , if the " justification " is secret , it 's not really a justification , is it ? A justification always is from one person to another one ( in this case us , but can also be the same person , if that person needs it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, if the "justification" is secret, it's not really a justification, is it?A justification always is from one person to another one (in this case us, but can also be the same person, if that person needs it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486525</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1246046280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.</p></div><p>He is some kind of hick, that was his whole shtick!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask " Joe the Plumber " who asked , are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions ?
" ( Paraphrasing ) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him , ratting him out to the local union house so he ca n't get a job there , and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.He is some kind of hick , that was his whole shtick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask "Joe the Plumber" who asked, are you trying to tax me out of my ambitions?
" (Paraphrasing) and the media scrambled to learn everything about him, ratting him out to the local union house so he can't get a job there, and starting a media wave to make him look like some kind of hick.He is some kind of hick, that was his whole shtick!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485425</id>
	<title>Re:SETEC Astronomy</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1246041240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit.</p></div><p>Cosmo Kramer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit.Cosmo Kramer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody get that guy that has a face like an old catchers mit.Cosmo Kramer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957</id>
	<title>The FBI?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246039440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country. They're pumping billions into "modernization" efforts, but they still file their cases largely in paper format, use fax machines instead of e-mail, and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.</p><p>They have every reason to be secretive--Not because they're malicious, but because they're just so damned bad at what they do it'd be embarrassing to the country to realize how much money we put towards largely futile efforts. In the 60s, the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who (or rather, what) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover's front porch. You might have heard of him--he had a real temper, hated communists, and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.</p><p>Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country .
They 're pumping billions into " modernization " efforts , but they still file their cases largely in paper format , use fax machines instead of e-mail , and " IT " is what they say happens in the men 's room after 5pm.They have every reason to be secretive--Not because they 're malicious , but because they 're just so damned bad at what they do it 'd be embarrassing to the country to realize how much money we put towards largely futile efforts .
In the 60s , the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who ( or rather , what ) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover 's front porch .
You might have heard of him--he had a real temper , hated communists , and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI is institutionally one of the least efficient and bureaucratic law enforcement agencies in the country.
They're pumping billions into "modernization" efforts, but they still file their cases largely in paper format, use fax machines instead of e-mail, and "IT" is what they say happens in the men's room after 5pm.They have every reason to be secretive--Not because they're malicious, but because they're just so damned bad at what they do it'd be embarrassing to the country to realize how much money we put towards largely futile efforts.
In the 60s, the FBI was busy snapping pictures of protesters... and at the same time devoting forensic resources to finding out who (or rather, what) crapped on J. Edgar Hoover's front porch.
You might have heard of him--he had a real temper, hated communists, and had a garter belt and fishnet fetish.Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488335</id>
	<title>EDITED: majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1246010760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original comment posted by this user has been removed -
<br>Please note we are only trying to protect you.
<br>
Agent Green<br>
NSA service Specialist</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original comment posted by this user has been removed - Please note we are only trying to protect you .
Agent Green NSA service Specialist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original comment posted by this user has been removed -
Please note we are only trying to protect you.
Agent Green
NSA service Specialist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28502989</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*As to hating communists - God bless the man.*</p><p>Zus and Tuvia Bielskis were commanders of units Ordzhonikidze and Kalinin.</p><p>If Zus and Tuvia were communists, would you change your statement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* As to hating communists - God bless the man .
* Zus and Tuvia Bielskis were commanders of units Ordzhonikidze and Kalinin.If Zus and Tuvia were communists , would you change your statement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*As to hating communists - God bless the man.
*Zus and Tuvia Bielskis were commanders of units Ordzhonikidze and Kalinin.If Zus and Tuvia were communists, would you change your statement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484875</id>
	<title>blorf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246039140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a secret message if it is not for you then you must not read it:</p><p>I repeat, DO NOT READ THIS unlisss this message is for secret operative "A" and you are said secret operative:</p><p>"BLORF"</p><p>{end of secret super-super-secret message}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a secret message if it is not for you then you must not read it : I repeat , DO NOT READ THIS unlisss this message is for secret operative " A " and you are said secret operative : " BLORF " { end of secret super-super-secret message }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a secret message if it is not for you then you must not read it:I repeat, DO NOT READ THIS unlisss this message is for secret operative "A" and you are said secret operative:"BLORF"{end of secret super-super-secret message}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485529</id>
	<title>Re:What's with</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1246041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A floodgate of hyperbole held by a Hoover Dam of secrecy.  It predates Bush by a few generations folks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A floodgate of hyperbole held by a Hoover Dam of secrecy .
It predates Bush by a few generations folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A floodgate of hyperbole held by a Hoover Dam of secrecy.
It predates Bush by a few generations folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488713</id>
	<title>Re:I can help</title>
	<author>TommydCat</author>
	<datestamp>1246012860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just remember, Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.</p></div><p>Mushroom!  Mushroom!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember , Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.Mushroom !
Mushroom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember, Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.Mushroom!
Mushroom!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485733</id>
	<title>Re:SETEC Astronomy</title>
	<author>thebheffect</author>
	<datestamp>1246042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And a five minute appearance by James Earl Jones (and his voice).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And a five minute appearance by James Earl Jones ( and his voice ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a five minute appearance by James Earl Jones (and his voice).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28513155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28502989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28490567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28491179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_155208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28502989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28488713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28503645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28491179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28489797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28513155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28490567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28486963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28487299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_155208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28484755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_155208.28485781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
