<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_2017201</id>
	<title>Text Comments Out In YouTube "National Discussion" of Health Care</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246178040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"While the White House has invited the nation to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-National-Discussion-on-Health-Care-Reform/">Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform</a>, it is currently only accepting <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY7HccFXjZU">20-30 second YouTube video responses</a> &mdash; text comments <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBEpIT2kiK4">have been disabled</a>. Which raises a question: Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest? BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming &mdash; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/video\_response\_view\_all?v=sY7HccFXjZU">101 video responses and counting</a> &mdash; and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolGSEEyU0w">one-finger salute</a>, a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWfu5wou5aE">talking butt</a>, a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvtYPqZED3k">woman "Showing my Apples"</a>, and other <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2MIdzTmrc">off-topic rants</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0iU9Knr-KM">unrelated videos</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform , it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses    text comments have been disabled .
Which raises a question : Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion , especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest ?
BTW , the response-to-date has been underwhelming    101 video responses and counting    and is certainly a mixed-bag , including a one-finger salute , a talking butt , a woman " Showing my Apples " , and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform, it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses — text comments have been disabled.
Which raises a question: Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming — 101 video responses and counting — and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507</id>
	<title>"What can you do for ME?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you actually watch many of those videos, it is easy to see that the vast majority of them are people asking, "How can this benefit <b>me</b>?? (Or my sister, or my uncle, or...)"
<br> <br>
Very few have been asking the hard questions, like "What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?"
<br> <br>
For someone who is supposed to be a "Constitutional scholar", Obama does not seem to have much understanding of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually watch many of those videos , it is easy to see that the vast majority of them are people asking , " How can this benefit me ? ?
( Or my sister , or my uncle , or... ) " Very few have been asking the hard questions , like " What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this ?
" For someone who is supposed to be a " Constitutional scholar " , Obama does not seem to have much understanding of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually watch many of those videos, it is easy to see that the vast majority of them are people asking, "How can this benefit me??
(Or my sister, or my uncle, or...)"
 
Very few have been asking the hard questions, like "What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?
"
 
For someone who is supposed to be a "Constitutional scholar", Obama does not seem to have much understanding of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507651</id>
	<title>Yes but...</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1246189140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming &#226;" 101 video responses and counting &#226;" and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rants</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes but at least the Republican senators were willing to voice their opinions in the most eloquent manner they could.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , the response-to-date has been underwhelming   " 101 video responses and counting   " and is certainly a mixed-bag , including a one-finger salute , a talking butt , a woman " Showing my Apples " , and other off-topic rantsYes but at least the Republican senators were willing to voice their opinions in the most eloquent manner they could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming â" 101 video responses and counting â" and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rantsYes but at least the Republican senators were willing to voice their opinions in the most eloquent manner they could.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28524275</id>
	<title>Re:"What can you do for ME?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Very few have been asking the hard questions, like "What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?" </i></p><p>As I was taking my morning constitutional, I pondered over the relative intelligence between the poster and the moderators. I concluded that, just as Barack Obama has the right to ask Congress to introduce legislation that he influenced or authored, the poster and moderators have the right to blindly bang on their keyboards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very few have been asking the hard questions , like " What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this ?
" As I was taking my morning constitutional , I pondered over the relative intelligence between the poster and the moderators .
I concluded that , just as Barack Obama has the right to ask Congress to introduce legislation that he influenced or authored , the poster and moderators have the right to blindly bang on their keyboards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very few have been asking the hard questions, like "What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?
" As I was taking my morning constitutional, I pondered over the relative intelligence between the poster and the moderators.
I concluded that, just as Barack Obama has the right to ask Congress to introduce legislation that he influenced or authored, the poster and moderators have the right to blindly bang on their keyboards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514547</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That polling has <b>lots</b> of interesting facts.</p><p>
Like the fact that, um, your numbers are actually wrong. 92\% of black Democrats voted for Obama, and 7\% for Hillary. I don't know in what system of math you can round that to 95\%.</p><p>
Secondly, Republicans and conservatives voted for Hillary by a huge 30+ majority, and independents near equal. Actual Democrats voted for Obama by 60\%. (What the hell Republicans were doing voting in the Democratic primary I do not know.)</p><p>
Once you actually remove Republican screwing around in the Democratic primary, Obama came out much farther ahead, and would have won that state even if the </p><p>
Thirdly, all you've actually demonstrated that white people in North Carolina like Hillary more than black people do, which does not actually prove anything. An <b>equally</b> likely explanation is that Democrats in NC did not like Obama.</p><p>
In fact, even if your assertions is true with regard to North Carolina, that does not mean he <b>won</b> the election due to that. It just means he won North Carolina because of that.</p><p>
Go and look at, oh, New York. Hey, look at that. Both races voted for their person matching theirs by about 65\%.</p><p>
Or let's look at California. A bit more interesting, in that 78\% black voted for Obama, vs. a split for Clinton...but approx 70\% of Latinos and Asians voted for Clinton. Oh, and 60\% of women voted for her, vs. an even split with men. I can look at California and make the assertions, just as supported as yours, that Clinton won that thanks to sexist women and racist Latinos and Asians.</p><p>
Except this is all stupid, as there <b>is</b> an actual reason that Obama's numbers were the way they were in North Carolina. Obama was seen as the more liberal candidate, and the left and the poor, especially the urban poor, voted for him by a massive 30+ bias. (Along with the young which isn't that relevant here.) And in North Carolina, 'urban poor' translates to 'black'. In places where it <b>doesn't</b> translate as such, he did not have such a massive black majority.</p><p>
To simplify: Poor urban voters voted for Obama in the primary. In North Carolina, poor urban voters are, in fact, black. Ergo, in North Carolina, black voters voted for Obama by a huge majority. In other places they did not.</p><p>
Meanwhile, in the general election, black voters have voted for Democrats by huge huge massive 95\% majorities in the last 4 elections, regardless of their skin color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That polling has lots of interesting facts .
Like the fact that , um , your numbers are actually wrong .
92 \ % of black Democrats voted for Obama , and 7 \ % for Hillary .
I do n't know in what system of math you can round that to 95 \ % .
Secondly , Republicans and conservatives voted for Hillary by a huge 30 + majority , and independents near equal .
Actual Democrats voted for Obama by 60 \ % .
( What the hell Republicans were doing voting in the Democratic primary I do not know .
) Once you actually remove Republican screwing around in the Democratic primary , Obama came out much farther ahead , and would have won that state even if the Thirdly , all you 've actually demonstrated that white people in North Carolina like Hillary more than black people do , which does not actually prove anything .
An equally likely explanation is that Democrats in NC did not like Obama .
In fact , even if your assertions is true with regard to North Carolina , that does not mean he won the election due to that .
It just means he won North Carolina because of that .
Go and look at , oh , New York .
Hey , look at that .
Both races voted for their person matching theirs by about 65 \ % .
Or let 's look at California .
A bit more interesting , in that 78 \ % black voted for Obama , vs. a split for Clinton...but approx 70 \ % of Latinos and Asians voted for Clinton .
Oh , and 60 \ % of women voted for her , vs. an even split with men .
I can look at California and make the assertions , just as supported as yours , that Clinton won that thanks to sexist women and racist Latinos and Asians .
Except this is all stupid , as there is an actual reason that Obama 's numbers were the way they were in North Carolina .
Obama was seen as the more liberal candidate , and the left and the poor , especially the urban poor , voted for him by a massive 30 + bias .
( Along with the young which is n't that relevant here .
) And in North Carolina , 'urban poor ' translates to 'black' .
In places where it does n't translate as such , he did not have such a massive black majority .
To simplify : Poor urban voters voted for Obama in the primary .
In North Carolina , poor urban voters are , in fact , black .
Ergo , in North Carolina , black voters voted for Obama by a huge majority .
In other places they did not .
Meanwhile , in the general election , black voters have voted for Democrats by huge huge massive 95 \ % majorities in the last 4 elections , regardless of their skin color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That polling has lots of interesting facts.
Like the fact that, um, your numbers are actually wrong.
92\% of black Democrats voted for Obama, and 7\% for Hillary.
I don't know in what system of math you can round that to 95\%.
Secondly, Republicans and conservatives voted for Hillary by a huge 30+ majority, and independents near equal.
Actual Democrats voted for Obama by 60\%.
(What the hell Republicans were doing voting in the Democratic primary I do not know.
)
Once you actually remove Republican screwing around in the Democratic primary, Obama came out much farther ahead, and would have won that state even if the 
Thirdly, all you've actually demonstrated that white people in North Carolina like Hillary more than black people do, which does not actually prove anything.
An equally likely explanation is that Democrats in NC did not like Obama.
In fact, even if your assertions is true with regard to North Carolina, that does not mean he won the election due to that.
It just means he won North Carolina because of that.
Go and look at, oh, New York.
Hey, look at that.
Both races voted for their person matching theirs by about 65\%.
Or let's look at California.
A bit more interesting, in that 78\% black voted for Obama, vs. a split for Clinton...but approx 70\% of Latinos and Asians voted for Clinton.
Oh, and 60\% of women voted for her, vs. an even split with men.
I can look at California and make the assertions, just as supported as yours, that Clinton won that thanks to sexist women and racist Latinos and Asians.
Except this is all stupid, as there is an actual reason that Obama's numbers were the way they were in North Carolina.
Obama was seen as the more liberal candidate, and the left and the poor, especially the urban poor, voted for him by a massive 30+ bias.
(Along with the young which isn't that relevant here.
) And in North Carolina, 'urban poor' translates to 'black'.
In places where it doesn't translate as such, he did not have such a massive black majority.
To simplify: Poor urban voters voted for Obama in the primary.
In North Carolina, poor urban voters are, in fact, black.
Ergo, in North Carolina, black voters voted for Obama by a huge majority.
In other places they did not.
Meanwhile, in the general election, black voters have voted for Democrats by huge huge massive 95\% majorities in the last 4 elections, regardless of their skin color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510289</id>
	<title>Support Universal Single Payer Health Care!!!</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246214520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's plan is bullshit and the Democrats have no real motive to pass real health care reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's plan is bullshit and the Democrats have no real motive to pass real health care reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's plan is bullshit and the Democrats have no real motive to pass real health care reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28517843</id>
	<title>Tooooo True.  Obama's Handler is VERY slick!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246305960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what Obama's handler's name is but they should definitely call him Skippy, 'cause he's so smooooooth!</p><p>Amazing how people fall all over themselves when exposed to such eloquent excrement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what Obama 's handler 's name is but they should definitely call him Skippy , 'cause he 's so smooooooth ! Amazing how people fall all over themselves when exposed to such eloquent excrement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what Obama's handler's name is but they should definitely call him Skippy, 'cause he's so smooooooth!Amazing how people fall all over themselves when exposed to such eloquent excrement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925</id>
	<title>Opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246183140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.

<br> <br>However, it seems to me that "public participation" is dishonest. It is apparently a way of getting attention. It apparently never results in the public actually having any actual power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama administration is far , far better than any Bush administration .
However , it seems to me that " public participation " is dishonest .
It is apparently a way of getting attention .
It apparently never results in the public actually having any actual power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.
However, it seems to me that "public participation" is dishonest.
It is apparently a way of getting attention.
It apparently never results in the public actually having any actual power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507539</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1246188120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to 100\% moderated filtering of questions (for further dissemination as coming "from the people")?  Questions which are collected from a heavily a polarized population (of youtube viewers) which lacks no lackeys?  That makes him a MORE effective propagandist -- not some man of the people that you are trying to convince us that he is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to 100 \ % moderated filtering of questions ( for further dissemination as coming " from the people " ) ?
Questions which are collected from a heavily a polarized population ( of youtube viewers ) which lacks no lackeys ?
That makes him a MORE effective propagandist -- not some man of the people that you are trying to convince us that he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to 100\% moderated filtering of questions (for further dissemination as coming "from the people")?
Questions which are collected from a heavily a polarized population (of youtube viewers) which lacks no lackeys?
That makes him a MORE effective propagandist -- not some man of the people that you are trying to convince us that he is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28515337</id>
	<title>Underwhelming Response</title>
	<author>tomsomething</author>
	<datestamp>1246296360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I checked out some of the video responses. The OP's description of the collection as "a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman 'Showing my Apples', and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos" neglects to acknowledge that there ARE legitimate responses. That description also seems to suggest that the Obama administration is to blame for losers and sociopaths on YouTube (I always wondered who let them in!). If they were allowing text-based comments, they would probably be expected to read every last one of them. I'm guessing there would be a lot of them, and I wouldn't expect the quality of the responses to take a sudden leap when they only require half a second of forethought. It seems at some point that this turned into a discussion of dishonesty in the Obama administration. I don't see how that applies here. They're not exactly "pulling a fast one on us" by disabling comments. Most people would catch on when they try to reply and the form isn't there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked out some of the video responses .
The OP 's description of the collection as " a mixed-bag , including a one-finger salute , a talking butt , a woman 'Showing my Apples ' , and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos " neglects to acknowledge that there ARE legitimate responses .
That description also seems to suggest that the Obama administration is to blame for losers and sociopaths on YouTube ( I always wondered who let them in ! ) .
If they were allowing text-based comments , they would probably be expected to read every last one of them .
I 'm guessing there would be a lot of them , and I would n't expect the quality of the responses to take a sudden leap when they only require half a second of forethought .
It seems at some point that this turned into a discussion of dishonesty in the Obama administration .
I do n't see how that applies here .
They 're not exactly " pulling a fast one on us " by disabling comments .
Most people would catch on when they try to reply and the form is n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked out some of the video responses.
The OP's description of the collection as "a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman 'Showing my Apples', and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos" neglects to acknowledge that there ARE legitimate responses.
That description also seems to suggest that the Obama administration is to blame for losers and sociopaths on YouTube (I always wondered who let them in!).
If they were allowing text-based comments, they would probably be expected to read every last one of them.
I'm guessing there would be a lot of them, and I wouldn't expect the quality of the responses to take a sudden leap when they only require half a second of forethought.
It seems at some point that this turned into a discussion of dishonesty in the Obama administration.
I don't see how that applies here.
They're not exactly "pulling a fast one on us" by disabling comments.
Most people would catch on when they try to reply and the form isn't there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506915</id>
	<title>YouTube racists would take it over like other vids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246183140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good idea.  Otherwise half the comments would be idiots callling Obama a ni**er.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good idea .
Otherwise half the comments would be idiots callling Obama a ni * * er .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good idea.
Otherwise half the comments would be idiots callling Obama a ni**er.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509287</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246205460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're only moderating the discussion in the channels they specifically provide for that purpose. Given that you still have freedom of speech and press, no-one stops you from writing an article for a newspaper, printing out pamphlets, posting on Slashdot, or using any of the other several hundred ways of getting your point heard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're only moderating the discussion in the channels they specifically provide for that purpose .
Given that you still have freedom of speech and press , no-one stops you from writing an article for a newspaper , printing out pamphlets , posting on Slashdot , or using any of the other several hundred ways of getting your point heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're only moderating the discussion in the channels they specifically provide for that purpose.
Given that you still have freedom of speech and press, no-one stops you from writing an article for a newspaper, printing out pamphlets, posting on Slashdot, or using any of the other several hundred ways of getting your point heard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507115</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we can see from the one finger salute that it's not entirely moderated...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we can see from the one finger salute that it 's not entirely moderated.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we can see from the one finger salute that it's not entirely moderated...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508533</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1246197300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notion of a "town hall" at the Federal level is bunk. The comments or pithy videos selected will likely be produced or pushed by interested parties anyway, so the notion that poor people are being disenfranchised is irrelevant, since all citizens lack franchise in the propaganda state.</p><p>The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York. The "leadership" provides plums in the form of committee assignments, jobs for relatives and cash in exchange for voting as ordered. If you don't follow the leader, you lose the privileges.</p><p>This obviously isn't a phenomenon unique to democrats, but it is especially effective since 2/3 branches of government and soon all three will be controlled by the same people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion of a " town hall " at the Federal level is bunk .
The comments or pithy videos selected will likely be produced or pushed by interested parties anyway , so the notion that poor people are being disenfranchised is irrelevant , since all citizens lack franchise in the propaganda state.The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York .
The " leadership " provides plums in the form of committee assignments , jobs for relatives and cash in exchange for voting as ordered .
If you do n't follow the leader , you lose the privileges.This obviously is n't a phenomenon unique to democrats , but it is especially effective since 2/3 branches of government and soon all three will be controlled by the same people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion of a "town hall" at the Federal level is bunk.
The comments or pithy videos selected will likely be produced or pushed by interested parties anyway, so the notion that poor people are being disenfranchised is irrelevant, since all citizens lack franchise in the propaganda state.The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York.
The "leadership" provides plums in the form of committee assignments, jobs for relatives and cash in exchange for voting as ordered.
If you don't follow the leader, you lose the privileges.This obviously isn't a phenomenon unique to democrats, but it is especially effective since 2/3 branches of government and soon all three will be controlled by the same people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506869</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>EricJ2190</author>
	<datestamp>1246182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And nothing of value was lost...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And nothing of value was lost.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And nothing of value was lost...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507197</id>
	<title>30 Second Responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246185720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dad is a lawyer, as are many politicians. He said the most important thing involved in winning a case (or arguement) is setting the context of that arguement. <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Basically with the video responses they are trying to get around the problem that both might be absolutely right. When both sides are absolutely right it is the correct time for rhetoric, emotioned arguement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dad is a lawyer , as are many politicians .
He said the most important thing involved in winning a case ( or arguement ) is setting the context of that arguement .
    Basically with the video responses they are trying to get around the problem that both might be absolutely right .
When both sides are absolutely right it is the correct time for rhetoric , emotioned arguement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dad is a lawyer, as are many politicians.
He said the most important thing involved in winning a case (or arguement) is setting the context of that arguement.
  
  Basically with the video responses they are trying to get around the problem that both might be absolutely right.
When both sides are absolutely right it is the correct time for rhetoric, emotioned arguement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28513669</id>
	<title>Re:Super'bama!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he is the one who set all his own goals for x (that's a variable, not a roman numeral) number of days after taking office.</p><p>He obviously doesn't have a clue about how long things really take, so he is just like any other executive/ceo.  Hell, with his tax increases he's basically giving everyone a paycut.<br>Damn, I guess government is being run like a business after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he is the one who set all his own goals for x ( that 's a variable , not a roman numeral ) number of days after taking office.He obviously does n't have a clue about how long things really take , so he is just like any other executive/ceo .
Hell , with his tax increases he 's basically giving everyone a paycut.Damn , I guess government is being run like a business after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he is the one who set all his own goals for x (that's a variable, not a roman numeral) number of days after taking office.He obviously doesn't have a clue about how long things really take, so he is just like any other executive/ceo.
Hell, with his tax increases he's basically giving everyone a paycut.Damn, I guess government is being run like a business after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510439</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1246216140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing as how the White House seems to have never cared about the people's opinion or has listened to it in such a direct manner, I think it's a welcome change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as how the White House seems to have never cared about the people 's opinion or has listened to it in such a direct manner , I think it 's a welcome change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as how the White House seems to have never cared about the people's opinion or has listened to it in such a direct manner, I think it's a welcome change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514943</id>
	<title>Re:Support Universal Single Payer Health Care!!!</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1246294620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, HR 676, calling for just such a thing, is dying a slow death in committee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , HR 676 , calling for just such a thing , is dying a slow death in committee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, HR 676, calling for just such a thing, is dying a slow death in committee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507079</id>
	<title>*sigh*</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1246184400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot's "ask slashdot" system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale (not sarcastic)? So far the government's attempt at getting "public input" has been ignorant of the better options... have you seen their open government website (http://mixedink.com/OpenGov/)? You can't even post more than a page for a draft on what you think should be done about something. There's a huge god damn difference between "I think you should do X" and "I think you should do X and this is how because I know I can't trust you to do it right".<br> <br>

And christ, a good portion of the responses on the open government website are off topic or unreadable/rambling. Almost 100\% of it is rhetoric, or calls for expanding upon current ineffective government resources via the means of existing ineffective government resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot 's " ask slashdot " system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale ( not sarcastic ) ?
So far the government 's attempt at getting " public input " has been ignorant of the better options... have you seen their open government website ( http : //mixedink.com/OpenGov/ ) ?
You ca n't even post more than a page for a draft on what you think should be done about something .
There 's a huge god damn difference between " I think you should do X " and " I think you should do X and this is how because I know I ca n't trust you to do it right " .
And christ , a good portion of the responses on the open government website are off topic or unreadable/rambling .
Almost 100 \ % of it is rhetoric , or calls for expanding upon current ineffective government resources via the means of existing ineffective government resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot's "ask slashdot" system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale (not sarcastic)?
So far the government's attempt at getting "public input" has been ignorant of the better options... have you seen their open government website (http://mixedink.com/OpenGov/)?
You can't even post more than a page for a draft on what you think should be done about something.
There's a huge god damn difference between "I think you should do X" and "I think you should do X and this is how because I know I can't trust you to do it right".
And christ, a good portion of the responses on the open government website are off topic or unreadable/rambling.
Almost 100\% of it is rhetoric, or calls for expanding upon current ineffective government resources via the means of existing ineffective government resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514745</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1246293660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wish I had mod points for this one.  +1!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish I had mod points for this one .
+ 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish I had mod points for this one.
+1!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507891</id>
	<title>All of these policies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246191420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these policies have one net effect, accelerating the pace of moving american jobs off shore. Adding additional taxes as well as<br>government imposed energy price increases destroys our ability to compete in the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these policies have one net effect , accelerating the pace of moving american jobs off shore .
Adding additional taxes as well asgovernment imposed energy price increases destroys our ability to compete in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these policies have one net effect, accelerating the pace of moving american jobs off shore.
Adding additional taxes as well asgovernment imposed energy price increases destroys our ability to compete in the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506773</id>
	<title>What A Pointless Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246182000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So fucking what if text comments are disabled in this stunt?  It's not as if people don't have plenty of other avenues to express themselves, such as writing and/or calling their elected representatives, or even you know vote for them.</p><p>This is a nice excuse to get this onto slashdot, but this just isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So fucking what if text comments are disabled in this stunt ?
It 's not as if people do n't have plenty of other avenues to express themselves , such as writing and/or calling their elected representatives , or even you know vote for them.This is a nice excuse to get this onto slashdot , but this just is n't news for nerds or stuff that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So fucking what if text comments are disabled in this stunt?
It's not as if people don't have plenty of other avenues to express themselves, such as writing and/or calling their elected representatives, or even you know vote for them.This is a nice excuse to get this onto slashdot, but this just isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507799</id>
	<title>Can't afford $10-20?</title>
	<author>moz25</author>
	<datestamp>1246190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In response to your concern over responses from people with lower incomes: I think this is rather unfounded given that webcams go for as little as $10-20. That is certainly minute compared to the cost of the computer and the internet connection itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to your concern over responses from people with lower incomes : I think this is rather unfounded given that webcams go for as little as $ 10-20 .
That is certainly minute compared to the cost of the computer and the internet connection itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to your concern over responses from people with lower incomes: I think this is rather unfounded given that webcams go for as little as $10-20.
That is certainly minute compared to the cost of the computer and the internet connection itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507909</id>
	<title>conspericay theories</title>
	<author>supervillain</author>
	<datestamp>1246191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this string of celebrity deaths is clearly a backhanded tactic by barrack obama to pass universal health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this string of celebrity deaths is clearly a backhanded tactic by barrack obama to pass universal health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this string of celebrity deaths is clearly a backhanded tactic by barrack obama to pass universal health care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506867</id>
	<title>It's a compromise. You honestly don't know this?</title>
	<author>writermike</author>
	<datestamp>1246182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Color me trolled.</p><p>Look, this is plainly a compromise that tries to cull wheat from chaff. Don't believe me? Go look at any major American newspaper website. Pick any random story and dive into the comments. Now, take note of the insults, the extremely partisan rhetoric (from all sides), the bad grammar, the incredible misunderstandings of the entire point, and, yeah, even hopes that one or the other subjects go die.</p><p>It's simply much easier for anyone to click reply and type out, "HURR DURRR UR A FAGGG." Sure, you can do the same with with a web camera -- and apparently some folks are doing so -- but I bet there are going to be much less to go through than if everyone could pop a comment under the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Color me trolled.Look , this is plainly a compromise that tries to cull wheat from chaff .
Do n't believe me ?
Go look at any major American newspaper website .
Pick any random story and dive into the comments .
Now , take note of the insults , the extremely partisan rhetoric ( from all sides ) , the bad grammar , the incredible misunderstandings of the entire point , and , yeah , even hopes that one or the other subjects go die.It 's simply much easier for anyone to click reply and type out , " HURR DURRR UR A FAGGG .
" Sure , you can do the same with with a web camera -- and apparently some folks are doing so -- but I bet there are going to be much less to go through than if everyone could pop a comment under the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Color me trolled.Look, this is plainly a compromise that tries to cull wheat from chaff.
Don't believe me?
Go look at any major American newspaper website.
Pick any random story and dive into the comments.
Now, take note of the insults, the extremely partisan rhetoric (from all sides), the bad grammar, the incredible misunderstandings of the entire point, and, yeah, even hopes that one or the other subjects go die.It's simply much easier for anyone to click reply and type out, "HURR DURRR UR A FAGGG.
" Sure, you can do the same with with a web camera -- and apparently some folks are doing so -- but I bet there are going to be much less to go through than if everyone could pop a comment under the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507249</id>
	<title>text responses aren't a good plan either</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1246186200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As text responses just invite flamewars and shouting matches.  One person on a decent connection could post several replies a minute in a text-based system and make their opinion seem more reflective of the population.  Granted, video responses aren't a great deal better; but by limiting it to that they can at least give everyone a (semi) equal opportunity to post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As text responses just invite flamewars and shouting matches .
One person on a decent connection could post several replies a minute in a text-based system and make their opinion seem more reflective of the population .
Granted , video responses are n't a great deal better ; but by limiting it to that they can at least give everyone a ( semi ) equal opportunity to post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As text responses just invite flamewars and shouting matches.
One person on a decent connection could post several replies a minute in a text-based system and make their opinion seem more reflective of the population.
Granted, video responses aren't a great deal better; but by limiting it to that they can at least give everyone a (semi) equal opportunity to post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507775</id>
	<title>Super'bama!</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1246190340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.</i>
<br> <br>
Or perhaps, he is just waiting for the right time to take up the topic. Just because he hasn't legalized weed in the first few months of his presidency does not mean he is ignoring the issue.  Don't you suppose that, while anti-drug laws are pointless and archaic, they are SLIGHLTLY less important making sure that the economy doesn't implode further, getting out of the Iraq war, winning the Afghanistan war, Dealing with North Korean nuclear proliferation issues, and drafting national healthcare reform? Perhaps? Maybe?
<br> <br>
I know a right wing nut who insists that Obama is a failure as a president because he hasn't SINGLE HANDEDLY FIXED THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLICATED ECONOMY in the world yet. Let's get some perspective here. There are only so many hours in the day, and only so much the president can do. Just because he hasn't willed weed laws away with sheer psychic might (remember the president can't draft laws, just stamp yes or no on it.) doesn't mean he is ignoring things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana .
Or perhaps , he is just waiting for the right time to take up the topic .
Just because he has n't legalized weed in the first few months of his presidency does not mean he is ignoring the issue .
Do n't you suppose that , while anti-drug laws are pointless and archaic , they are SLIGHLTLY less important making sure that the economy does n't implode further , getting out of the Iraq war , winning the Afghanistan war , Dealing with North Korean nuclear proliferation issues , and drafting national healthcare reform ?
Perhaps ? Maybe ?
I know a right wing nut who insists that Obama is a failure as a president because he has n't SINGLE HANDEDLY FIXED THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLICATED ECONOMY in the world yet .
Let 's get some perspective here .
There are only so many hours in the day , and only so much the president can do .
Just because he has n't willed weed laws away with sheer psychic might ( remember the president ca n't draft laws , just stamp yes or no on it .
) does n't mean he is ignoring things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.
Or perhaps, he is just waiting for the right time to take up the topic.
Just because he hasn't legalized weed in the first few months of his presidency does not mean he is ignoring the issue.
Don't you suppose that, while anti-drug laws are pointless and archaic, they are SLIGHLTLY less important making sure that the economy doesn't implode further, getting out of the Iraq war, winning the Afghanistan war, Dealing with North Korean nuclear proliferation issues, and drafting national healthcare reform?
Perhaps? Maybe?
I know a right wing nut who insists that Obama is a failure as a president because he hasn't SINGLE HANDEDLY FIXED THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLICATED ECONOMY in the world yet.
Let's get some perspective here.
There are only so many hours in the day, and only so much the president can do.
Just because he hasn't willed weed laws away with sheer psychic might (remember the president can't draft laws, just stamp yes or no on it.
) doesn't mean he is ignoring things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508161</id>
	<title>Elephant in the room</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1246194120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The elephant in the room is of-course this: in the time of the largest US economic meltdown, in the time when the government must do one thing - cut spending and shrink to cut costs and stop printing money, in this time how is this reform going to be paid for?  One most likely possibility is of-course the printing press.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The elephant in the room is of-course this : in the time of the largest US economic meltdown , in the time when the government must do one thing - cut spending and shrink to cut costs and stop printing money , in this time how is this reform going to be paid for ?
One most likely possibility is of-course the printing press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The elephant in the room is of-course this: in the time of the largest US economic meltdown, in the time when the government must do one thing - cut spending and shrink to cut costs and stop printing money, in this time how is this reform going to be paid for?
One most likely possibility is of-course the printing press.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</id>
	<title>Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246182000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.</p><p>I.e,. this might be a huge casting call in disguise.</p><p>I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion.  His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.  It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama 's plans.I.e, .
this might be a huge casting call in disguise.I 'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion .
His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana .
It appears that at least sometimes , he 's only pretending to take the general citizenry 's views into account , even when he 's saying otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.I.e,.
this might be a huge casting call in disguise.I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion.
His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.
It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507225</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1246186020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're hardly <em>the</em> moderator of such discussions. Dozens of other newspapers, TV channels, and websites are also moderating discussions on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're hardly the moderator of such discussions .
Dozens of other newspapers , TV channels , and websites are also moderating discussions on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're hardly the moderator of such discussions.
Dozens of other newspapers, TV channels, and websites are also moderating discussions on the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246188540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.</p></div><p>I agree.  They are much, much better liars.  Listening to Bush lie was boring.  It was obvious.  It insulted my intelligence.  While Obama's lies are grandiose.  They are eloquent.  They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment.  It's a pleasure.  We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama administration is far , far better than any Bush administration.I agree .
They are much , much better liars .
Listening to Bush lie was boring .
It was obvious .
It insulted my intelligence .
While Obama 's lies are grandiose .
They are eloquent .
They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment .
It 's a pleasure .
We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.I agree.
They are much, much better liars.
Listening to Bush lie was boring.
It was obvious.
It insulted my intelligence.
While Obama's lies are grandiose.
They are eloquent.
They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment.
It's a pleasure.
We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514851</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1246294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, a 72\% approval rating must mean he isn't mainstream enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , a 72 \ % approval rating must mean he is n't mainstream enough .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, a 72\% approval rating must mean he isn't mainstream enough ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507405</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246187220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.</p></div><p>If you want marijuana legalized, you should be happy about that. Obama will be up for reelection, so if he pushes for that now, it will be the basis for a billion dollar smear campaign designed to make the public panic and vote for the Republican. And that could set back the cause quite a bit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.If you want marijuana legalized , you should be happy about that .
Obama will be up for reelection , so if he pushes for that now , it will be the basis for a billion dollar smear campaign designed to make the public panic and vote for the Republican .
And that could set back the cause quite a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.If you want marijuana legalized, you should be happy about that.
Obama will be up for reelection, so if he pushes for that now, it will be the basis for a billion dollar smear campaign designed to make the public panic and vote for the Republican.
And that could set back the cause quite a bit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506895</id>
	<title>Don't you mean...</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1246182960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A video camera, computer, internet connection and YouTube account?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A video camera , computer , internet connection and YouTube account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A video camera, computer, internet connection and YouTube account?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if you cynically think that soliciting debate through youtube videos is a bad thing, then maybe you can suggest a better alternative? Has any other prime minister/president in any other country ever done something similar? Remember, it was only a year ago that Bush only held heavily moderated press conferences in which only selected journalists where allowed to ask any questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you cynically think that soliciting debate through youtube videos is a bad thing , then maybe you can suggest a better alternative ?
Has any other prime minister/president in any other country ever done something similar ?
Remember , it was only a year ago that Bush only held heavily moderated press conferences in which only selected journalists where allowed to ask any questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you cynically think that soliciting debate through youtube videos is a bad thing, then maybe you can suggest a better alternative?
Has any other prime minister/president in any other country ever done something similar?
Remember, it was only a year ago that Bush only held heavily moderated press conferences in which only selected journalists where allowed to ask any questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507005</id>
	<title>Remember, The National Discussion IS in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246183860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a <a href="http://www.nald.ca/info/whatnew/headline/2003/challen.htm" title="www.nald.ca" rel="nofollow">third world country</a> [www.nald.ca] called the United States.</p><p>Yours In Books,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a third world country [ www.nald.ca ] called the United States.Yours In Books,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a third world country [www.nald.ca] called the United States.Yours In Books,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508235</id>
	<title>Sham</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1246194840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pattern so far is to pass complex pieces of legislation along strictly partisan lines so quickly that Congress can't read it and the public can't react to it.  The last thing the administration wants is real public comment on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pattern so far is to pass complex pieces of legislation along strictly partisan lines so quickly that Congress ca n't read it and the public ca n't react to it .
The last thing the administration wants is real public comment on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pattern so far is to pass complex pieces of legislation along strictly partisan lines so quickly that Congress can't read it and the public can't react to it.
The last thing the administration wants is real public comment on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506871</id>
	<title>I used to have faith</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1246182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the democratic system, and people and general. But lately I've taken the stance that while some individuals may be smart, people as a whole are panicy and stupid. This whole "Open Government" thing, while honourable, is beginning to look like a futile attempt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the democratic system , and people and general .
But lately I 've taken the stance that while some individuals may be smart , people as a whole are panicy and stupid .
This whole " Open Government " thing , while honourable , is beginning to look like a futile attempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the democratic system, and people and general.
But lately I've taken the stance that while some individuals may be smart, people as a whole are panicy and stupid.
This whole "Open Government" thing, while honourable, is beginning to look like a futile attempt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28517729</id>
	<title>Considering the Police State we live in........</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246305360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't recommend sending in your 'true' opinion by video.</p><p>Search for "An open letter to Obama"</p><p>I don't know about you but I don't feel very comfortable with where our country is going.  Do you really consider yourself too stupid to make your own decisions?  Get the Federal Government OUT of your personal lives!  Get active and get our system fixed to the way it was designed, not this bastardized socialist garbage that's ruining us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't recommend sending in your 'true ' opinion by video.Search for " An open letter to Obama " I do n't know about you but I do n't feel very comfortable with where our country is going .
Do you really consider yourself too stupid to make your own decisions ?
Get the Federal Government OUT of your personal lives !
Get active and get our system fixed to the way it was designed , not this bastardized socialist garbage that 's ruining us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't recommend sending in your 'true' opinion by video.Search for "An open letter to Obama"I don't know about you but I don't feel very comfortable with where our country is going.
Do you really consider yourself too stupid to make your own decisions?
Get the Federal Government OUT of your personal lives!
Get active and get our system fixed to the way it was designed, not this bastardized socialist garbage that's ruining us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</id>
	<title>Moderator?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1246183020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform, it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses &#226;" text comments have been disabled.</p></div></blockquote><p>Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?</p><p>After all, the administration has a political agenda, and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate.  Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate.  At that point, it's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration doesn't want advanced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform , it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses   " text comments have been disabled.Am I the only person who 's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions ? After all , the administration has a political agenda , and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate .
Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate .
At that point , it 's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration does n't want advanced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform, it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses â" text comments have been disabled.Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?After all, the administration has a political agenda, and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate.
Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate.
At that point, it's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration doesn't want advanced.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508193</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>WAN Rover</author>
	<datestamp>1246194360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.</p></div><p>Are you serious?  Of course Obama didn't make weed legal even though it's quite popular in some circles.  Popular opinion doesn't dictate good governance!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.Are you serious ?
Of course Obama did n't make weed legal even though it 's quite popular in some circles .
Popular opinion does n't dictate good governance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.Are you serious?
Of course Obama didn't make weed legal even though it's quite popular in some circles.
Popular opinion doesn't dictate good governance!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507601</id>
	<title>YouTube</title>
	<author>tulmad</author>
	<datestamp>1246188720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, they put out a call on YouTube and they expected anything other than this as a response?  It's *YouTube*, wtf did they expect?  Have they never read the comments section on any random video on the site?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , they put out a call on YouTube and they expected anything other than this as a response ?
It 's * YouTube * , wtf did they expect ?
Have they never read the comments section on any random video on the site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, they put out a call on YouTube and they expected anything other than this as a response?
It's *YouTube*, wtf did they expect?
Have they never read the comments section on any random video on the site?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507423</id>
	<title>One Viewpoint</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1246187400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>Which raises a question: Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>A video camera for a computer is a lot cheaper than having to have a computer in the first place.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming -- 101 video responses and counting -- and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos."</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>No surprises there. I have seen some beleaguered web board admins replace their web boards with a blogroll community.  Instead of accepting comments, they would accept trackback URLS where people would respond on their own blogs.   Upping the cost in effort to respond greatly reduced the amount noise, but it also greatly reduced the overall number of responses.  The web is a medium of short attention spans.</p><p>There are better ways to poll people.  Youtube comments will only give you a cross section of youtube users.......not a group representative of most of America.  No reason to spend tax payer money in this economy to pay people to read peanut gallery quality comments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which raises a question : Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion , especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest ?
A video camera for a computer is a lot cheaper than having to have a computer in the first place .
BTW , the response-to-date has been underwhelming -- 101 video responses and counting -- and is certainly a mixed-bag , including a one-finger salute , a talking butt , a woman " Showing my Apples " , and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos .
" No surprises there .
I have seen some beleaguered web board admins replace their web boards with a blogroll community .
Instead of accepting comments , they would accept trackback URLS where people would respond on their own blogs .
Upping the cost in effort to respond greatly reduced the amount noise , but it also greatly reduced the overall number of responses .
The web is a medium of short attention spans.There are better ways to poll people .
Youtube comments will only give you a cross section of youtube users.......not a group representative of most of America .
No reason to spend tax payer money in this economy to pay people to read peanut gallery quality comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which raises a question: Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
A video camera for a computer is a lot cheaper than having to have a computer in the first place.
BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming -- 101 video responses and counting -- and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos.
" No surprises there.
I have seen some beleaguered web board admins replace their web boards with a blogroll community.
Instead of accepting comments, they would accept trackback URLS where people would respond on their own blogs.
Upping the cost in effort to respond greatly reduced the amount noise, but it also greatly reduced the overall number of responses.
The web is a medium of short attention spans.There are better ways to poll people.
Youtube comments will only give you a cross section of youtube users.......not a group representative of most of America.
No reason to spend tax payer money in this economy to pay people to read peanut gallery quality comments.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28511067</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry</title>
	<author>xenobyte</author>
	<datestamp>1246308540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, his Hawaiian birth certificate (the one he published himself during the election campaign) is an obvious fake so why not?</p><p>I don't know if he really was born in Hawaii or not, but if he was, why not just publish the real certificate?</p><p>Oh, and GM can easily revive the Pontiac brand at a later date when times are better. Reviving old brands has been done many times before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , his Hawaiian birth certificate ( the one he published himself during the election campaign ) is an obvious fake so why not ? I do n't know if he really was born in Hawaii or not , but if he was , why not just publish the real certificate ? Oh , and GM can easily revive the Pontiac brand at a later date when times are better .
Reviving old brands has been done many times before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, his Hawaiian birth certificate (the one he published himself during the election campaign) is an obvious fake so why not?I don't know if he really was born in Hawaii or not, but if he was, why not just publish the real certificate?Oh, and GM can easily revive the Pontiac brand at a later date when times are better.
Reviving old brands has been done many times before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507989</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246192260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would bother me if there were no other way to put videos on youtube......<br> <br>
The more any one group tries to abuse their power to control the means of communication (or abuse their power in any way, really), the faster people will start to see through it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would bother me if there were no other way to put videos on youtube..... . The more any one group tries to abuse their power to control the means of communication ( or abuse their power in any way , really ) , the faster people will start to see through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would bother me if there were no other way to put videos on youtube...... 
The more any one group tries to abuse their power to control the means of communication (or abuse their power in any way, really), the faster people will start to see through it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28512505</id>
	<title>A Comprehensive Health Care Reform Plan Is Needed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>June 29-2009:</p><p>Dear Senator/Congressperson,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Can I depend on you to ardently advocate for, and support the president's Proposed Health Care Plan as I do?</p><p>Listed hereunder, are some points that I have outlined, which (to my mind), needs special attention.</p><p>* Ensure that SINGLE PAYER representation are at the table during these discussions.</p><p>* Ensure that all doctors in general practice are paid relatively equal, regardless of whether he/she is attending to a patient with Medicaid or Medicare insurance.</p><p>* Ensure that all patients have the option to choose their own preferred Hospital/Primary Care Physician.</p><p>* Ensure that all patients have access to Dental Care (fillings, extractions, cleaning/oral hygiene, and capping loose or missing fillings).</p><p>* Ensure that all patients have access to pain management, massage therapy, drug and substance abuse counseling, medication adherence counseling, and blood tests (including HIV  Viral Load monitoring).</p><p>* Ensure access to maternity care, pre-natal care, post-natal care, pre-abortion counseling, and post abortion counseling.</p><p>* Ensure that all doctors accept all patients that are insured or not insured,  as a humanitarian gesture, and not simply an emergency consultation, with a prescription issued that the patient cannot afford to fill.</p><p>FINALLY:</p><p>Health Care is not something that has to be considered, or encouraged.</p><p>Health Care is something that ALL societies in this modern era MUST provide for EVERY citizen!</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Please Go To  congress.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>June 29-2009 : Dear Senator/Congressperson ,       Can I depend on you to ardently advocate for , and support the president 's Proposed Health Care Plan as I do ? Listed hereunder , are some points that I have outlined , which ( to my mind ) , needs special attention .
* Ensure that SINGLE PAYER representation are at the table during these discussions .
* Ensure that all doctors in general practice are paid relatively equal , regardless of whether he/she is attending to a patient with Medicaid or Medicare insurance .
* Ensure that all patients have the option to choose their own preferred Hospital/Primary Care Physician .
* Ensure that all patients have access to Dental Care ( fillings , extractions , cleaning/oral hygiene , and capping loose or missing fillings ) .
* Ensure that all patients have access to pain management , massage therapy , drug and substance abuse counseling , medication adherence counseling , and blood tests ( including HIV Viral Load monitoring ) .
* Ensure access to maternity care , pre-natal care , post-natal care , pre-abortion counseling , and post abortion counseling .
* Ensure that all doctors accept all patients that are insured or not insured , as a humanitarian gesture , and not simply an emergency consultation , with a prescription issued that the patient can not afford to fill.FINALLY : Health Care is not something that has to be considered , or encouraged.Health Care is something that ALL societies in this modern era MUST provide for EVERY citizen ! Sincerely,Please Go To congress.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>June 29-2009:Dear Senator/Congressperson,
      Can I depend on you to ardently advocate for, and support the president's Proposed Health Care Plan as I do?Listed hereunder, are some points that I have outlined, which (to my mind), needs special attention.
* Ensure that SINGLE PAYER representation are at the table during these discussions.
* Ensure that all doctors in general practice are paid relatively equal, regardless of whether he/she is attending to a patient with Medicaid or Medicare insurance.
* Ensure that all patients have the option to choose their own preferred Hospital/Primary Care Physician.
* Ensure that all patients have access to Dental Care (fillings, extractions, cleaning/oral hygiene, and capping loose or missing fillings).
* Ensure that all patients have access to pain management, massage therapy, drug and substance abuse counseling, medication adherence counseling, and blood tests (including HIV  Viral Load monitoring).
* Ensure access to maternity care, pre-natal care, post-natal care, pre-abortion counseling, and post abortion counseling.
* Ensure that all doctors accept all patients that are insured or not insured,  as a humanitarian gesture, and not simply an emergency consultation, with a prescription issued that the patient cannot afford to fill.FINALLY:Health Care is not something that has to be considered, or encouraged.Health Care is something that ALL societies in this modern era MUST provide for EVERY citizen!Sincerely,Please Go To  congress.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510301</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246214700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure. Austria's Emperor Franz Josef held public audiences where everyone could come before him and inform him about his peasant's problems, about a century ago. His usual response was "it was very nice, we were very pleased", then he went on with whatever he wanted to do in the first place.</p><p>Dunno if someone who started WW1 is a good role model, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Austria 's Emperor Franz Josef held public audiences where everyone could come before him and inform him about his peasant 's problems , about a century ago .
His usual response was " it was very nice , we were very pleased " , then he went on with whatever he wanted to do in the first place.Dunno if someone who started WW1 is a good role model , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Austria's Emperor Franz Josef held public audiences where everyone could come before him and inform him about his peasant's problems, about a century ago.
His usual response was "it was very nice, we were very pleased", then he went on with whatever he wanted to do in the first place.Dunno if someone who started WW1 is a good role model, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510359</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The republicans and democrats ARE the same people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) They have always controlled 2/3 branches of government<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Real reform needs to come from people who are willing to vote for a new party.</p><p>The democrats and republicans are a 2 headed monster that needs to be made extinct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The republicans and democrats ARE the same people : ) They have always controlled 2/3 branches of government : ) Real reform needs to come from people who are willing to vote for a new party.The democrats and republicans are a 2 headed monster that needs to be made extinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The republicans and democrats ARE the same people :) They have always controlled 2/3 branches of government :)Real reform needs to come from people who are willing to vote for a new party.The democrats and republicans are a 2 headed monster that needs to be made extinct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509291</id>
	<title>Re:Moderator?</title>
	<author>Manchot</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you can blame the White House for wanting to be the moderator of a discussion it enabled. Sure, if Congress was to set up an online discussion, it would be a lot more bipartisan, but they haven't. I'd bet that CmdrTaco reserves the right to delete anything he wants to on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ for any reason, and could even mod a post +10 Mega-Insightful if he wanted to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you can blame the White House for wanting to be the moderator of a discussion it enabled .
Sure , if Congress was to set up an online discussion , it would be a lot more bipartisan , but they have n't .
I 'd bet that CmdrTaco reserves the right to delete anything he wants to on ./ for any reason , and could even mod a post + 10 Mega-Insightful if he wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you can blame the White House for wanting to be the moderator of a discussion it enabled.
Sure, if Congress was to set up an online discussion, it would be a lot more bipartisan, but they haven't.
I'd bet that CmdrTaco reserves the right to delete anything he wants to on ./ for any reason, and could even mod a post +10 Mega-Insightful if he wanted to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507133</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds bytes</title>
	<author>Necreia</author>
	<datestamp>1246185060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.  It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.</p></div><p>President Obama did come out and speak to the Marijuana question, but he answer it in a non-serious manner.  See here: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4894639.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">Legalizing Pot Won't Grow Economy</a> [cbsnews.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana .
It appears that at least sometimes , he 's only pretending to take the general citizenry 's views into account , even when he 's saying otherwise.President Obama did come out and speak to the Marijuana question , but he answer it in a non-serious manner .
See here : Legalizing Pot Wo n't Grow Economy [ cbsnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.
It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.President Obama did come out and speak to the Marijuana question, but he answer it in a non-serious manner.
See here: Legalizing Pot Won't Grow Economy [cbsnews.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510361</id>
	<title>Re:"What can you do for ME?"</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1246215300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?"</p><p>Amen baby!!!  They might be able to get away with taxing us all to fund a public health care system since unfortunately the Federal income tax and payroll taxes for Medicare crept in to our system long ago though its open to debate if they are even constitutional.  There is absolutely no way the Federal government can find a constitutional basis to compel me to spend money out of my pocket to buy health insurance.</p><p>You might cite the case of no fault auto insurance but that is A) Done by the states and B) if I don't drive I don't have to pay it so I can opt out.  It can be required as an obligation for the privilege of driving on government built highways and I can accept that.</p><p>You might say that I have to pay for insurance so if I end up in an ER society doesn't have to pay.  That is not true for me.  I self insure and will pay my own way, and have, up to the point my own resources can't pay at which point I say no more medical care for me and I accept my fate.  I don't want anyone else to have to pay a million dollars to save my skinny ass.</p><p>There is a fair chance if this health insurance mandate happens there will be NO way to opt out other than to be completely broke, in which case everyone else gets to pay for you.  If you try they will probably do a Massachusetts and fine you so get to pay a fine and get no health insurance which is pretty much THEFT.</p><p>If they pass a mandate and the insurance lobby kills the public option, which is what I fully expect to happen, the insurance companies will be able to completely screw everyone because they will have a captive clientele.</p><p>The whole idea here is the government REALLY needs to force all the relatively healthy people in to the insurance system, especially YOUNG healthy people, to force them to pay for all the sick people.  I can almost accept paying for health care for people who need care due to accident or illness that is no fault of there own.  I absolutely can't accept forcing healthy people, and self insurers, who make good life style decisions, and are responsible, to pay for people who smoke, drink, don't exercise, eat garbage and end up overweight and diabetic with lung cancer, heart disease and needing liver transplants.</p><p>Since America is turning to a nation of people who make bad life style choices its getting urgent to force responsible healthy people to pay for the health care for all the irresponsible people.  Insurance is much of the time a devious way to transfer wealth from one group of responsible people to irresponsible ones, and to shyster insurance companies and their share holders, who will given the slightest opening will either cancel your policy when you actually need it, or not cover the treatment you need after paying premiums for years.</p><p>I will self insure... thank you very much. LEAVE ME ALONE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this ?
" Amen baby ! ! !
They might be able to get away with taxing us all to fund a public health care system since unfortunately the Federal income tax and payroll taxes for Medicare crept in to our system long ago though its open to debate if they are even constitutional .
There is absolutely no way the Federal government can find a constitutional basis to compel me to spend money out of my pocket to buy health insurance.You might cite the case of no fault auto insurance but that is A ) Done by the states and B ) if I do n't drive I do n't have to pay it so I can opt out .
It can be required as an obligation for the privilege of driving on government built highways and I can accept that.You might say that I have to pay for insurance so if I end up in an ER society does n't have to pay .
That is not true for me .
I self insure and will pay my own way , and have , up to the point my own resources ca n't pay at which point I say no more medical care for me and I accept my fate .
I do n't want anyone else to have to pay a million dollars to save my skinny ass.There is a fair chance if this health insurance mandate happens there will be NO way to opt out other than to be completely broke , in which case everyone else gets to pay for you .
If you try they will probably do a Massachusetts and fine you so get to pay a fine and get no health insurance which is pretty much THEFT.If they pass a mandate and the insurance lobby kills the public option , which is what I fully expect to happen , the insurance companies will be able to completely screw everyone because they will have a captive clientele.The whole idea here is the government REALLY needs to force all the relatively healthy people in to the insurance system , especially YOUNG healthy people , to force them to pay for all the sick people .
I can almost accept paying for health care for people who need care due to accident or illness that is no fault of there own .
I absolutely ca n't accept forcing healthy people , and self insurers , who make good life style decisions , and are responsible , to pay for people who smoke , drink , do n't exercise , eat garbage and end up overweight and diabetic with lung cancer , heart disease and needing liver transplants.Since America is turning to a nation of people who make bad life style choices its getting urgent to force responsible healthy people to pay for the health care for all the irresponsible people .
Insurance is much of the time a devious way to transfer wealth from one group of responsible people to irresponsible ones , and to shyster insurance companies and their share holders , who will given the slightest opening will either cancel your policy when you actually need it , or not cover the treatment you need after paying premiums for years.I will self insure... thank you very much .
LEAVE ME ALONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?
"Amen baby!!!
They might be able to get away with taxing us all to fund a public health care system since unfortunately the Federal income tax and payroll taxes for Medicare crept in to our system long ago though its open to debate if they are even constitutional.
There is absolutely no way the Federal government can find a constitutional basis to compel me to spend money out of my pocket to buy health insurance.You might cite the case of no fault auto insurance but that is A) Done by the states and B) if I don't drive I don't have to pay it so I can opt out.
It can be required as an obligation for the privilege of driving on government built highways and I can accept that.You might say that I have to pay for insurance so if I end up in an ER society doesn't have to pay.
That is not true for me.
I self insure and will pay my own way, and have, up to the point my own resources can't pay at which point I say no more medical care for me and I accept my fate.
I don't want anyone else to have to pay a million dollars to save my skinny ass.There is a fair chance if this health insurance mandate happens there will be NO way to opt out other than to be completely broke, in which case everyone else gets to pay for you.
If you try they will probably do a Massachusetts and fine you so get to pay a fine and get no health insurance which is pretty much THEFT.If they pass a mandate and the insurance lobby kills the public option, which is what I fully expect to happen, the insurance companies will be able to completely screw everyone because they will have a captive clientele.The whole idea here is the government REALLY needs to force all the relatively healthy people in to the insurance system, especially YOUNG healthy people, to force them to pay for all the sick people.
I can almost accept paying for health care for people who need care due to accident or illness that is no fault of there own.
I absolutely can't accept forcing healthy people, and self insurers, who make good life style decisions, and are responsible, to pay for people who smoke, drink, don't exercise, eat garbage and end up overweight and diabetic with lung cancer, heart disease and needing liver transplants.Since America is turning to a nation of people who make bad life style choices its getting urgent to force responsible healthy people to pay for the health care for all the irresponsible people.
Insurance is much of the time a devious way to transfer wealth from one group of responsible people to irresponsible ones, and to shyster insurance companies and their share holders, who will given the slightest opening will either cancel your policy when you actually need it, or not cover the treatment you need after paying premiums for years.I will self insure... thank you very much.
LEAVE ME ALONE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514773</id>
	<title>Doesn't this violate the Rehabilitation Act?</title>
	<author>Palestrina</author>
	<datestamp>1246293720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The nice thing about text comments is they can easily be written and read by the blind or the deaf.  A system that allows only video/audio comments is immediately inaccessible to a significant portion of the population.

See the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_508\_of\_the\_Rehabilitation\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_508\_of\_the\_Rehabilitation\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about text comments is they can easily be written and read by the blind or the deaf .
A system that allows only video/audio comments is immediately inaccessible to a significant portion of the population .
See the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section \ _508 \ _of \ _the \ _Rehabilitation \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing about text comments is they can easily be written and read by the blind or the deaf.
A system that allows only video/audio comments is immediately inaccessible to a significant portion of the population.
See the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_508\_of\_the\_Rehabilitation\_Act [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506891</id>
	<title>They DO take text comments ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1246182960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... only from Facebook users via their Facebook site.  The link is on the referenced page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... only from Facebook users via their Facebook site .
The link is on the referenced page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... only from Facebook users via their Facebook site.
The link is on the referenced page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506979</id>
	<title>ummmm....what?</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1246183500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?</p></div><p>Since we're talking about health care I can safely say that, in this case, the lower income people are the very people this initiative is supposed to help. It is the rich and possibly the middle class who will have to pay, against their will (through higher taxes), in order to pay for health insurance for others. Those with lower incomes get to sit back and watch the government and/or the rich people pay for everything for them. That is how things work when a Democrat is in office. Daddy gov't will help them by using the money from other people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion , especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest ? Since we 're talking about health care I can safely say that , in this case , the lower income people are the very people this initiative is supposed to help .
It is the rich and possibly the middle class who will have to pay , against their will ( through higher taxes ) , in order to pay for health insurance for others .
Those with lower incomes get to sit back and watch the government and/or the rich people pay for everything for them .
That is how things work when a Democrat is in office .
Daddy gov't will help them by using the money from other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?Since we're talking about health care I can safely say that, in this case, the lower income people are the very people this initiative is supposed to help.
It is the rich and possibly the middle class who will have to pay, against their will (through higher taxes), in order to pay for health insurance for others.
Those with lower incomes get to sit back and watch the government and/or the rich people pay for everything for them.
That is how things work when a Democrat is in office.
Daddy gov't will help them by using the money from other people.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28515205</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares what random people think anyway?</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why you think the outrageous cost of labs is a reason to require hospitals to state the cost in advance, and has anything to do with anything. As you point out, labs shouldn't cost anywhere near as much as they do.</p><p>
I really don't see how a lot of people, you included, think that people get more medical treatment than they need thanks to insurance. They often <b>pay</b> a lot more than the treatment would rationally cost, because they don't actually pay it, but it does not follow that said treatment was <b>unneeded</b>.</p><p>
A lot of insurance has moral hazard. But I'm not sure that medical insurance is one of them, simply because I've never known a single person who gets any sort of medical treatment they don't need, at all, ever. And doctors wouldn't give them out.</p><p>
There is one very simple way to fix all of this, but you probably hate the idea:</p><p>
Drop the insurance model entirely. The government pays for all medical care. It just pays. Not via insurance. Procedures have prices set by medical boards, and the government sends hospitals and doctors checks for that amount for doing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why you think the outrageous cost of labs is a reason to require hospitals to state the cost in advance , and has anything to do with anything .
As you point out , labs should n't cost anywhere near as much as they do .
I really do n't see how a lot of people , you included , think that people get more medical treatment than they need thanks to insurance .
They often pay a lot more than the treatment would rationally cost , because they do n't actually pay it , but it does not follow that said treatment was unneeded .
A lot of insurance has moral hazard .
But I 'm not sure that medical insurance is one of them , simply because I 've never known a single person who gets any sort of medical treatment they do n't need , at all , ever .
And doctors would n't give them out .
There is one very simple way to fix all of this , but you probably hate the idea : Drop the insurance model entirely .
The government pays for all medical care .
It just pays .
Not via insurance .
Procedures have prices set by medical boards , and the government sends hospitals and doctors checks for that amount for doing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why you think the outrageous cost of labs is a reason to require hospitals to state the cost in advance, and has anything to do with anything.
As you point out, labs shouldn't cost anywhere near as much as they do.
I really don't see how a lot of people, you included, think that people get more medical treatment than they need thanks to insurance.
They often pay a lot more than the treatment would rationally cost, because they don't actually pay it, but it does not follow that said treatment was unneeded.
A lot of insurance has moral hazard.
But I'm not sure that medical insurance is one of them, simply because I've never known a single person who gets any sort of medical treatment they don't need, at all, ever.
And doctors wouldn't give them out.
There is one very simple way to fix all of this, but you probably hate the idea:
Drop the insurance model entirely.
The government pays for all medical care.
It just pays.
Not via insurance.
Procedures have prices set by medical boards, and the government sends hospitals and doctors checks for that amount for doing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507047</id>
	<title>Weedout?</title>
	<author>theurge14</author>
	<datestamp>1246184100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raising the technical bar weeds out  the sincere from the rest.</p><p>At least that was the idea until the talking butt came along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raising the technical bar weeds out the sincere from the rest.At least that was the idea until the talking butt came along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raising the technical bar weeds out  the sincere from the rest.At least that was the idea until the talking butt came along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28511157</id>
	<title>Because nothing says enlightened debate...</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1246266420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... like 20 to 30 second sound bites.

They might as well look for ideas at an open mike poetry night.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... like 20 to 30 second sound bites .
They might as well look for ideas at an open mike poetry night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... like 20 to 30 second sound bites.
They might as well look for ideas at an open mike poetry night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507023</id>
	<title>Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1246183980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and such was the case with the "one-finger salute" video.  That intellectual powerhouse thinks Obama somehow snuck into the White House even though he is a Kenyan citizen, and mourns the loss of the Pontiac Firebird.
<br> <br>
I think I'll cry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and such was the case with the " one-finger salute " video .
That intellectual powerhouse thinks Obama somehow snuck into the White House even though he is a Kenyan citizen , and mourns the loss of the Pontiac Firebird .
I think I 'll cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and such was the case with the "one-finger salute" video.
That intellectual powerhouse thinks Obama somehow snuck into the White House even though he is a Kenyan citizen, and mourns the loss of the Pontiac Firebird.
I think I'll cry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510357</id>
	<title>Who cares what random people think anyway?</title>
	<author>qieurowfhbvdklsj</author>
	<datestamp>1246215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.</i> </p><p>Particularly with the 20-30 second requirement.  Who can say anything other than "great plan, Mr. President" in just 20 to 30 seconds?  I'd love to add my two cents, but I don't think I could squeeze it into less than a few minutes.  Well, let's see...</p><p>"This healthcare plan sucks."</p><p>Well, that was easier than I expected.  I had a lot more to say, but when I write, I try to write things so that the audience can understand what I am saying, and sometimes you know you just can't say anything.</p><p>I think we'd be a lot better off to pass a law that medical providers must present the cost of any service or treatment in advance.  Any time I ask for prices in advance, I find great deals, like the oral surgery I once needed.  I got an x-ray, some time with the doctor when he discussed what he was going to do, then the actual surgery on another day which involved at least 30 minutes of work by the doctor and a couple of assistants, plus some pain drugs, and a follow-up appointment a week later just to make sure it was healing correctly.  Total cost: $300</p><p>Compare that to some lab work I had done recently which I didn't check the price of because the government was paying for it.  (I would have simply not bothered otherwise, which isn't to say it wasn't a real problem, just that long-term chronic fatigue isn't something anyone can afford to investigate without insurance.)  I had some blood drawn for some tests, a chest x-ray, and an EKG.  Some time later I got a letter in the mail indicating that the government paid $1200 for those services.  I was only there for ten minutes.  X-rays are just photographic film and an x-ray tube, and an EKG isn't that complex either, both technologies have been around at least a hundred years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but the real kicker was that they charged $50 for a venipuncture.</p><p>Insurance is just a band-aid.  The problem is that people spend without knowing how much, because they accept medical services without asking about the cost, assuming the intake person in the E.R. can even give you any answers.  Insurance puts the costs up-front, and to keep premuims low, insurance companies force doctors to not waste so much money, but they also allow people to seek medical care when they really don't need it since it won't cost very much and they've already paid for it anyway, and that raises the costs back to what they would have been anyway.  The end result is that your monthy premium costs more than oral surgery and it doesn't even come with a dental plan.</p><p>Despite my intense hatred for libertarians, I really think this is one issue where the free market can do a lot of good, if only the rules are changed so that the free market has some means by which to affect people's decisions.  Passing a law that requires people to buy insurance only gives them a half-ass solution that was already available to them anyway, and it removes the solution of simply buying insurance for extreme situations and using the "shop around for a lower price" solution for more common needs, which is always going to be cheaper than buying insurance for everything.</p><p>As for Obama's fucked up idea of requiring insruance to cover pre-existing conditions, how about we do something sane like require insurance to cover post-existing conditions?  If I get cancer while I have medical insurance, it will pay for my treatments, but only as long as I continue to pay the premiums.  Imagine if homeowners insurance worked that way.  One day your house burns down, which causes you to miss a few days of work, so your boss fires you because he's a prick, and now you can no longer pay your homeowner's insurance.  Well, too bad, now they're no longer going to pay the contractors rebuilding your house.</p><p>It's retarded.  Any illness that occurs when someone has coverage should be covered, no matter how long the treatments take.  Insurance companies want it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama 's plans .
Particularly with the 20-30 second requirement .
Who can say anything other than " great plan , Mr. President " in just 20 to 30 seconds ?
I 'd love to add my two cents , but I do n't think I could squeeze it into less than a few minutes .
Well , let 's see... " This healthcare plan sucks .
" Well , that was easier than I expected .
I had a lot more to say , but when I write , I try to write things so that the audience can understand what I am saying , and sometimes you know you just ca n't say anything.I think we 'd be a lot better off to pass a law that medical providers must present the cost of any service or treatment in advance .
Any time I ask for prices in advance , I find great deals , like the oral surgery I once needed .
I got an x-ray , some time with the doctor when he discussed what he was going to do , then the actual surgery on another day which involved at least 30 minutes of work by the doctor and a couple of assistants , plus some pain drugs , and a follow-up appointment a week later just to make sure it was healing correctly .
Total cost : $ 300Compare that to some lab work I had done recently which I did n't check the price of because the government was paying for it .
( I would have simply not bothered otherwise , which is n't to say it was n't a real problem , just that long-term chronic fatigue is n't something anyone can afford to investigate without insurance .
) I had some blood drawn for some tests , a chest x-ray , and an EKG .
Some time later I got a letter in the mail indicating that the government paid $ 1200 for those services .
I was only there for ten minutes .
X-rays are just photographic film and an x-ray tube , and an EKG is n't that complex either , both technologies have been around at least a hundred years .
...but the real kicker was that they charged $ 50 for a venipuncture.Insurance is just a band-aid .
The problem is that people spend without knowing how much , because they accept medical services without asking about the cost , assuming the intake person in the E.R .
can even give you any answers .
Insurance puts the costs up-front , and to keep premuims low , insurance companies force doctors to not waste so much money , but they also allow people to seek medical care when they really do n't need it since it wo n't cost very much and they 've already paid for it anyway , and that raises the costs back to what they would have been anyway .
The end result is that your monthy premium costs more than oral surgery and it does n't even come with a dental plan.Despite my intense hatred for libertarians , I really think this is one issue where the free market can do a lot of good , if only the rules are changed so that the free market has some means by which to affect people 's decisions .
Passing a law that requires people to buy insurance only gives them a half-ass solution that was already available to them anyway , and it removes the solution of simply buying insurance for extreme situations and using the " shop around for a lower price " solution for more common needs , which is always going to be cheaper than buying insurance for everything.As for Obama 's fucked up idea of requiring insruance to cover pre-existing conditions , how about we do something sane like require insurance to cover post-existing conditions ?
If I get cancer while I have medical insurance , it will pay for my treatments , but only as long as I continue to pay the premiums .
Imagine if homeowners insurance worked that way .
One day your house burns down , which causes you to miss a few days of work , so your boss fires you because he 's a prick , and now you can no longer pay your homeowner 's insurance .
Well , too bad , now they 're no longer going to pay the contractors rebuilding your house.It 's retarded .
Any illness that occurs when someone has coverage should be covered , no matter how long the treatments take .
Insurance companies want it</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.
Particularly with the 20-30 second requirement.
Who can say anything other than "great plan, Mr. President" in just 20 to 30 seconds?
I'd love to add my two cents, but I don't think I could squeeze it into less than a few minutes.
Well, let's see..."This healthcare plan sucks.
"Well, that was easier than I expected.
I had a lot more to say, but when I write, I try to write things so that the audience can understand what I am saying, and sometimes you know you just can't say anything.I think we'd be a lot better off to pass a law that medical providers must present the cost of any service or treatment in advance.
Any time I ask for prices in advance, I find great deals, like the oral surgery I once needed.
I got an x-ray, some time with the doctor when he discussed what he was going to do, then the actual surgery on another day which involved at least 30 minutes of work by the doctor and a couple of assistants, plus some pain drugs, and a follow-up appointment a week later just to make sure it was healing correctly.
Total cost: $300Compare that to some lab work I had done recently which I didn't check the price of because the government was paying for it.
(I would have simply not bothered otherwise, which isn't to say it wasn't a real problem, just that long-term chronic fatigue isn't something anyone can afford to investigate without insurance.
)  I had some blood drawn for some tests, a chest x-ray, and an EKG.
Some time later I got a letter in the mail indicating that the government paid $1200 for those services.
I was only there for ten minutes.
X-rays are just photographic film and an x-ray tube, and an EKG isn't that complex either, both technologies have been around at least a hundred years.
...but the real kicker was that they charged $50 for a venipuncture.Insurance is just a band-aid.
The problem is that people spend without knowing how much, because they accept medical services without asking about the cost, assuming the intake person in the E.R.
can even give you any answers.
Insurance puts the costs up-front, and to keep premuims low, insurance companies force doctors to not waste so much money, but they also allow people to seek medical care when they really don't need it since it won't cost very much and they've already paid for it anyway, and that raises the costs back to what they would have been anyway.
The end result is that your monthy premium costs more than oral surgery and it doesn't even come with a dental plan.Despite my intense hatred for libertarians, I really think this is one issue where the free market can do a lot of good, if only the rules are changed so that the free market has some means by which to affect people's decisions.
Passing a law that requires people to buy insurance only gives them a half-ass solution that was already available to them anyway, and it removes the solution of simply buying insurance for extreme situations and using the "shop around for a lower price" solution for more common needs, which is always going to be cheaper than buying insurance for everything.As for Obama's fucked up idea of requiring insruance to cover pre-existing conditions, how about we do something sane like require insurance to cover post-existing conditions?
If I get cancer while I have medical insurance, it will pay for my treatments, but only as long as I continue to pay the premiums.
Imagine if homeowners insurance worked that way.
One day your house burns down, which causes you to miss a few days of work, so your boss fires you because he's a prick, and now you can no longer pay your homeowner's insurance.
Well, too bad, now they're no longer going to pay the contractors rebuilding your house.It's retarded.
Any illness that occurs when someone has coverage should be covered, no matter how long the treatments take.
Insurance companies want it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246195620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506931</id>
	<title>Text Comments</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1246183200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If video responses with their "price of admission" were this bad, can you imagine how inane and disgustingly unintelligent text comments would be?

Their video limitation was a good idea IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If video responses with their " price of admission " were this bad , can you imagine how inane and disgustingly unintelligent text comments would be ?
Their video limitation was a good idea IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If video responses with their "price of admission" were this bad, can you imagine how inane and disgustingly unintelligent text comments would be?
Their video limitation was a good idea IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514595</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246293060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truth!  The White House is steadily becoming an irrelevant position it seems.  Advisers, cabinet members, the legislature, and the supreme court make all of the real policy.  The presidency is quickly becoming just a media figurehead to represent the policies of the U.S.</p><p>Sad really...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth !
The White House is steadily becoming an irrelevant position it seems .
Advisers , cabinet members , the legislature , and the supreme court make all of the real policy .
The presidency is quickly becoming just a media figurehead to represent the policies of the U.S.Sad really.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth!
The White House is steadily becoming an irrelevant position it seems.
Advisers, cabinet members, the legislature, and the supreme court make all of the real policy.
The presidency is quickly becoming just a media figurehead to represent the policies of the U.S.Sad really...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507443</id>
	<title>Re:ummmm....what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems telling the truth about Obama's plans is a bad thing around here. It's a shame the truth must be hidden in order to maintain good karma. So who here on slashdot is sleeping with Obama?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems telling the truth about Obama 's plans is a bad thing around here .
It 's a shame the truth must be hidden in order to maintain good karma .
So who here on slashdot is sleeping with Obama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems telling the truth about Obama's plans is a bad thing around here.
It's a shame the truth must be hidden in order to maintain good karma.
So who here on slashdot is sleeping with Obama?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509243</id>
	<title>Re:I used to have faith</title>
	<author>gchesney0001</author>
	<datestamp>1246204860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28523921</id>
	<title>But the videos are too useful to the....</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246293780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the videos are too useful to the insurance companies, who will use them to diagnose conditions like MS, Parkinson's, diseases whose symptoms include jaundice, and other signs of serious illness or injury that are visually detectable so that they can deny you coverage under the new, <i>improved</i> "A public health option is off the table!" system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the videos are too useful to the insurance companies , who will use them to diagnose conditions like MS , Parkinson 's , diseases whose symptoms include jaundice , and other signs of serious illness or injury that are visually detectable so that they can deny you coverage under the new , improved " A public health option is off the table !
" system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the videos are too useful to the insurance companies, who will use them to diagnose conditions like MS, Parkinson's, diseases whose symptoms include jaundice, and other signs of serious illness or injury that are visually detectable so that they can deny you coverage under the new, improved "A public health option is off the table!
" system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509047</id>
	<title>Longer video response</title>
	<author>Stealth Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1246202580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our video response is <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2d18bcf57c/code-blue" title="funnyordie.com">7 minutes long</a> [funnyordie.com].  Any chance we can get an exception?</p><p>- Stealth Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our video response is 7 minutes long [ funnyordie.com ] .
Any chance we can get an exception ? - Stealth Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our video response is 7 minutes long [funnyordie.com].
Any chance we can get an exception?- Stealth Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508217</id>
	<title>Re:*sigh*</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1246194720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Ok, so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot's "ask slashdot" system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale (not sarcastic)?</em></p><p>That would turn out to be a nightmare.</p><p>All the political poindexters from democraticunderground.com, lucianne.com, freerepublic.com, dailykos.com, etc. would crowd onto Slashdot.  The site would be ruined.</p><p>We're better off with just a few of those nuts here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot 's " ask slashdot " system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale ( not sarcastic ) ? That would turn out to be a nightmare.All the political poindexters from democraticunderground.com , lucianne.com , freerepublic.com , dailykos.com , etc .
would crowd onto Slashdot .
The site would be ruined.We 're better off with just a few of those nuts here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so am I the only person on slashdot who thinks slashdot's "ask slashdot" system is by far the best way to solicit responses from people on a mass scale (not sarcastic)?That would turn out to be a nightmare.All the political poindexters from democraticunderground.com, lucianne.com, freerepublic.com, dailykos.com, etc.
would crowd onto Slashdot.
The site would be ruined.We're better off with just a few of those nuts here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508035</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246192620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't bush-era science policy anti-clowning?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't bush-era science policy anti-clowning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't bush-era science policy anti-clowning?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507097</id>
	<title>One-finger salute, talking butt, 'see my apples'</title>
	<author>joib</author>
	<datestamp>1246184640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as intellectual as the rest of the farce known as politics. The only difference is that the professionals wear fancy suits and genuinely think they are saying something insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as intellectual as the rest of the farce known as politics .
The only difference is that the professionals wear fancy suits and genuinely think they are saying something insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as intellectual as the rest of the farce known as politics.
The only difference is that the professionals wear fancy suits and genuinely think they are saying something insightful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507563</id>
	<title>Internet cafe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246188360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a place down the street I can go and pay a few dollars and sit down at a computer which has a webcam and post a video on youtube.<br>If someone can not afford to take a bus to an internet cafe.. then, I certainly feel sorry for them.. but if they are that down on their luck.. maybe the government should just fly them all to washington to hear their comments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a place down the street I can go and pay a few dollars and sit down at a computer which has a webcam and post a video on youtube.If someone can not afford to take a bus to an internet cafe.. then , I certainly feel sorry for them.. but if they are that down on their luck.. maybe the government should just fly them all to washington to hear their comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a place down the street I can go and pay a few dollars and sit down at a computer which has a webcam and post a video on youtube.If someone can not afford to take a bus to an internet cafe.. then, I certainly feel sorry for them.. but if they are that down on their luck.. maybe the government should just fly them all to washington to hear their comments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28517843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28524275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28513669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28511067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28515205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2017201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28509243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28515205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28513669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507579
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508035
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28517843
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514595
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508327
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514851
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28514943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28524275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28506895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28511067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28510359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2017201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28507079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2017201.28508217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
